Bitcoin Forum
November 07, 2024, 02:50:57 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Are Bitcoiners Neoliberals?  (Read 9236 times)
DumbFruit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 267


View Profile
November 01, 2014, 06:28:15 PM
Last edit: November 01, 2014, 08:38:16 PM by DumbFruit
 #161

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.

By their (dumb) fruits shall ye know them indeed...
DumbFruit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 267


View Profile
November 01, 2014, 07:35:30 PM
Last edit: November 02, 2014, 02:17:38 AM by DumbFruit
 #162

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.
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.
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.
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.

(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.
(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 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.
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
Quote
“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.
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.
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.

Is this not in principal true;
Quote
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.
(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.
(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.
Quote
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.
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.
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?

Quote
“when applied in this instance means that people certainly might not immediately put their money into charity as soon as discretionary spending comes up”
Quote
“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.

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.

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.

Here, let me requote myself.
Quote
“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.
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.
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.

By their (dumb) fruits shall ye know them indeed...
DhaniBoy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 250


View Profile
November 01, 2014, 10:39:19 PM
 #163

whatever form, whether a fiat currency and money cryptocurrency. has the same value as a political commodity, as long as they have a exchange rate, they certainly can be used for political purposes the politicians. fiat currency and money cryptocurrency equally valuable in the eyes of others, so there is a possibility bitcoiner neoliberal ...  Cool

█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
▓▓▓▓▓  BIT-X.comvvvvvvvvvvvvvvi
→ CREATE ACCOUNT 
▓▓▓▓▓
█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
rugrats
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 250


Vave.com - Crypto Casino


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 10:17:14 AM
 #164

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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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?

Quote
“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.



Quote
“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;
Quote
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.



Quote
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?

Quote
“when applied in this instance means that people certainly might not immediately put their money into charity as soon as discretionary spending comes up”
Quote
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?

Quote
“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.

Quote
“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.
Quote
“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.
Quote
“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



rugrats
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 250


Vave.com - Crypto Casino


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 10:33:01 AM
 #165

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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.

DumbFruit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 267


View Profile
November 02, 2014, 02:52:33 PM
Last edit: November 04, 2014, 11:24:29 PM by DumbFruit
 #166

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.

Quote
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?

Quote from: DumbFruit
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.

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.”

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.

The 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

Edit: Oops, Rugrats correctly pointed out I had the wrong name in my quote. (He incorrectly thought that this absolves him of his inability to understand the word "then".)

By their (dumb) fruits shall ye know them indeed...
rugrats
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 250


Vave.com - Crypto Casino


View Profile
November 03, 2014, 05:15:51 AM
 #167

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?

Quote
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.
Quote
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#msg9403771
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9406005#msg9406005

The 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
Quote
“Austrian Economics cannot predict with utmost certainty outcomes in a marketplace because marketplaces are inherently chaotic and unpredictable.”
Quote
“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.

turvarya
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 500


View Profile
November 03, 2014, 07:37:06 AM
 #168

@DumbFruit
I really put you in the place to endorse minor sexworkers, where I just wanted you to see the flaws of your thinking.
One thing is even more disturbing.

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.

...

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.

...
So, parents have full control of their children? It is ok for them to put them into sex slavery for the money.
Would it also be ok for them to sell them to a scientist to experiment on them or to a warlord to kill other people?

btw. as far as I saw, you didn't answer that question:

So, it is good when a 40-year old first world country tourist goes to a third world country fucking a 12-year old because it is good for their economy?

https://forum.bitcoin.com/
New censorship-free forum by Roger Ver. Try it out.
DumbFruit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 267


View Profile
November 03, 2014, 01:50:47 PM
Last edit: November 03, 2014, 02:16:36 PM by DumbFruit
 #169

Hi Turvaya, the answer to your question is literally in the next points from that quote. Hope that helps. I did not write, "It is ok for them to put them into sex slavery for the money." in fact, I wrote pretty much the exact opposite in the next point.

one of my degrees is in Economics.
How embarrassing for you.

By their (dumb) fruits shall ye know them indeed...
turvarya
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 500


View Profile
November 03, 2014, 02:33:31 PM
 #170

Hi Turvaya, the answer to your question is literally in the next points from that quote. Hope that helps.
You mean:

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.

The first paragraph sounds like:
If nobody cares, than it is ok, to sell your child.
Nobody means, nobody in the near neighborhood. So, if my neighborhood doesn't like, when I sell my child, I just can move to a neighborhood, where nobody cares.
Also, what does "then it would be appropriate for anyone to take that child from them and to do a better job" mean?
You mean taking by force? Wouldn't that violate NAP? Can I just take a child from people, when I think, they are shitty parents?

The second paragraph seems to tell a whole different story:
Why is it rape?
If it is about fucking up their psyche and health, than I am wondering what is the difference to letting them work in a mine?

https://forum.bitcoin.com/
New censorship-free forum by Roger Ver. Try it out.
DumbFruit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 267


View Profile
November 03, 2014, 03:17:34 PM
Last edit: November 03, 2014, 10:40:54 PM by DumbFruit
 #171

The first paragraph sounds like:
If nobody cares, than it is ok, to sell your child.
I can't help what you think it sounds like, that's not what I wrote.

Nobody means, nobody in the near neighborhood. So, if my neighborhood doesn't like, when I sell my child, I just can move to a neighborhood, where nobody cares.
That's not what nobody means, but in the situation that everyone that finds out doesn't care, then no one will do anything about it, regardless of the morality of it. That's the same for any ideology in any society everywhere.

Also, what does "then it would be appropriate for anyone to take that child from them and to do a better job" mean?
You mean taking by force? Wouldn't that violate NAP? Can I just take a child from people, when I think, they are shitty parents?
Yes, individuals have the same freedoms as groups, so if it's ok for societal mechanisms to take away children, then it's ok for individuals to take children. However, in an Anarcho-Capitalist society, they would need to deal with any defense agencies that would prevent this sort of thing unless certain criteria were met, like the child was being abused. If the defense agency disagrees, then it would need to be arbitrated by a third party, or there could be violent conflict.
So you can't just take someone's child for any reason you like, it needs to be supported by evidence of violating the Non-Aggression Principal. (Or violating terms of both parties defense agency, but I won't get into that scenario at the moment.)

"Force" does not violate the Non-Aggression Principle. The NAP deals specifically with the initiation of force, not force in general.

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Hoppe.pdf

The second paragraph seems to tell a whole different story:
Why is it rape?
If it is about fucking up their psyche and health, than I am wondering what is the difference to letting them work in a mine?
Any non-consensual sexual intercourse is rape. There are all sorts of other kinds of sexual activities that wouldn't be rape, but things like oral sex, sexual harassment, and so on would still be violations of the Non-Aggression principal for the same reason; The child cannot provide consent.

Working in a mine does not require consent of the child, it is true that this should be avoided if at all possible, but the reason is not because the child didn't consent. The parent can tell the child to do all sorts of things without the child's consent. For example; "Don't shit in the living room.", "Eat your vegetables or go to bed.", "Go to school." and so on. I'm sure there are gray areas here, but overall the parent has a responsibility to make decisions for the child that are best for the child, and when the parent doesn't do this, they are abusing the child and therefore violating the Non-Aggression Principal.

In some cases, I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news, putting children to work is the best option for the child. Putting children under the age of consent to work as sex slaves is never a moral thing to do, though if you're extremely creative you could come up with nearly-impossible scenarios in which it just can't be stopped.

By their (dumb) fruits shall ye know them indeed...
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!