 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
Ugh, this is just poor argumentation for several reasons: 1) Intellectual property laws(along with corporations as being people(which isn't responsive either, cause it was a monopoly and corporation long before that court ruling)) aren't a subsidy for microsoft, as many different companies, corporations, and entities receive it. 2) Intellectual property laws aren't subsidies because it isn't a form of favoritism(see 1(this also decapitates your offense on the subject-- if it applied to all software companies equally, then why did microsoft pull ahead?)), but also because it isn't a form of financial assistance. 3) As for the There is no evidence that corporations would exist without government granted privilege because there are no examples of corporations existing without government granted privilege. The government granted privilege makes no sense for the reasons above-- privilege implies favoritism, and unless the law was applied unequally, to microsoft's harm, then the issue is closed-- they weren't subsidized, and turned into a monopoly. 4) Last ditch defense-- just because there are no examples yet doesn't mean that there won't be any in the future. Scientific method ftw. 1. I saw your little trick. You lost the idea battle so you choose to debate semantics. I guess Agricultural subsidies are not subsidies because they go to all agri-business? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SubsidySubsidy/gift/favoritism it's still the same thing. Without IP laws and publicly funded police and other govt agencies acting as enforcers for Microsoft and other IP based corporations, their business model as it exists today will no longer exist. It is favoritism. Maybe not to Microsoft specifically but to the software industry as a whole at the expense of everyone else. This gives said industry more power than it ought to have. /sigh. This is standard debating process. To know the terms in which you debate, and debate over them is natural, and to not do that means you really are only a surface debater. So yeah, no tricks here. Except IP isn't IP for Software companies, and that's where your argumentation breaks down-- agricultural subsidies are subsidies because they target an industry-- IP doesn't. It is generalized for the entirety of all businesses and individuals. So your equation is subsidy = gift/favoritism -- tell me where in any IP law, there is specific, specific reference to Microsoft, any of their competitors, or any business sector as a whole. Also, you know you're merely a talking head when you advocate for private police. But more to the point, the debate, which you're trying very cleverly to shift, is about subsidies, not about private police or gov. agencies. Question for you-- do any other businesses, private entities, or others benefit from these IPs? And lastly, it doesn't give them any more power than they ought to have. This is on the same basis of protecting one's body from a murderer-- police need to take care of that as a preventative measure, and this needs to be in place as a breach in IP would cause damage to these businesses that wouldn't be fixable. But I digress. Please tell me why this is a subsidy, cause nothing in the wikipedia article said anything that would back you up, and I read it twice. 2. MS pulled ahead because of the firms receiving said benefits from govt they were best (relatively) at satisfying consumers.
But isn't that the invisible hand of capitalism? If they were the "best (relatively) at satisfying consumers", that would make consumers want to come back and buy more-- so why isn't this a case of an incredibly successful business model? And once again, you've taken that this is a benefit specific to MS as a given, which has yet to be proven, and perhaps has been disproven-- didn't we just talk about how many software companies would have logically gotten that "benefit" extended to them? 3. Again, govt favors corporations over the people. Corporations proceed to abuse people with legal protection from govt (e.g. Deepwater horizon, BPs liability is capped at ~$100m BY LAW!. Socialists decry the corporations abuses and "faliures" of the "free market." Govt proposes new regulation. Corporations lobby hard and get legislation watered down/new bill that is nominally populist but pro-corporation. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.
This isn't responsive to the debate of whether or not IP = subsidy. Quite frankly, you can bitch and moan about corporations all you want, I'm in agreement with you-- but for the purposes of this, I'm only interested in that question-- does IP = subsidy? Limited liability at present is a State-granted privilege which works like this. Suppose that Happy Drug Company (HDC) has $100 market value financed solely by stock (equity). If HDC puts out a drug that unintentionally harms people, they or their survivors can sue the company but not the stockholders or manager-owners of the company. The liability of the latter two groups is limited. That means that the most that can be recovered depends on the worth of the company's assets that can meet the claims. The two main possibilities are that the company has enough assets to pay off the claims and that it does not have enough.
For example, if the company used up $40 of its value in paying off claims, the stockholders might be left with $60. In this case, the limited liability would not hurt those who were harmed because the company had enough to pay off. If the claims came to $135, however, then the company could pay at most $100. (I am intentionally simplifying the situation in a number of ways.) The people damaged could not legally assess the individual stockholders or the manager-owners for the other $35. They would lose $35. This situation is clearly unjust, and this is why libertarians do not favor a State-imposed limited liability law for companies. In a real free market, those damaged could sue the owners for the full amount of damages. Not relevant, see previous response. |
|
|
|
This is a caricature of what I'm saying-- taxes within reason aren't just non-harmful they are also necessary for the public interest. Your argument would assume several things, as an extention of this:
1) Charity harms yourself
2) Giving excess material goods/finances is also a harm
3) Taxing $1 means you will tax somebody into oblivion(Nobody's proposing that)
4) For the industry it taxes, I'd be much more in favor of slashing the subsidies that we give to big oil, for example. That being said, under your seemingly contradictory logic, we have a contradiction, yet again-- subsidies help industries by being profitable. But subsidies can only be paid for by taxes. What do?
Yes, charity harms yourself. People still do it, because they value the good feeling they get from dropping the dollar (quarter, whatever) into the bucket, more than they do the money itself, or, by extension, anything they could have bought with that money. In economic terms, it is an experiential purchase, similar to going to a movie or riding a thrill ride. Same goes for giving away excess goods. But wait, refer back to But a fundamental part of laissez-faire capitalism is that people act in their own rational self-interest. Donating to charities isn't in their self-interest. So either they aren't rationally self interested, destroying the possibility of AnCap, or they won't donate, and your system is viable, but you have to concede the point. It is a dilemma, a double-bind in the best sense. I think you chose the option that people aren't rational agents, and thus will donate. I'm ok with that decision on your part. What I'd like you to do is explain how a non-rational agents(one who does things to harm themselves economically, like donate to charity(a good feeding doesn't outweigh harming yourself through donations)) could function within lassez-faire capitalism. If I understand the premises of this system, the invisible hand of capitalism only really works if people are rationally self-interested. But as the charity example demonstrates, that isn't the case. I'm not saying that a $1 tax is equal to taxing someone (or some business) into oblivion. I'm saying both are harm. A pinch and a gunshot are not equal, either. They're both harmful, though.
Oh, I expected you to say as much. But the problem with taking small tax = small harm is a principle in ethics which is significance-- the action under consideration has to be significant(and philosophers disagree on what it means), but most agree that a pinch or $1 tax isn't significant. For that reason, the ethical question of $1 taxation shouldn't be considered. But to contest another point. If somebody has $100 million in the bank, do you honestly think that taxing them $1 million harms them that much? If I had $100 dollars, the $1 would be a pinch, and proportionately so to the millionaire-- 1 million isn't that much to him/her. What I'd like you to address is the possibility that a flat percentage tax(of total net-value, or income) as an ethical tax. 1. You seem to have skipped the last half of the point I made. People donate now to charity. Not because some governemt put a gun to their head and said 'Do it!', but because it makes them feel good. this wouldn't change. It totally would. I'd argue that the reason they give money in the 1st place is because of western style liberalism, and the society that they grew up in which prizes helping other people-- if your argument about redistribution of wealth is to be believed, then people are giving money primarily due to the government's example of wealth-redistribution. Give it a few generations, and under your system, that impulse to donate will be gone. See my point above re: experiential purchase. Note that most charitable agencies today are run by churches. For all the harms done by the church in the past, today's churches are mostly benign, A fact I would attribute to competition. Since I don't see those going away anytime soon (now that they've figured out killing each other isn't the way to solve disputes, at least for the most part), I see no reason why the enjoyment of donating would fade. But my point concerning non-rational agents applies here too-- I'm willing to concede that they'd donate in the AnCap system, but the logical outcome of what them donating money means in an AnCap system is far more damning for the possibility of capitalistic regulation by the market. 3. People will donate to a cause which espouses values that they want to see spread. When a charity has a scandal, some portion (up to and including 100%) of those people will stop donating to that charity, instead picking one they do prefer. When a Government agency has a corruption scandal, you can not choose to stop supporting that agency, without risking life, liberty, or property. (stop paying taxes, and they'll come and shoot you or put you in a cage) But once again, to say that all charities will always be corruption and poor management free is a pipe-dream. They will all be infected by it eventually, and as new ones come up, similar to new government agencies, there will be less incompetence and corruption, but it is a matter of time in both systems for it to fail. Also, to say that all charities will be corrupt and poorly managed is nihilism. A sewer-pipe dream, if you will. I feel that more charities will be corruption free, well-managed, or both than will be neither, at any given time. Well, I admit it is pessimistic, but the simple fact of the matter is that as time goes along, similar to government agencies, the chances of corruption or stupidity occurring goes up-- the longer around it is, the more likely something will go wrong. Agreed. A Job at McDonalds is not as socially beneficial than, say... an Astrophysicist. Thankfully, the Market has already made that calculation for you, and that is why a job at McDonalds will earn you less money than one as an Astrophysicist. More dangerous or 'undesirable' jobs will earn you more money. This is known as 'Hazard pay'
That is literally nonsense. A coal miner's median income is $59,495, and it is well documented how bad their health can be. Capitalists don't care if they harm employees, because there is a shortage of jobs-- the employers can be selective about their hirings. A McDonalds employee's median income is $15,000, and I'm being generous. I'd say 4x as much pay per year is pretty good, considering the worst danger you're likely to see at Mccy-dee's is a burn on your hand (on day shift anyway - there's a reason the Night shift gets paid more...) True on these points-- but to put it in computer terms, let's say the median income of a mcdonalds employee is equivalent to a 1st generation Sony Vaio, in today's times. Having 4 of those doesn't adequately compensate anybody... being king of a shitpile is awful, but being king of a shitpile 4 times as large as a mcdonald's employee isn't much comfort to the man who will likely die of lung related illnesses. And this isn't even getting into the fact that 15,000 is pathetic. I challenge you to find a place, food, utilities, and the very basics for anywhere with a mcdonalds for that much. It is a pipe dream to pay them that little and expect them to survive. I expect the coal miner's job isn't that much better either. And I know what you'll say, that the company isn't under an obligation to pay him anything more, but once again, looking at harm to the company versus benefit to the employee, the proportions are completely off- a slight increase in pay would be less than thousandths of a percentile, but could make several percentile differences to him/her. You also fall into the trap of assuming there would be a shortage of jobs. In a thriving economy, it's actually the opposite. A shortage of workers
will allow those workers to be selective of what jobs they take.
I don't know if even having a health economy -> shortage of workers. I don't know the unemployment stats for other countries, so I really can't comment. I'd just be surprised if there was ever a situation wherein there was a shortage of workers, as the population is growing at quite a rate... See the debate going on up above. I don't think they have any definitional basis on which to challenge me.
Also, my alternative is utilitarian anarchism, based on Levinasian ethics.
I've seen that debate, and no offense, but you're not making any good points. I'll leave that debate to them. It comes down to definitions. W/e-- should they actually argue this well, I suspect I'll resort to marxist analyses of production, and prove cap = bad that way. /sigh. I was hoping it wouldn't come down to that. |
|
|
|
Violence is simply force. Making an individual act (or not) under the use of threat of injury or death.
You need to read, in this order, Kant, Derrida, Levinas, and Cuomo. Your definition of violence is inadequate, and I think cuomo does the best job of showing why: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810390Fuck your pedantic philosophy. umadbro? It isn't pedantic. If you don't have a justification for your underlying definitions and ideas, nobody will follow you. I don't need it.
That's odd-- most people enjoy justification for actions I don't feel like using or condoning violence to sustain myself and my idea. Apparently you do, cause your definition of violence isn't adequate. Again, I just won't god damn condone it as long as I feel entitled to my life and that every individual is as well.
You honestly don't know what I was saying, do you? You warmongers can shove it.
That positive peace = warmongering is, quite frankly, the funniest thing I've seen all day. It beat out lolcats daily updates. |
|
|
|
Violence is simply force. Making an individual act (or not) under the use of threat of injury or death.
You need to read, in this order, Kant, Derrida, Levinas, and Cuomo. Your definition of violence is inadequate, and I think cuomo does the best job of showing why: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810390 |
|
|
|
Nobody here mentioned Rand. Hopefully nobody here likes her.
Saying women = weak is either 19th century chauvinism, or Rand masquerading as such. I guess I thought of Rand because of many opinions here + chauvinism. |
|
|
|
Taxation isn't a harm. In the same way that other, seemingly mandatory parts of existence in western civ isn't a harm. My not being able to murder somebody isn't a harm on me-- it is a reasonable expectation to give back and to not harm.
Here. Right here is the root of our disagreement. Tax is harmful. It's been economically proven that an increased tax harms the industry it taxes, and an income tax hurts the economy by taking money out of people's pockets. If you don't think taxation is a harm, I can give you a PO box to send all of your 'Extra' cash to, or, better yet, buy bitcoins and send them to the address at the bottom of this post. You clearly have more money than you know what to do with, and I can use it better. This is a caricature of what I'm saying-- taxes within reason aren't just non-harmful they are also necessary for the public interest. Your argument would assume several things, as an extention of this: 1) Charity harms yourself 2) Giving excess material goods/finances is also a harm 3) Taxing $1 means you will tax somebody into oblivion(Nobody's proposing that) 4) For the industry it taxes, I'd be much more in favor of slashing the subsidies that we give to big oil, for example. That being said, under your seemingly contradictory logic, we have a contradiction, yet again-- subsidies help industries by being profitable. But subsidies can only be paid for by taxes. What do? 1) But a fundamental part of laissez-faire capitalism is that people act in their own rational self-interest. Donating to charities isn't in their self-interest. So either they aren't rationally self interested, destroying the possibility of AnCap, or they won't donate, and your system is viable, but you have to concede the point.
2) Agreed, but social contractualism will, time and time again, show how peoples' tax dollars go to things that they don't want. I don't want my money to bomb a 3rd world country. But by the same token, I don't support having a sustained army either, so I don't entirely see why I would ever have to defend military spending.
3) But there's no difference. If you go with option two, that people won't donate cause they're rational, then your claim surrounding alternative solvency through charities makes no sense. Alternatively, if you go with one, then people will donate to charities, but the problem of corruption and incompetence will remain-- no charity, like no government, will be perfect.
1. You seem to have skipped the last half of the point I made. People donate now to charity. Not because some governemt put a gun to their head and said 'Do it!', but because it makes them feel good. this wouldn't change. It totally would. I'd argue that the reason they give money in the 1st place is because of western style liberalism, and the society that they grew up in which prizes helping other people-- if your argument about redistribution of wealth is to be believed, then people are giving money primarily due to the government's example of wealth-redistribution. Give it a few generations, and under your system, that impulse to donate will be gone. 2. You are arguing my point. Thank you. We're in agreement, and it wasn't your point exclusively-- you'd assumed I was in favor of military spending. I'm not. 3. People will donate to a cause which espouses values that they want to see spread. When a charity has a scandal, some portion (up to and including 100%) of those people will stop donating to that charity, instead picking one they do prefer. When a Government agency has a corruption scandal, you can not choose to stop supporting that agency, without risking life, liberty, or property. (stop paying taxes, and they'll come and shoot you or put you in a cage) But once again, to say that all charities will always be corruption and poor management free is a pipe-dream. They will all be infected by it eventually, and as new ones come up, similar to new government agencies, there will be less incompetence and corruption, but it is a matter of time in both systems for it to fail. There are some jobs, which, logically speaking, will benefit people more than others. The people working on clean cars, are, for example, in a better job for both themselves and society than the people working at BK.
And also, there is a clear calculus of good versus harm in most jobs. A job mining asbestos is objectively worse than an office job.
Agreed. A Job at McDonalds is not as socially beneficial than, say... an Astrophysicist. Thankfully, the Market has already made that calculation for you, and that is why a job at McDonalds will earn you less money than one as an Astrophysicist. More dangerous or 'undesirable' jobs will earn you more money. This is known as 'Hazard pay' That is literally nonsense. A coal miner's median income is $59,495, and it is well documented how bad their health can be. Capitalists don't care if they harm employees, because there is a shortage of jobs-- the employers can be selective about their hirings. See the post above yours-- if I win that AnCap = corporations, and corporations = bad shizzle(which I will, only need to look at Nigeria for that), then this debate is over. Alternatively, I don't need to prove negative impacts on your side, I just need a competitive, viable, and better alternative to AnCap.
Firstly, AnCap != Corporations. In fact, AnCaps are against corporations. Corporations fictional people made up by the State. See my other debate regarding that. Secondly, I've yet to see you present such an alternative. Feel free. If it is, in fact, better, I'll switch in a heartbeat. See the debate going on up above. I don't think they have any definitional basis on which to challenge me. Also, my alternative is utilitarian anarchism, based on Levinasian ethics. |
|
|
|
Right, but that protection isn't unique to microsoft. It also applies to apple and other companies. This isn't an offensive argument in any way, precisely because everybody could've had this.
Excellent goal post shift! Seven points! Nice arrogance and douchbaggery! 3 points! Anyways, if you look at what Atlas said, I responded it couldn't be a subsidy if it wasn't favorting microsoft. This is simple definitions. The entire argument is structured around corporations/monopolies ONLY existing if government subsidies them. So to win this argument, I only need one example to prove that a monopoly/corporation came into existence without a subsidy. You've only showed that government subsidizes all content industries equally (though, those with more political clout get better treatment). You have not shown that Microsoft would have existed in any meaningful way if there were no subsidization at all. Would you like to try again? Uh, you need to learn to read better. I'm not yet admitting that it got a IP subsidy(as I think the definition on that is schizophrenic, at best). I was saying that, and see my last paragraph of my last post for this, A) I don't believe it constitutes a subsidy, and B) If it counts as a subsidy, you should have no trouble at all naming other examples of corporations/companies that came into existence exclusively because of this IP subsidy. That is, if you are unable to show how a company who had this subsidy that became a corporation exclusively because of this one subsidy, then the IP wasn't a subsidy at all to begin with. But once again, that's a hypothetical-- even if you prove B, I'll contest A and negate B by examining and finding other circumstances that led to it becoming a corporation. |
|
|
|
If you are going to say it, leave it up- don't be passive aggressive, make sure it goes out over email then delete it so the other mods don't see. This woman likes authority? Typical.
Yes, I like authority because I'm a woman and we're all submissive and want to be told what to do. Clearly, anyone who has read my posts on this forum knows I'm about bowing down the authority. Brilliant comeback. My favorite part was when this sounded like something that objectivists would fap to. Women being submissive is precisely what Rand espoused, because, ya know, y'all are just weak.[/sarcasm to make a point] |
|
|
|
Eh, intellectual property is favoritism. By claiming Microsoft is entitled to only being able to shape bits and bytes a certain way is denying everybody else to do the same with their property. It is an infringement on property rights inevitably.
Right, but that protection isn't unique to microsoft. It also applies to apple and other companies. This isn't an offensive argument in any way, precisely because everybody could've had this. Furthermore, this isn't targeted favoritism. Why are ideas any different from physical property, or patents? I'd say they weren't unfairly favoring anybody, but rather protecting property rights. Finally, the alternative(unrelated to the debate if IP= subsidy) is much worse-- artists could have their masterpieces photocopied and sold if there were no copyright, IP rights. But yeah, I don't think that Ip could be a subsidy in any meaningful way. And if it is true that this specific type of subsidy made microsoft into a corporation, then you'd have no problem citing other examples wherein copyright laws/IP gave a monopoly on an industry that was meaningful in some way(IE, direct casual relationship). |
|
|
|
Relevant to the thread, not to my interests. One poor person has the same value as a rich person, in terms of ethical calculus. The decision, then, should be, does taxing e'rebody benefit more people than it harms, or does it maximize the good?
Taxation has, as it's stated goal, to help the poor, via welfare and other social programs. 'Wealth redistribution'. What they end up doing is robbing Peter, pocketing some, and then giving back to Peter, after he jumps through some hoops. Granted, they also rob Paul, but we're suggesting not taking from Peter in the first place. That's not true on any level, actually-- I don't think terribly many politicians or liberals view it as such, taxes are a way to benefit everybody, but I don't think any of them have used the words "wealth redistribution". Also, for the 3rd sentence-- what's wrong with that? If it does more good for the majority of people than it harms, then what's the problem(this is what I meant that you'll probably have to retreat back to deontology) Granted... to a point. There is a point where it will become cheaper to leave than to stay. At that point, they will move. Nobody's suggesting getting them to that point-- it would be a self-defeating system. Public charity (ie, welfare) is inefficient, and often corrupt. Right, that's indisputable, but those are solvency limitations, not solvency deficits or negation-- in other words, good can still be affected by these programs, even if they are mismanaged. Agreed, but harm is still being done to pay for these programs. The question we ask is, "Is the harm outweighed by the good?" And the answer we come up with, time and again, is 'No.' Taxation isn't a harm. In the same way that other, seemingly mandatory parts of existence in western civ isn't a harm. My not being able to murder somebody isn't a harm on me-- it is a reasonable expectation to give back and to not harm. 1.People are still people, and will still give out of the goodness of their own heart. I don't fetishize greed, and I'm as AnCap as they come. People will still give to charity because it makes them feel good about themselves. You underestimate the power of self-esteem. 2. People will give to those charities which pursue the agendas they themselves support. Contrast this to enforced 'donation' to an organization whose major pass-time seems to be bombing brown people, and I think you'll see my point. 3. But people aren't forced to donate to that charity. When a scandal like that comes out, people will switch charities. 1) But a fundamental part of laissez-faire capitalism is that people act in their own rational self-interest. Donating to charities isn't in their self-interest. So either they aren't rationally self interested, destroying the possibility of AnCap, or they won't donate, and your system is viable, but you have to concede the point. 2) Agreed, but social contractualism will, time and time again, show how peoples' tax dollars go to things that they don't want. I don't want my money to bomb a 3rd world country. But by the same token, I don't support having a sustained army either, so I don't entirely see why I would ever have to defend military spending. 3) But there's no difference. If you go with option two, that people won't donate cause they're rational, then your claim surrounding alternative solvency through charities makes no sense. Alternatively, if you go with one, then people will donate to charities, but the problem of corruption and incompetence will remain-- no charity, like no government, will be perfect. With a better economy, there are more jobs. Job growth does expand. But that's not really relevant, b/c we should be looking at good jobs(any idiot can work at McDonalds', but those aren't the ones that will bring somebody out of poverty, or do actual good for society. Go into a McDonalds at 6:30 PM and tell me that more people behind the counter wouldn't 'help society' Also, as I've stated before, even $2.50 an hour is better than $0.00 an hour. Helping society comes from techonological, sociological, intellectual, developments that people who work at McDonalds will not make or do. Alternatively, good for society and good for the individual aren't mutually exclusive-- the professor who could be working at McDonalds not only benefits himself by not working there, but also the society. And 2.50 isn't any better than 0. At the point in time wherein you have to choose between medicine, food, or housing, 2.50 isn't different from 0 in terms of actual utilitarian calculus. Both are unacceptable. With lower (or no) minimum wage, there are more jobs. I disagree with this-- just because a company can hire more doesn't mean they would. Rather, it would mean they would pocket the money they could spend on raising wages-- unless there is a necessity for more workers, I would doubt they'd hire more. Also, even if your claim is nominally true(that is, if it does make more jobs), these aren't desirable jobs that begin to affect any sort of good for the position holder, or for society. Who are you to say which jobs are 'desirable'? Who are you to say which jobs 'benefit society' or more importantly, which ones benefit the job holder? Let the person seeking employment make that decision for him or herself, thank you. There are some jobs, which, logically speaking, will benefit people more than others. The people working on clean cars, are, for example, in a better job for both themselves and society than the people working at BK. And also, there is a clear calculus of good versus harm in most jobs. A job mining asbestos is objectively worse than an office job. Getting back to the utilitarian calculus, and if libertarianism maximizes utility, I'd have to say no-- even if it causes the least harm(not what we're looking at, in abstraction(we need to look at the good it causes minus the bad it causes, and use that as a method to judge the systems)), I highly doubt it is the system that creates the greatest good. I think there are other systems to work towards that, even while potentially causing more harm, still winds out on top via all the good it produces.
If you can point to me some harm that libertarianism/AnCap directly causes, and it outweighs the harm which I can point to that Government directly causes, I will concede the point. See the post above yours-- if I win that AnCap = corporations, and corporations = bad shizzle(which I will, only need to look at Nigeria for that), then this debate is over. Alternatively, I don't need to prove negative impacts on your side, I just need a competitive, viable, and better alternative to AnCap. |
|
|
|
Who cares if karma/vishnu/Ra/YHWH/Allah exist-- it is unprovable, bracket the question, move on. The thing that we should dwell on, however, is the question of "Is religion a force for good?" But as for silly religions: I'll give you a hint, in the style of Glenn Beck: Don't you think it is funny, don't you think it is HILARIOUSLY coincidental... and I know you're gonna think I'm crazy, yeah, I'm crazy, totally bonkers. Well, guess what? Who else was called crazy before they were executed? The jews. So yeah, I guess I'm crazy. But you know the secret? Moron is one letter different from mormon, and that's not the only thing they share in common. Unfortunately, I'm without a blackboard on this forum. Modeled on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kcnuvjh-S8E |
|
|
|
The entire argument is structured around corporations/monopolies ONLY existing if government subsidies them. So to win this argument, I only need one example to prove that a monopoly/corporation came into existence without a subsidy. There is no evidence that corporations would exist without government granted privilege because there are no examples of corporations existing without government granted privilege. Microsoft. Intellectual property law is a subsidy for Microsoft's business model of selling copies of a non-scarce resource. This is of course on top of the government's recognition of Microsoft as some special entity that can do things individuals or groups of unrecognized individuals cannot. Ugh, this is just poor argumentation for several reasons: 1) Intellectual property laws(along with corporations as being people(which isn't responsive either, cause it was a monopoly and corporation long before that court ruling)) aren't a subsidy for microsoft, as many different companies, corporations, and entities receive it. 2) Intellectual property laws aren't subsidies because it isn't a form of favoritism(see 1(this also decapitates your offense on the subject-- if it applied to all software companies equally, then why did microsoft pull ahead?)), but also because it isn't a form of financial assistance. 3) As for the There is no evidence that corporations would exist without government granted privilege because there are no examples of corporations existing without government granted privilege. The government granted privilege makes no sense for the reasons above-- privilege implies favoritism, and unless the law was applied unequally, to microsoft's harm, then the issue is closed-- they weren't subsidized, and turned into a monopoly. 4) Last ditch defense-- just because there are no examples yet doesn't mean that there won't be any in the future. Scientific method ftw. |
|
|
|
You make good points, and I apologize for being a dick. It offends me, though, when I see someone say, "I don't feel like it. Why don't YOU do all the work?"
I have never claimed, nor have I seen anyone in here claim, that libertarianism maximizes the good. Rather, I claim, and I believe the others do as well, that it minimizes the harm. A minor distinction, to be sure, but an important one. I'll dispute that either later in this post, or in another post. I'll go line by line at the moment. Here are some facts:
Taxation hurts the poor the most. Relevant to the thread, not to my interests. One poor person has the same value as a rich person, in terms of ethical calculus. The decision, then, should be, does taxing e'rebody benefit more people than it harms, or does it maximize the good? Giving tax breaks to the poor and taxing the rich until they are poor just drives the rich out of your country. Empirically denied(at least on the state level : http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/04/20/millionaire-tax-didnt-chase-the-rich-from-new-jersey-study-says/Public charity (ie, welfare) is inefficient, and often corrupt. Right, that's indisputable, but those are solvency limitations, not solvency deficits or negation-- in other words, good can still be affected by these programs, even if they are mismanaged. Private charity does a much better job of taking care of people. Several points here: 1) The people who end up donating money to these charities do so out of the goodness of their heart. Under a libertarian system, there would be a fetishization of greed, and there would be no rational reason to donate to a charity. 2) Empirically denied-- most private charities have an agenda to pursue as well, and will execute social justice programs more effectively, but not evenly: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chibrknews-catholic-charities-suspends-foster-care-licensing-20110603,0,6555435.story3) Private charities are plagued by the same ineffectiveness and corruption that gov. is plagued by: http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBZQ4B0ABE.htmlWith less taxation, the economy does much better. Undeniable, but a rising tide does not raise all boats, economically speaking. [quote With a better economy, there are more jobs.[/quote] Job growth does expand. But that's not really relevant, b/c we should be looking at good jobs(any idiot can work at McDonalds', but those aren't the ones that will bring somebody out of poverty, or do actual good for society. With lower (or no) minimum wage, there are more jobs. I disagree with this-- just because a company can hire more doesn't mean they would. Rather, it would mean they would pocket the money they could spend on raising wages-- unless there is a necessity for more workers, I would doubt they'd hire more. Also, even if your claim is nominally true(that is, if it does make more jobs), these aren't desirable jobs that begin to affect any sort of good for the position holder, or for society. Getting back to the utilitarian calculus, and if libertarianism maximizes utility, I'd have to say no-- even if it causes the least harm(not what we're looking at, in abstraction(we need to look at the good it causes minus the bad it causes, and use that as a method to judge the systems)), I highly doubt it is the system that creates the greatest good. I think there are other systems to work towards that, even while potentially causing more harm, still winds out on top via all the good it produces. Honestly, I've had many debates with anarcho-capitalists, libertarians, and objectivists. The only way I've seen the 1st two defend themselves effectively is on a deontological platform-- rights have primacy, and they can't be violated. As for the objectivists, well, their ontology/values are laughable. I haven't seen one defend their ideas effectively yet. |
|
|
|
We've killed a lot of brown people, but we've also killed a lot of asians and blacks-- I don't think that our irreducible other is non-whites(we're not genociding them to any great extent).
No, It's "Terrorists", and the best part is, you can be branded one so very, very easily. Terrorism is a political ideology-- you can't genocide ideology. |
|
|
|
Non-sexual BDSM dungeon, operating openly for years- totally legal.
Tax evasion- illegal.
See how that works there skippy?
You owe me money. Now, pay up, or I'll put you in a cage. I wrote it down, that makes it a law, right? /sigh Codification is only one aspect. You need enforcement and justification as well. |
|
|
|
I'm not going to read ~650+ pages on a subject which I think I already know the answer to Yes, god forbid you might actually *gasp* change your mind! Or spend precious moments not soaking in a bath of your own ideology. I mean... other people's opinions... Eww! Several notes here 1) I said think-- I am fallible, but if the argumentation can be digested into several main points, I'd be happy to argue against them. 2) This isn't responsive, nor does it give your ideology any ground to stand on 3) Masturbating to your ideology is the exact same thing that you've done in your post here-- I just happened to have done it without mocking somebody else. 4) And finally, I'm willing to change my mind, but I know that it won't be changed by whatever your argument is. I've read more libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, and objectivist nonsense than I care to(and probably more than you have as well). None of it claims to be utilitarian, and none of it claims to maximize the good. They either do it because jerking off to the constitution is fun for them, or because they have a poorly constructed system of onotology and values, because they know capitalism will benefit them the most. |
|
|
|
I highly recommend a read through Kevin Carson's "Organization Theory", especially for those of you claiming that free-market = corporatism
I'd rather not buy the book of an anarcho-capitalist hack(redundant)? Just summarize the argument(s) here and I'll show why you're wrong. Btw, if this is the same guy that is an anarcho-capitalist while simultaneously misusing the word capitalist, I will literally laugh out loud. Anarcho-capitalism is, at best, a misunderstanding. No need to buy it, It's free. (30 second google search, 3rd link.) Fine, I misworded that. Buy should've been buy/read. I'm not going to read ~650+ pages on a subject which I think I already know the answer to: free markets want efficiency, corporations aren't efficient, corporations will cease to exist. Two good reasons why this is nonsense-- if government is totally inefficient, and only efficient systems will survive, why does government survive? I'll answer my own question-- it is because humans aren't rational actors, and there are other competing, and sometimes winning factors besides efficiency. Other reason: The entire argument is structured around corporations/monopolies ONLY existing if government subsidies them. So to win this argument, I only need one example to prove that a monopoly/corporation came into existence without a subsidy. Microsoft. Anything else? |
|
|
|
The US isn't a fascist state, not yet. I think the second we single out an "other" that is irreducible, and we don't extend proper citizenship to is the second we become a fascist state-- irrational persecution of "other"(s) is probably what sets us apart from fascism.
I'll just leave this here:  We've killed a lot of brown people, but we've also killed a lot of asians and blacks-- I don't think that our irreducible other is non-whites(we're not genociding them to any great extent). |
|
|
|
Also, to call the US socialist is hilarious. Tell me more funny and false things.
Here, I think you're right. the US is a very socialized country, but not socialist. If it fits any -ism, it's Fascism. Authoritarian? Check. Nationalistic? Check. Socially Darwinist? Hmm. Not so much. Check back in ten years, though. Socially interventionist? Check. Militaristic? Check. Corporatistic? Check. (I know that's not precisely the word but you all know what I mean, Government and Corporations working hand-in-hand.) 5 out of 6, and the only point where it fails is the massive social programs the US offers for the 'lower classes' instead of the eugenics and euthanasia of WWII-era Italy and Germany. As I said, though, give it time, once that social health care starts racking up the costs of old age and poor diet, see if some Social Darwinism doesn't start popping up in national policy. All these conditions that you've laid forth are necessary conditions, but not all-in-all sufficient for a fascist state-- there's something missing, because most governments/nations would be considered these, but we acknowledge very few states as fascist states. The US isn't a fascist state, not yet. I think the second we single out an "other" that is irreducible, and we don't extend proper citizenship to is the second we become a fascist state-- irrational persecution of "other"(s) is probably what sets us apart from fascism. |
|
|
|
I highly recommend a read through Kevin Carson's "Organization Theory", especially for those of you claiming that free-market = corporatism
I'd rather not buy the book of an anarcho-capitalist hack(redundant)? Just summarize the argument(s) here and I'll show why you're wrong. Btw, if this is the same guy that is an anarcho-capitalist while simultaneously misusing the word capitalist, I will literally laugh out loud. Anarcho-capitalism is, at best, a misunderstanding. |
|
|
|
|
