What if your grandma is in a desert dying of thirst and a greedy rich business man comes along with a cup of water and refuses to sell the cup of water for anything less than a million dollars? How will libertarianism deal with that?
Really?
I assume you're referring to me, since I made a post similar to that. It was just a simplistic example so that the conversation didn't get bogged down in externalities. I don't think anyone would use that as some kind of serious case study. I'll also remind you that the libertarian I was replying to used a similarly simple example (somebody trading a watch for a sandwich) to try and make his point. Are you going to start a thread about him, too? I wasn't trying to specifically reference anyone. I think I did read your post so it was at the top of my mind, but I hear examples like this all the time as "refutations" of libertarianism. If the other individual you are referring to is Atlas, then no. I think he gets more than his fair share of attention on this forum and I don't feel the need to give him more spotlight. While I agree with some of his positions, I rarely, if ever, agree with his arguments and especially not with his debating style. |
|
|
|
For those interested in securing your privacy on the Internet... The time to act was in the early 1990's.
When I was 10 years old? |
|
|
|
This shouldn't be a problem. We'll just let you choose the language. Dutch? French? Catalan and spanish. Nice. For some reason I thought you were Dutch or Belgian. Now I get to practice my Spanish with you....  |
|
|
|
I propose a debate about economics to FlipPro (and anyone else). You and me only, no "OMG LOL You are diluded WTF", speaking like adults, replying honestly to what the other person is saying, not cheapshots, etc...
If you accept well open a new thread and will debate.
I will debate you on all political matters and common sense social issues, but not via text. I will only do it if we can go head to head live via video with a fair moderator. I'm serious. edit: And yes Jeffk is a troll, even though he has valid points at times, it's important that we not forget who he is. I do admire the fact that he has kept his name even though everyone knows that he is from the SA forum, and here to just bug the hell out of people. Either way maybe he's changed but regardless he doesn't seem to like dealing with nonsense the same way I do. The problem with this is that I am not american and english is not my first language. I would have problems debating you live in english. Why not do it in text? Whats the problem? You seem to have no problem writing here. Ill let you choose the topic in economics you want to debate about. This shouldn't be a problem. We'll just let you choose the language. Dutch? French? |
|
|
|
I will bet anyone right now 10 BTC that Ron Paul dosen't win the republican nomination. Friendly bet  . Lets put our money where our mouths are gentlemen. 10 BTC is $100. To a broke student like me that's significant moola. I'd rather give the $100 to the Ron Paul campaign to help him achieve victory.  However, I would consider a small, symbolic bet, 1 BTC or so. |
|
|
|
Market theory would dictate that the business man would have no competitive advantage in the desert and would die a cruel agonizing death at the hand of the free market in a dark caldera. Meanwhile your grandma would have gone on to seek alternative and superior services after having rebuffed the uncompetitive business mans offer, and is met with open arms by the superior free market where upon she not only get's a drink to salve her thirst, but also find's an exoskeleton at a highly competitive rate that will assist her continue unhindered across the desert to the forest where she crushes her opponent the wolf!
I rest my case. |
|
|
|
I propose a debate about economics to FlipPro (and anyone else). You and me only, no "OMG LOL You are diluded WTF", speaking like adults, replying honestly to what the other person is saying, not cheapshots, etc...
If you accept well open a new thread and will debate.
I will debate you on all political matters and common sense social issues, but not via text. I will only do it if we can go head to head live via video with a fair moderator. I'm serious. edit: And yes Jeffk is a troll, even though he has valid points at times, it's important that we not forget who he is. I do admire the fact that he has kept his name even though everyone knows that he is from the SA forum, and here to just bug the hell out of people. Either way maybe he's changed but regardless he doesn't seem to like dealing with nonsense the same way I do. Why not a debate through text, any specific reason? It seems like it will be easier for people to follow a text debate. |
|
|
|
Hahaha, you live in a fucking bizarre fantasy world that never takes actual human nature into account. This quote is exactly the best way to describe your beliefs: I keep asking why do you come to this community to insult people. Have you tried using reason instead of dealing with politics as black and white and insults to people? Little dicks? Ugly wives and loud children? Kidding, kidding. A debate would be cool. |
|
|
|
|
I realize there are valid critiques of libertarianism, but why do so many people result to outlandish and absurd examples when attempting to disprove libertarian theories? For example:
What if your grandma is in a desert dying of thirst and a greedy rich business man comes along with a cup of water and refuses to sell the cup of water for anything less than a million dollars? How will libertarianism deal with that?
Really?
|
|
|
|
Ron Paul supporters all over the nation are already doing this. Watch us rip apart the single party system charade that is American politics. The dark horse has now become the white stallion, and he's thirsty for corrupt elephant and donkey blood.
I'm no zoologist, but I don't think a horse could kill an elephant. Even a corrupt one.  I got a little carried away with the analogy. I get cranky when I'm tired and hungry and people say stupid things on the internet. "Honey, I can't come to bed yet....someone is wrong on the internet!" |
|
|
|
Whether you like it or not Ron Paul is the dark horse candidate. He barley has a chance now, and loosing a caucus (which primarily has to do with organization and strategy) only sets him deeper into the dark horse corner. His supporters demand media attention like they deserve it! Well, now it's time to show the country that you guys are there to win it for your man. Bachmann and Romney should not be hard to beat, I mean seriously look at them... One said "I think if we give Glenn Beck the numbers, he can solve this [the national debt]", and the other was for universal healthcare before he was against it (HCR being unpopular among Republicans).
Last time I checked media attention is not something you "deserve" or have to "earn"; the purpose of the media is to fairly cover topics and issues, to inform people on the reality that is going on around them. If the media stray from this, we the people have a right to cry foul and demand equal coverage. The fact that people assume the media has the right to choose the candidates is appalling. I don't think he has a chance and this Perry crap is just theater with Bachmann being the bone tossed to the Tea Party to make them think they get to actually pick who wins. Romney was chosen by the party in 2008 to be the nominee in 2012 and that ain't gonna change folks, not unless you get mad, stand up and say something and that doesn't mean posting on a few message boards.
Ok, listen carefully all of you who say he has no chance to win, I'm going to explain something to you. If you don't vote for a candidate, then they are unelectable. If you vote for a candidate, then they are electable. The spurious reasoning of "unelectability" is horse shit cooked up by people who want to control elections for their special interests. Do not buy into it.Get social, connect, offer to help a campaign.
Ron Paul supporters all over the nation are already doing this. Watch us rip apart the single party system charade that is American politics. The dark horse has now become the white stallion, and he's thirsty for corrupt elephant and donkey blood. |
|
|
|
Seems rather subjective. Do I need a TV? I own one, so does that make me greedy? What about a computer?
Owning a TV or PC is not necessarily greedy when the living standards of your society make it basically mandatory to have a computer for research and other tasks. A TV is an important tool for communication and entertainment (which is very important). Now if you had a TV in every room you might be getting a little bit greedy. The resources and labor that went into that could have been used for people who actually need a TV, or perhaps if there wasn't such a large demand for things people don't actually need we wouldn't need to tear down forests and destroy the environment at such a rapid pace. Greed always has a consequence, that is why it's "greedy". I disagree. TV's are completely unimportant and I think having even one is greedy. There are far better ways to entertain yourself: read a book, play a board game, work out, play online games or take up a hobby. You don't need TV for communication either, as you can get all your news from the internet more efficiently and with a broader diversity of views and opinions. The resources from your TV would be better spent building computers for people who don't have them and need one for entertainment and communication. |
|
|
|
|
Ah. I see. Perhaps I should read the thread a little more carefully next time.
|
|
|
|
The only way you Ron Paul supporters will get people to take you *seriously* is if you win the Caucus. If you guys can't even pull off a caucus victory in Iowa please just stop there. I really don't want to hear 9 months of nauseating Ron Paul rhetoric if his supporters can't even win him the Iowa Caucus.
Mike Huckabee won the Republican Iowa caucus in 2008. Enough Said...
So this proves.....? McCain won the nomination in 2008, remember? So winning the Iowa Caucus didn't seem to help Huckabee. I guess I don't understand your point. If Ron Paul can't win a caucus, he sure as hell can't win a general. But I'm saying your standard of success (Iowa Caucus) is a false one, as winning the Caucus doesn't prove you can win the nomination, nor does losing it mean you will lose the nomination. Your example shows exactly this. |
|
|
|
I doubt 99% of the conservative posters here won't be invited to these exclusive "islands". Unless Bitcoin goes up .
Through those rose-tinted glasses of yours, you must envision the culture of libertarianism as being headed by an elite and if they get their way -- and in this case, through these islands -- there would be no chance that a man of average means will have their way into this said innovation.
What you fail to realize is that we are not corporatist, elitist nor do we want to dominate or rule people. All we are advocates of is self-reliance and to gain pleasure from dominating our fellow man is only contrary to this founding virtue.
These islands will be open to anybody who can provide sufficient value and that will most likely be anybody who is willing to move to it. A civilization based on only rich elites won't be that fruitful. Somebody has to clean the toilets. Look at the details: They want looser building codes, less barriers to entry. If anything, this is only beneficial to the less fortunate. If they wanted it only for wealthy, high-end structures and such there would be more restriction. If they wanted only big companies and monopolies, there would be a manipulative tax structure. So far, none of that is apparent.
In summary, you're wrong about our philosophy. You're wrong about our motives.
The people who want to rule you and make you poorer are the current statists in the Democratic and Republican parties and they are continuing to succeed in doing just that.
No one rules me Atlas, I just know that this is a huge waist of money when this country is 14 trillion in debt, teachers are getting cut out of class rooms, roads are crumbling, and we are at the brink of collapse because of our inability to pay our own bills, even though we have MORE THAN ENOUGH money it seems to build fake islands in the middle of the ocean. Seriously do you listen to yourself? everal decades You're trying to diagnose the symptoms. Throwing more money at the problems hasn't worked in the past several decades, what makes you think it will work now? The system has to change. Also, picky grammar note: it's "waste" not "waist". |
|
|
|
The only way you Ron Paul supporters will get people to take you *seriously* is if you win the Caucus. If you guys can't even pull off a caucus victory in Iowa please just stop there. I really don't want to hear 9 months of nauseating Ron Paul rhetoric if his supporters can't even win him the Iowa Caucus.
Mike Huckabee won the Republican Iowa caucus in 2008. Enough Said...
So this proves.....? McCain won the nomination in 2008, remember? So winning the Iowa Caucus didn't seem to help Huckabee. I guess I don't understand your point. |
|
|
|
Look at the most capitalistic, laissez-fair presidential candidate we have -- Ron Paul. Holy shit, look at all those corporate sponsors who want freer markets. $50,000! Isn't that corrupt!?  It's not like the remaining millions of funds he has came from regular people like you and me! I bet it came from secret companies! Those bastards! Are these contributions from the companies themselves or from individuals working for the companies? |
|
|
|
Maybe "greed" is the wrong word. Humans are by their very nature, self-interested.
Don't mix greed with the instinct the survive. Greed is a gluttonous desire to possess or consume more than one needs, despite the consequences. Seems rather subjective. Do I need a TV? I own one, so does that make me greedy? What about a computer? It's possible that they do make you more greedy in the sense that both devices can be vehicles for advertising. You do make a valid point though, it's not necessarily greedy to own or consume anything beyond the bare minimum needed to stay alive. Is it greedy to own a musical instrument? How about keeping a pet or a house plant? And what is necessary even for basic survival varies from individual to individual. I understand the concept of what most people think "greed" is, and it is a valid and useful concept, but it is very subjective. In the United States it is not considered greedy to own multiple cars, a computer for every member of the family, and a TV in every room. In other countries this is unthinkable wealth. Does that make the average US resident greedy? There is no objective scale for greed. This is why I distinguish between self-interest, which is a healthy aspect of human nature and can lead to prosperity for all, and greed which can be self-destructive behavior which I believe tends to make people unhappy. |
|
|
|
Society should be stablished upong fundations that uses greed to increase prosperity.
We even suppress some technological break throughs simply because their existence would be bad for existing business. It's called government-enabled corporatism. Not capitalism. All of you who are trying to establish what is excessive and what is not and how much one should own. You're morons. You dictate law by whims and not true crime. Easy there, big boy. People aren't morons simply because they disagree with you. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
