You say in a libertarian state that people can stand better against large rich corporations than they do now. Right, the keyword is "better". I'm not saying victory is guaranteed. If people refuse to stand up and fight against oppression they will obviously lose. However, nobody can sanely argue against the obvious fact that it's easier to bribe a handful of politicians than it is to oppress millions of people at gunpoint. Why is this even being debated? |
|
|
|
That makes no sense. Lobbying politicians isn't something that can happen in a libertarian society because there would be no state. How can anyone be better in a nonexistent activity? Derp.
So in an libertarian society people do have a chance to stand against large, well funded organizations, but in the current society it's impossible? Correct? It's not impossible, just a lot harder. When power is concentrated in the hands of a select few people, it's a lot easier to bribe them all. But the rich will have their own armies in a libertarian society, possibly funded by foreign powers. And? What's your point? Good luck lobbying people with guns. What's that supposed to mean? Can you please put forth a complete thought? |
|
|
|
That makes no sense. Lobbying politicians isn't something that can happen in a libertarian society because there would be no state. How can anyone be better in a nonexistent activity? Derp.
So in an libertarian society people do have a chance to stand against large, well funded organizations, but in the current society it's impossible? Correct? It's not impossible, just a lot harder. When power is concentrated in the hands of a select few people, it's a lot easier to bribe them all. But the rich will have their own armies in a libertarian society, possibly funded by foreign powers. And? What's your point? |
|
|
|
That makes no sense. Lobbying politicians isn't something that can happen in a libertarian society because there would be no state. How can anyone be better in a nonexistent activity? Derp.
So in an libertarian society people do have a chance to stand against large, well funded organizations, but in the current society it's impossible? Correct? It's not impossible, just a lot harder. When power is concentrated in the hands of a select few people, it's a lot easier to bribe them all. |
|
|
|
The question I asked you was "If I can demonstrate that regulating fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow regulation of fertiliser sales?" If I can demonstrate that forced slavery saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow forced enslavement? You make the same fallacy all the time. Compare every minor inconvenience with slavery. Since we already know your answer and you are comfortable with your position, I don't mind. You view is that the real world deaths of people as a consequence of failing to regulate would not justify the breach of your principles. Fred believes the same but for some reason he can't bring himself to admit it. Still waiting for your answer. The answer is no. The damage done exceeds the damage avoided. No, you can't change the parameters of the question. I specifically said that, " If I can demonstrate that forced slavery saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow forced enslavement?" See the part in bold? I'm stipulating that the damage done doesn't exceed the damage avoided. Does that change your answer? Are you then ready to endorse forced enslavement? |
|
|
|
The question I asked you was "If I can demonstrate that regulating fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow regulation of fertiliser sales?" If I can demonstrate that forced slavery saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow forced enslavement? You make the same fallacy all the time. Compare every minor inconvenience with slavery. Since we already know your answer and you are comfortable with your position, I don't mind. You view is that the real world deaths of people as a consequence of failing to regulate would not justify the breach of your principles. Fred believes the same but for some reason he can't bring himself to admit it. Still waiting for your answer. |
|
|
|
You have it backwards. We already value life and someone who kills a newborn baby will be punished. If you think that is wrong, you have to give some reason why allowing people to kill babies is a good thing. The status quo is not the default position. You have to provide an argument just like everyone else. The sooner you figure that out, the sooner we can actually make progress in these arguments. If you are OK with someone killing newborn babies that have done him no harm, there is no reason not to be OK with him going on to kill anyone else he chooses. Call it the NAP or Golden Rule or simple self-preservation as you may be his next target. I'm not OK with it but I'm sick of you and FirstAscent never making any arguments, only demanding everyone do your homework for you. |
|
|
|
Minor inflation is good as it encourages investment in business assets which in turn grow the economy. If people hoard money, eventually the market figures it out. It's not necessary to strong-arm people into circulating it. |
|
|
|
You have it backwards. We already value life and someone who kills a newborn baby will be punished. If you think that is wrong, you have to give some reason why allowing people to kill babies is a good thing. The status quo is not the default position. You have to provide an argument just like everyone else. The sooner you figure that out, the sooner we can actually make progress in these arguments. |
|
|
|
If they did not do a good job I would just call another company.
At first there will be several companies competing each other, but eventually they will be merged/bought by super captalists and then capital will take over the operation, finally end up in the bank's control And, if the banks did not do a good job, you have no other choice You mean like how there's only one pizza delivery company? One email company? One search engine company? One almost-anything-company? |
|
|
|
|
Water is just fast-moving land.
|
|
|
|
|
Piracy isn't something that should be responded to with violence. Whether it's good or bad is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Who has more time, money and incentive to lobby politicians, the fascist corporations or Joe Q. Everyman?
According to you in a few previous threads that would be "Joe Q. Everyman". I distinctly remember that "Big Bad Security Inc" would be outmatched in every way by "Nice Peoples Security Inc" if we ever got to a libertarian society. That makes no sense. Lobbying politicians isn't something that can happen in a libertarian society because there would be no state. How can anyone be better in a nonexistent activity? Derp. |
|
|
|
The question I asked you was "If I can demonstrate that regulating fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow regulation of fertiliser sales?" If I can demonstrate that forced slavery saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow forced enslavement? |
|
|
|
I like his stance on a lot of issues except for abortion, separation of church and state, and evolution.
I think he's just pandering. |
|
|
|
A fire company would probably charge a large fine for putting out a fire on a house that wasn't covered.
It doesn't matter how much you are willing to pay if nobody can afford to maintain trucks and trained labor in the interim. |
|
|
|
personally, I would have allowed the guy to promise to make the $2,000 payment if he really wanted it put out...but a fire company can let a house burn... One problem with that is that if you do that then it might be the case that nobody will pay until their house is on fire and there won't be any money to maintain the service. It's kind of like the problem with health insurance. If you allow people with pre-existing conditions to join then nobody will join until they are sick. |
|
|
|
I guess if you want to get more specific, the question is what defines a "person?" I noticed that this question, along with my examples of bio human v.s. digital human, was almost completely ignored. Is a person someone who simply has human DNA, or someone capable of self awareness and rational thought? (Or is it something more arbitrary, like something god has given a soul to?) I think that's the rot of the debate and disagreement here. One side values anything with human DNA with "potential" equally, while the other values human life on a scale based on that being's intellectual capacity.
Human DNA a part of the natural process of life: From Single celled Humans all the way to the grave. Naturally this definition would exclude your cloning argument as by definition that is not a natural process, it is a mastubatory technological abomination. Would exclude Skynet, no Human DNA and not natural process. Capability for emotional intelligence is what matters, not what you're made or how you come to be made. A tumor will never be a person. Computers currently can't either. However, that may change and it would be a mistake to deny them rights simply because they are metal and silicon. |
|
|
|
"Well, see how civil we all are now, after drowning Joe in the lake. He just didn't agree with our ways." If you want to troll then you'd better grow some gills. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
