How libertarianism helps the poor

[myrkul]

I'm not going to read ~650+ pages on a subject which I think I already know the answer to

Yes, god forbid you might actually *gasp* change your mind!

Or spend precious moments not soaking in a bath of your own ideology. I mean... other people's opinions... Eww!

[1713998296]

1713998296

[1713998296]

1713998296

[1713998296]

1713998296

[EnterpriseE1701E]

I'm not going to read ~650+ pages on a subject which I think I already know the answer to

Yes, god forbid you might actually *gasp* change your mind!

Or spend precious moments not soaking in a bath of your own ideology. I mean... other people's opinions... Eww!

Several notes here
1) I said think-- I am fallible, but if the argumentation can be digested into several main points, I'd be happy to argue against them.
2) This isn't responsive, nor does it give your ideology any ground to stand on
3) Masturbating to your ideology is the exact same thing that you've done in your post here-- I just happened to have done it without mocking somebody else.
4) And finally, I'm willing to change my mind, but I know that it won't be changed by whatever your argument is. I've read more libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, and objectivist nonsense than I care to(and probably more than you have as well). None of it claims to be utilitarian, and none of it claims to maximize the good. They either do it because jerking off to the constitution is fun for them, or because they have a poorly constructed system of onotology and values, because they know capitalism will benefit them the most.

[AyeYo]

4) And finally, I'm willing to change my mind, but I know that it won't be changed by whatever your argument is. I've read more libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, and objectivist nonsense than I care to(and probably more than you have as well). None of it claims to be utilitarian, and none of it claims to maximize the good. They either do it because jerking off to the constitution is fun for them, or because they have a poorly constructed system of onotology and values, because they know capitalism will benefit them the most.

Thumbs up. 

[myrkul]

You make good points, and I apologize for being a dick. It offends me, though, when I see someone say, "I don't feel like it. Why don't YOU do all the work?"

I have never claimed, nor have I seen anyone in here claim, that libertarianism maximizes the good. Rather, I claim, and I believe the others do as well, that it minimizes the harm. A minor distinction, to be sure, but an important one.

Here are some facts:
Taxation hurts the poor the most.
Giving tax breaks to the poor and taxing the rich until they are poor just drives the rich out of your country.
Public charity (ie, welfare) is inefficient, and often corrupt.
Private charity does a much better job of taking care of people.
With less taxation, the economy does much better.
With a better economy, there are more jobs.
With lower (or no) minimum wage, there are more jobs.

I'll leave it up to you to make your conclusion from those facts.

[EnterpriseE1701E]

You make good points, and I apologize for being a dick. It offends me, though, when I see someone say, "I don't feel like it. Why don't YOU do all the work?"

I have never claimed, nor have I seen anyone in here claim, that libertarianism maximizes the good. Rather, I claim, and I believe the others do as well, that it minimizes the harm. A minor distinction, to be sure, but an important one.

I'll dispute that either later in this post, or in another post. I'll go line by line at the moment.

Here are some facts:
Taxation hurts the poor the most.

Relevant to the thread, not to my interests. One poor person has the same value as a rich person, in terms of ethical calculus. The decision, then, should be, does taxing e'rebody benefit more people than it harms, or does it maximize the good?

Giving tax breaks to the poor and taxing the rich until they are poor just drives the rich out of your country.

Empirically denied(at least on the state level : http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/04/20/millionaire-tax-didnt-chase-the-rich-from-new-jersey-study-says/

Public charity (ie, welfare) is inefficient, and often corrupt.

Right, that's indisputable, but those are solvency limitations, not solvency deficits or negation-- in other words, good can still be affected by these programs, even if they are mismanaged.

Private charity does a much better job of taking care of people.

Several points here:
1) The people who end up donating money to these charities do so out of the goodness of their heart. Under a libertarian system, there would be a fetishization of greed, and there would be no rational reason to donate to a charity.
2) Empirically denied-- most private charities have an agenda to pursue as well, and will execute social justice programs more effectively, but not evenly: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chibrknews-catholic-charities-suspends-foster-care-licensing-20110603,0,6555435.story
3) Private charities are plagued by the same ineffectiveness and corruption that gov. is plagued by: http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBZQ4B0ABE.html

With less taxation, the economy does much better.

Undeniable, but a rising tide does not raise all boats, economically speaking.

[quote
With a better economy, there are more jobs.[/quote]
Job growth does expand. But that's not really relevant, b/c we should be looking at good jobs(any idiot can work at McDonalds', but those aren't the ones that will bring somebody out of poverty, or do actual good for society.

With lower (or no) minimum wage, there are more jobs.

I disagree with this-- just because a company can hire more doesn't mean they would. Rather, it would mean they would pocket the money they could spend on raising wages-- unless there is a necessity for more workers, I would doubt they'd hire more.

Also, even if your claim is nominally true(that is, if it does make more jobs), these aren't desirable jobs that begin to affect any sort of good for the position holder, or for society.

Getting back to the utilitarian calculus, and if libertarianism maximizes utility, I'd have to say no-- even if it causes the least harm(not what we're looking at, in abstraction(we need to look at the good it causes minus the bad it causes, and use that as a method to judge the systems)), I highly doubt it is the system that creates the greatest good. I think there are other systems to work towards that, even while potentially causing more harm, still winds out on top via all the good it produces.

Honestly, I've had many debates with anarcho-capitalists, libertarians, and objectivists. The only way I've seen the 1st two defend themselves effectively is on a deontological platform-- rights have primacy, and they can't be violated.

As for the objectivists, well, their ontology/values are laughable. I haven't seen one defend their ideas effectively yet.

[BitterTea]

The entire argument is structured around corporations/monopolies ONLY existing if government subsidies them. So to win this argument, I only need one example to prove that a monopoly/corporation came into existence without a subsidy.

There is no evidence that corporations would exist without government granted privilege because there are no examples of corporations existing without government granted privilege.

Microsoft.

Intellectual property law is a subsidy for Microsoft's business model of selling copies of a non-scarce resource.

This is of course on top of the government's recognition of Microsoft as some special entity that can do things individuals or groups of unrecognized individuals cannot.

[Anonymous]

There is no evidence that corporations would exist without government granted privilege because there are no examples of corporations existing without government granted privilege.

Well said. Now watch as they turn religious.

[EnterpriseE1701E]

The entire argument is structured around corporations/monopolies ONLY existing if government subsidies them. So to win this argument, I only need one example to prove that a monopoly/corporation came into existence without a subsidy.

There is no evidence that corporations would exist without government granted privilege because there are no examples of corporations existing without government granted privilege.

Microsoft.

Intellectual property law is a subsidy for Microsoft's business model of selling copies of a non-scarce resource.

This is of course on top of the government's recognition of Microsoft as some special entity that can do things individuals or groups of unrecognized individuals cannot.

Ugh, this is just poor argumentation for several reasons:
1) Intellectual property laws(along with corporations as being people(which isn't responsive either, cause it was a monopoly and corporation long before that court ruling)) aren't a subsidy for microsoft, as many different companies, corporations, and entities receive it.
2) Intellectual property laws aren't subsidies because it isn't a form of favoritism(see 1(this also decapitates your offense on the subject-- if it applied to all software companies equally, then why did microsoft pull ahead?)), but also because it isn't a form of financial assistance.
3) As for the

There is no evidence that corporations would exist without government granted privilege because there are no examples of corporations existing without government granted privilege.

The government granted privilege makes no sense for the reasons above-- privilege implies favoritism, and unless the law was applied unequally, to microsoft's harm, then the issue is closed-- they weren't subsidized, and turned into a monopoly.
4) Last ditch defense-- just because there are no examples yet doesn't mean that there won't be any in the future. Scientific method ftw.

[myrkul]

Relevant to the thread, not to my interests. One poor person has the same value as a rich person, in terms of ethical calculus. The decision, then, should be, does taxing e'rebody benefit more people than it harms, or does it maximize the good?

Taxation has, as it's stated goal, to help the poor, via welfare and other social programs. 'Wealth redistribution'. What they end up doing is robbing Peter, pocketing some, and then giving back to Peter, after he jumps through some hoops. Granted, they also rob Paul, but we're suggesting not taking from Peter in the first place.

Giving tax breaks to the poor and taxing the rich until they are poor just drives the rich out of your country.

Empirically denied(at least on the state level : http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/04/20/millionaire-tax-didnt-chase-the-rich-from-new-jersey-study-says/

Granted... to a point. There is a point where it will become cheaper to leave than to stay. At that point, they will move.

Public charity (ie, welfare) is inefficient, and often corrupt.

Right, that's indisputable, but those are solvency limitations, not solvency deficits or negation-- in other words, good can still be affected by these programs, even if they are mismanaged.

Agreed, but harm is still being done to pay for these programs. The question we ask is, "Is the harm outweighed by the good?" And the answer we come up with, time and again, is 'No.'

Private charity does a much better job of taking care of people.

Several points here:
1) The people who end up donating money to these charities do so out of the goodness of their heart. Under a libertarian system, there would be a fetishization of greed, and there would be no rational reason to donate to a charity.
2) Empirically denied-- most private charities have an agenda to pursue as well, and will execute social justice programs more effectively, but not evenly: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chibrknews-catholic-charities-suspends-foster-care-licensing-20110603,0,6555435.story
3) Private charities are plagued by the same ineffectiveness and corruption that gov. is plagued by: http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBZQ4B0ABE.html

1.People are still people, and will still give out of the goodness of their own heart. I don't fetishize greed, and I'm as AnCap as they come. People will still give to charity because it makes them feel good about themselves. You underestimate the power of self-esteem.
2. People will give to those charities which pursue the agendas they themselves support. Contrast this to enforced 'donation' to an organization whose major pass-time seems to be bombing brown people, and I think you'll see my point.
3. But people aren't forced to donate to that charity. When a scandal like that comes out, people will switch charities.

With a better economy, there are more jobs.

Job growth does expand. But that's not really relevant, b/c we should be looking at good jobs(any idiot can work at McDonalds', but those aren't the ones that will bring somebody out of poverty, or do actual good for society.

Go into a McDonalds at 6:30 PM and tell me that more people behind the counter wouldn't 'help society' Also, as I've stated before, even $2.50 an hour is better than $0.00 an hour.

With lower (or no) minimum wage, there are more jobs.

I disagree with this-- just because a company can hire more doesn't mean they would. Rather, it would mean they would pocket the money they could spend on raising wages-- unless there is a necessity for more workers, I would doubt they'd hire more.

Also, even if your claim is nominally true(that is, if it does make more jobs), these aren't desirable jobs that begin to affect any sort of good for the position holder, or for society.

Who are you to say which jobs are 'desirable'? Who are you to say which jobs 'benefit society' or more importantly, which ones benefit the job holder? Let the person seeking employment make that decision for him or herself, thank you.

Getting back to the utilitarian calculus, and if libertarianism maximizes utility, I'd have to say no-- even if it causes the least harm(not what we're looking at, in abstraction(we need to look at the good it causes minus the bad it causes, and use that as a method to judge the systems)), I highly doubt it is the system that creates the greatest good. I think there are other systems to work towards that, even while potentially causing more harm, still winds out on top via all the good it produces.

If you can point to me some harm that libertarianism/AnCap directly causes, and it outweighs the harm which I can point to that Government directly causes, I will concede the point.

[Anonymous]

Eh, intellectual property is favoritism. By claiming Microsoft is entitled to only being able to shape bits and bytes a certain way is denying everybody else to do the same with their property. It is an infringement on property rights inevitably.

[EnterpriseE1701E]

Relevant to the thread, not to my interests. One poor person has the same value as a rich person, in terms of ethical calculus. The decision, then, should be, does taxing e'rebody benefit more people than it harms, or does it maximize the good?

Taxation has, as it's stated goal, to help the poor, via welfare and other social programs. 'Wealth redistribution'. What they end up doing is robbing Peter, pocketing some, and then giving back to Peter, after he jumps through some hoops. Granted, they also rob Paul, but we're suggesting not taking from Peter in the first place.

That's not true on any level, actually-- I don't think terribly many politicians or liberals view it as such, taxes are a way to benefit everybody, but I don't think any of them have used the words "wealth redistribution".

Also, for the 3rd sentence-- what's wrong with that? If it does more good for the majority of people than it harms, then what's the problem(this is what I meant that you'll probably have to retreat back to deontology)

Giving tax breaks to the poor and taxing the rich until they are poor just drives the rich out of your country.

Empirically denied(at least on the state level : http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/04/20/millionaire-tax-didnt-chase-the-rich-from-new-jersey-study-says/

Granted... to a point. There is a point where it will become cheaper to leave than to stay. At that point, they will move.

Nobody's suggesting getting them to that point-- it would be a self-defeating system.

Public charity (ie, welfare) is inefficient, and often corrupt.

Right, that's indisputable, but those are solvency limitations, not solvency deficits or negation-- in other words, good can still be affected by these programs, even if they are mismanaged.

Agreed, but harm is still being done to pay for these programs. The question we ask is, "Is the harm outweighed by the good?" And the answer we come up with, time and again, is 'No.'

Taxation isn't a harm. In the same way that other, seemingly mandatory parts of existence in western civ isn't a harm. My not being able to murder somebody isn't a harm on me-- it is a reasonable expectation to give back and to not harm.

Private charity does a much better job of taking care of people.

Several points here:
1) The people who end up donating money to these charities do so out of the goodness of their heart. Under a libertarian system, there would be a fetishization of greed, and there would be no rational reason to donate to a charity.
2) Empirically denied-- most private charities have an agenda to pursue as well, and will execute social justice programs more effectively, but not evenly: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chibrknews-catholic-charities-suspends-foster-care-licensing-20110603,0,6555435.story
3) Private charities are plagued by the same ineffectiveness and corruption that gov. is plagued by: http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBZQ4B0ABE.html

1.People are still people, and will still give out of the goodness of their own heart. I don't fetishize greed, and I'm as AnCap as they come. People will still give to charity because it makes them feel good about themselves. You underestimate the power of self-esteem.
2. People will give to those charities which pursue the agendas they themselves support. Contrast this to enforced 'donation' to an organization whose major pass-time seems to be bombing brown people, and I think you'll see my point.
3. But people aren't forced to donate to that charity. When a scandal like that comes out, people will switch charities.

1) But a fundamental part of laissez-faire capitalism is that people act in their own rational self-interest. Donating to charities isn't in their self-interest. So either they aren't rationally self interested, destroying the possibility of AnCap, or they won't donate, and your system is viable, but you have to concede the point.
2) Agreed, but social contractualism will, time and time again, show how peoples' tax dollars go to things that they don't want. I don't want my money to bomb a 3rd world country. But by the same token, I don't support having a sustained army either, so I don't entirely see why I would ever have to defend military spending.
3) But there's no difference. If you go with option two, that people won't donate cause they're rational, then your claim surrounding alternative solvency through charities makes no sense. Alternatively, if you go with one, then people will donate to charities, but the problem of corruption and incompetence will remain-- no charity, like no government, will be perfect.

With a better economy, there are more jobs.

Job growth does expand. But that's not really relevant, b/c we should be looking at good jobs(any idiot can work at McDonalds', but those aren't the ones that will bring somebody out of poverty, or do actual good for society.

Go into a McDonalds at 6:30 PM and tell me that more people behind the counter wouldn't 'help society' Also, as I've stated before, even $2.50 an hour is better than $0.00 an hour.

Helping society comes from techonological, sociological, intellectual, developments that people who work at McDonalds will not make or do. Alternatively, good for society and good for the individual aren't mutually exclusive-- the professor who could be working at McDonalds not only benefits himself by not working there, but also the society. And 2.50 isn't any better than 0. At the point in time wherein you have to choose between medicine, food, or housing, 2.50 isn't different from 0 in terms of actual utilitarian calculus. Both are unacceptable.

With lower (or no) minimum wage, there are more jobs.

I disagree with this-- just because a company can hire more doesn't mean they would. Rather, it would mean they would pocket the money they could spend on raising wages-- unless there is a necessity for more workers, I would doubt they'd hire more.

Also, even if your claim is nominally true(that is, if it does make more jobs), these aren't desirable jobs that begin to affect any sort of good for the position holder, or for society.

Who are you to say which jobs are 'desirable'? Who are you to say which jobs 'benefit society' or more importantly, which ones benefit the job holder? Let the person seeking employment make that decision for him or herself, thank you.

There are some jobs, which, logically speaking, will benefit people more than others. The people working on clean cars, are, for example, in a better job for both themselves and society than the people working at BK.

And also, there is a clear calculus of good versus harm in most jobs. A job mining asbestos is objectively worse than an office job.

Getting back to the utilitarian calculus, and if libertarianism maximizes utility, I'd have to say no-- even if it causes the least harm(not what we're looking at, in abstraction(we need to look at the good it causes minus the bad it causes, and use that as a method to judge the systems)), I highly doubt it is the system that creates the greatest good. I think there are other systems to work towards that, even while potentially causing more harm, still winds out on top via all the good it produces.

If you can point to me some harm that libertarianism/AnCap directly causes, and it outweighs the harm which I can point to that Government directly causes, I will concede the point.

See the post above yours-- if I win that AnCap = corporations, and corporations = bad shizzle(which I will, only need to look at Nigeria for that), then this debate is over. Alternatively, I don't need to prove negative impacts on your side, I just need a competitive, viable, and better alternative to AnCap.

[EnterpriseE1701E]

Eh, intellectual property is favoritism. By claiming Microsoft is entitled to only being able to shape bits and bytes a certain way is denying everybody else to do the same with their property. It is an infringement on property rights inevitably.

Right, but that protection isn't unique to microsoft. It also applies to apple and other companies.  This isn't an offensive argument in any way, precisely because everybody could've had this.

Furthermore, this isn't targeted favoritism. Why are ideas any different from physical property, or patents? I'd say they weren't unfairly favoring anybody, but rather protecting property rights.

Finally, the alternative(unrelated to the debate if IP= subsidy) is much worse-- artists could have their masterpieces photocopied and sold if there were no copyright, IP rights.

But yeah, I don't think that Ip could be a subsidy in any meaningful way. And if it is true that this specific type of subsidy made microsoft into a corporation, then you'd have no problem citing other examples wherein copyright laws/IP gave a monopoly on an industry that was meaningful in some way(IE, direct casual relationship).

[AyeYo]

Think about this for a second... what does the libertarian-ideal, business friendly utopia look like?  Low taxes on the rich, no regulation of business, no minimum wage, no workers' right, no collective bargaining for workers, no environmental controls...

So it looks something like this:





Here are some relevant posts I wrote in a argument about unions on another board:

"And btw, since it was mentioned, Osha isn't "economically efficient" either, nor is the EPA, FDA, USDA, or any other governmental regulatory agency that exists for the good of society, since Kevin is obviously a subscriber to Friedman's fan...tasy economics. No, unions are not "economically efficient" and neither are a host of other things that make life in the REAL world tolerable. If it's economic efficiency you want, move to Cambodia or some other third world slum that has zero worker safety standards, no evironmental regulations, no regulatory agencies, no government oversight, and... omg... no evil unions to hurt profit. You can beat the workers that you pay $1/year to dump raw sewage into the nearest river that you also sell bottled water from. If they complain, just fire them - better yet, kill them and make their kids substitute. A real capitalist paradise of economic efficiency it is."


"This isn't a third world country because we pulled ourselves up out of those type of working conditions during the industrial revolution in large part due to... omg... unions. Nothing has changed that makes unions suddenly irrelevant. Corpo...rations haven't magically turned benevolent, loving, and unwilling to slit throats for profit. Americans have a fifteen minute memory, so they now want to deregulate and deunionize us back into the stone age.

All this BS about "omg company not staying here" is just that... BS. Like I said, deregulating us into oblivion is GREAT for business. Do you know why companies leave? Because they can pay workers in Vietnam $1/month, make them work in their own shit and piss, and dump industrial waste into the nearest lake. That's GREAT for business because it saves all kinds of money. That's why companies relocate. Is that they type of business environment you want to compete with to keep companies here? What we should be doing instead is pushing these third-world countries to adopt similar regulations to ours... but we wouldn't do that because it's bad for profit and our cheap goods.

The bottom line is that by being anti-union, you're automatically pro worker inequality. You fully support the situation of greedy, powerful corporations doing as they please with weak, helpless employees that are legally restricted from organizing. On the flip side, the pro-union crowd would rather see greedy, powerful corporations met with greedy, powerful unions. That's equality. Corruption and greed are all part of the capitalist game, but it makes no sense to only allow power on one side of the equation... unless corporate profit is the only thing you care about. Also, as previously mentioned, non-union employees enjoy increased benefits because of the existence of union employees. Increased benefits for union workers force non-union jobs to increase benefits to compete, otherwise we'd all be looking for union jobs. Get rid of the union's benefits and yours disappear shortly thereafter.

The most amazing accomplishment of the American business machine has been making blue collar employees/the under class not just embrace, but violently defend policies that cripple them and push them closer to the poor house on the daily, all for the benefit of the upper class."

[BitterTea]

Right, but that protection isn't unique to microsoft. It also applies to apple and other companies.  This isn't an offensive argument in any way, precisely because everybody could've had this.

Excellent goal post shift! Seven points!

The entire argument is structured around corporations/monopolies ONLY existing if government subsidies them. So to win this argument, I only need one example to prove that a monopoly/corporation came into existence without a subsidy.

You've only showed that government subsidizes all content industries equally (though, those with more political clout get better treatment). You have not shown that Microsoft would have existed in any meaningful way if there were no subsidization at all. Would you like to try again?

[Anonymous]

I stopped reading when you said we advocated no unions. Unions are absolutely necessary and are inherent in a free market. I don't feel like addressing the rest.

[myrkul]

Taxation isn't a harm. In the same way that other, seemingly mandatory parts of existence in western civ isn't a harm. My not being able to murder somebody isn't a harm on me-- it is a reasonable expectation to give back and to not harm.

Here. Right here is the root of our disagreement. Tax is harmful. It's been economically proven that an increased tax harms the industry it taxes, and an income tax hurts the economy by taking money out of people's pockets. If you don't think taxation is a harm, I can give you a PO box to send all of your 'Extra' cash to, or, better yet, buy bitcoins and send them to the address at the bottom of this post. You clearly have more money than you know what to do with, and I can use it better.

1) But a fundamental part of laissez-faire capitalism is that people act in their own rational self-interest. Donating to charities isn't in their self-interest. So either they aren't rationally self interested, destroying the possibility of AnCap, or they won't donate, and your system is viable, but you have to concede the point.
2) Agreed, but social contractualism will, time and time again, show how peoples' tax dollars go to things that they don't want. I don't want my money to bomb a 3rd world country. But by the same token, I don't support having a sustained army either, so I don't entirely see why I would ever have to defend military spending.
3) But there's no difference. If you go with option two, that people won't donate cause they're rational, then your claim surrounding alternative solvency through charities makes no sense. Alternatively, if you go with one, then people will donate to charities, but the problem of corruption and incompetence will remain-- no charity, like no government, will be perfect.

1. You seem to have skipped the last half of the point I made. People donate now to charity. Not because some governemt put a gun to their head and said 'Do it!', but because it makes them feel good. this wouldn't change.
2. You are arguing my point. Thank you.
3. People will donate to a cause which espouses values that they want to see spread. When a charity has a scandal, some portion (up to and including 100%) of those people will stop donating to that charity, instead picking one they do prefer. When a Government agency has a corruption scandal, you can not choose to stop supporting that agency, without risking life, liberty, or property. (stop paying taxes, and they'll come and shoot you or put you in a cage)

There are some jobs, which, logically speaking, will benefit people more than others. The people working on clean cars, are, for example, in a better job for both themselves and society than the people working at BK.

And also, there is a clear calculus of good versus harm in most jobs. A job mining asbestos is objectively worse than an office job.

Agreed. A Job at McDonalds is not as socially beneficial than, say... an Astrophysicist. Thankfully, the Market has already made that calculation for you, and that is why a job at McDonalds will earn you less money than one as an Astrophysicist. More dangerous or 'undesirable' jobs will earn you more money. This is known as 'Hazard pay'

See the post above yours-- if I win that AnCap = corporations, and corporations = bad shizzle(which I will, only need to look at Nigeria for that), then this debate is over. Alternatively, I don't need to prove negative impacts on your side, I just need a competitive, viable, and better alternative to AnCap.

Firstly, AnCap != Corporations. In fact, AnCaps are against corporations. Corporations fictional people made up by the State. See my other debate regarding that.

Secondly, I've yet to see you present such an alternative. Feel free. If it is, in fact, better, I'll switch in a heartbeat.

[EnterpriseE1701E]

Right, but that protection isn't unique to microsoft. It also applies to apple and other companies.  This isn't an offensive argument in any way, precisely because everybody could've had this.

Excellent goal post shift! Seven points!

Nice arrogance and douchbaggery! 3 points!

Anyways, if you look at what Atlas said, I responded it couldn't be a subsidy if it wasn't favorting microsoft. This is simple definitions.

The entire argument is structured around corporations/monopolies ONLY existing if government subsidies them. So to win this argument, I only need one example to prove that a monopoly/corporation came into existence without a subsidy.

You've only showed that government subsidizes all content industries equally (though, those with more political clout get better treatment). You have not shown that Microsoft would have existed in any meaningful way if there were no subsidization at all. Would you like to try again?

Uh, you need to learn to read better. I'm not yet admitting that it got a IP subsidy(as I think the definition on that is schizophrenic, at best). I was saying that, and see my last paragraph of my last post for this, A) I don't  believe it constitutes a subsidy, and B) If it counts as a subsidy, you should have no trouble at all naming other examples of corporations/companies that came into existence exclusively because of this IP subsidy. That is, if you are unable to show how a company who had this subsidy that became a corporation exclusively because of this one subsidy, then the IP wasn't a subsidy at all to begin with. But once again, that's a hypothetical-- even if you prove B, I'll contest A and negate B by examining and finding other circumstances that led to it becoming a corporation.

[EnterpriseE1701E]

Taxation isn't a harm. In the same way that other, seemingly mandatory parts of existence in western civ isn't a harm. My not being able to murder somebody isn't a harm on me-- it is a reasonable expectation to give back and to not harm.

Here. Right here is the root of our disagreement. Tax is harmful. It's been economically proven that an increased tax harms the industry it taxes, and an income tax hurts the economy by taking money out of people's pockets. If you don't think taxation is a harm, I can give you a PO box to send all of your 'Extra' cash to, or, better yet, buy bitcoins and send them to the address at the bottom of this post. You clearly have more money than you know what to do with, and I can use it better.

This is a caricature of what I'm saying-- taxes within reason aren't just non-harmful they are also necessary for the public interest. Your argument would assume several things, as an extention of this:
1) Charity harms yourself
2) Giving excess material goods/finances is also a harm
3) Taxing $1 means you will tax somebody into oblivion(Nobody's proposing that)
4) For the industry it taxes, I'd be much more in favor of slashing the subsidies that we give to big oil, for example. That being said, under your seemingly contradictory logic, we have a contradiction, yet again-- subsidies help industries by being profitable. But subsidies can only be paid for by taxes. What do?

1) But a fundamental part of laissez-faire capitalism is that people act in their own rational self-interest. Donating to charities isn't in their self-interest. So either they aren't rationally self interested, destroying the possibility of AnCap, or they won't donate, and your system is viable, but you have to concede the point.
2) Agreed, but social contractualism will, time and time again, show how peoples' tax dollars go to things that they don't want. I don't want my money to bomb a 3rd world country. But by the same token, I don't support having a sustained army either, so I don't entirely see why I would ever have to defend military spending.
3) But there's no difference. If you go with option two, that people won't donate cause they're rational, then your claim surrounding alternative solvency through charities makes no sense. Alternatively, if you go with one, then people will donate to charities, but the problem of corruption and incompetence will remain-- no charity, like no government, will be perfect.

1. You seem to have skipped the last half of the point I made. People donate now to charity. Not because some governemt put a gun to their head and said 'Do it!', but because it makes them feel good. this wouldn't change.

It totally would. I'd argue that the reason they give money in the 1st place is because of western style liberalism, and the society that they grew up in which prizes helping other people-- if your argument about redistribution of wealth is to be believed, then people are giving money primarily due to the government's example of wealth-redistribution. Give it a few generations, and under your system, that impulse to donate will be gone.

2. You are arguing my point. Thank you.

We're in agreement, and it wasn't your point exclusively-- you'd assumed I was in favor of military spending. I'm not.

3. People will donate to a cause which espouses values that they want to see spread. When a charity has a scandal, some portion (up to and including 100%) of those people will stop donating to that charity, instead picking one they do prefer. When a Government agency has a corruption scandal, you can not choose to stop supporting that agency, without risking life, liberty, or property. (stop paying taxes, and they'll come and shoot you or put you in a cage)

But once again, to say that all charities will always be corruption and poor management free is a pipe-dream. They will all be infected by it eventually, and as new ones come up, similar to new government agencies, there will be less incompetence and corruption, but it is a matter of time in both systems for it to fail.

There are some jobs, which, logically speaking, will benefit people more than others. The people working on clean cars, are, for example, in a better job for both themselves and society than the people working at BK.

And also, there is a clear calculus of good versus harm in most jobs. A job mining asbestos is objectively worse than an office job.

Agreed. A Job at McDonalds is not as socially beneficial than, say... an Astrophysicist. Thankfully, the Market has already made that calculation for you, and that is why a job at McDonalds will earn you less money than one as an Astrophysicist. More dangerous or 'undesirable' jobs will earn you more money. This is known as 'Hazard pay'

That is literally nonsense. A coal miner's median income is $59,495, and it is well documented how bad their health can be.  Capitalists don't care if they harm employees, because there is a shortage of jobs-- the employers can be selective about their hirings.

See the post above yours-- if I win that AnCap = corporations, and corporations = bad shizzle(which I will, only need to look at Nigeria for that), then this debate is over. Alternatively, I don't need to prove negative impacts on your side, I just need a competitive, viable, and better alternative to AnCap.

Firstly, AnCap != Corporations. In fact, AnCaps are against corporations. Corporations fictional people made up by the State. See my other debate regarding that.

Secondly, I've yet to see you present such an alternative. Feel free. If it is, in fact, better, I'll switch in a heartbeat.

See the debate going on up above. I don't think they have any definitional basis on which to challenge me.

Also, my alternative is utilitarian anarchism, based on Levinasian ethics.

[AyeYo]

I stopped reading when you said we advocated no unions. Unions are absolutely necessary and are inherent in a free market. I don't feel like addressing the rest.

Reading comprehension > you.

I said those posts were from a debate regarding unions.  My bottom line point is that deregulation benefits the wealthy at the expense of the populace and turns nations into third-world slums (or keeps them in that condition).  Basically, I'm saying that the quote in the OP is right on the money.  Libertarians' ideals are disconnected from the real world.

[myrkul]

Excellent. Some of my best debates have been with anarchists of other 'stripes'. I'll read up on him after this post.

This is a caricature of what I'm saying-- taxes within reason aren't just non-harmful they are also necessary for the public interest. Your argument would assume several things, as an extention of this:
1) Charity harms yourself
2) Giving excess material goods/finances is also a harm
3) Taxing $1 means you will tax somebody into oblivion(Nobody's proposing that)
4) For the industry it taxes, I'd be much more in favor of slashing the subsidies that we give to big oil, for example. That being said, under your seemingly contradictory logic, we have a contradiction, yet again-- subsidies help industries by being profitable. But subsidies can only be paid for by taxes. What do?

Yes, charity harms yourself. People still do it, because they value the good feeling they get from dropping the dollar (quarter, whatever) into the bucket, more than they do the money itself, or, by extension, anything they could have bought with that money. In economic terms, it is an experiential purchase, similar to going to a movie or riding a thrill ride. Same goes for giving away excess goods.

I'm not saying that a $1 tax is equal to taxing someone (or some business) into oblivion. I'm saying both are harm. A pinch and a gunshot are not equal, either. They're both harmful, though.

1. You seem to have skipped the last half of the point I made. People donate now to charity. Not because some governemt put a gun to their head and said 'Do it!', but because it makes them feel good. this wouldn't change.

It totally would. I'd argue that the reason they give money in the 1st place is because of western style liberalism, and the society that they grew up in which prizes helping other people-- if your argument about redistribution of wealth is to be believed, then people are giving money primarily due to the government's example of wealth-redistribution. Give it a few generations, and under your system, that impulse to donate will be gone.

See my point above re: experiential purchase. Note that most charitable agencies today are run by churches. For all the harms done by the church in the past, today's churches are mostly benign, A fact I would attribute to competition. Since I don't see those going away anytime soon (now that they've figured out killing each other isn't the way to solve disputes, at least for the most part), I see no reason why the enjoyment of donating would fade.

3. People will donate to a cause which espouses values that they want to see spread. When a charity has a scandal, some portion (up to and including 100%) of those people will stop donating to that charity, instead picking one they do prefer. When a Government agency has a corruption scandal, you can not choose to stop supporting that agency, without risking life, liberty, or property. (stop paying taxes, and they'll come and shoot you or put you in a cage)

But once again, to say that all charities will always be corruption and poor management free is a pipe-dream. They will all be infected by it eventually, and as new ones come up, similar to new government agencies, there will be less incompetence and corruption, but it is a matter of time in both systems for it to fail.

Also, to say that all charities will be corrupt and poorly managed is nihilism. A sewer-pipe dream, if you will. I feel that more charities will be corruption free, well-managed, or both than will be neither, at any given time.

Agreed. A Job at McDonalds is not as socially beneficial than, say... an Astrophysicist. Thankfully, the Market has already made that calculation for you, and that is why a job at McDonalds will earn you less money than one as an Astrophysicist. More dangerous or 'undesirable' jobs will earn you more money. This is known as 'Hazard pay'

That is literally nonsense. A coal miner's median income is $59,495, and it is well documented how bad their health can be.  Capitalists don't care if they harm employees, because there is a shortage of jobs-- the employers can be selective about their hirings.

A McDonalds employee's median income is $15,000, and I'm being generous. I'd say 4x as much pay per year is pretty good, considering the worst danger you're likely to see at Mccy-dee's is a burn on your hand (on day shift anyway - there's a reason the Night shift gets paid more...) You also fall into the trap of assuming there would be a shortage of jobs. In a thriving economy, it's actually the opposite. A shortage of workers
 will allow those workers to be selective of what jobs they take.

See the debate going on up above. I don't think they have any definitional basis on which to challenge me.

Also, my alternative is utilitarian anarchism, based on Levinasian ethics.

I've seen that debate, and no offense, but you're not making any good points. I'll leave that debate to them.