Maximum role of Government?

[myrkul]

I would have to call bullshit on that argument again. That's not how markets work. People see a demand/market and think "I could do that better" and compete in the current market. If people just gave up because there already is a supplier somewhere you wouldn't have competition anywhere. New business pop up everywhere doing almost exactly the same as the business already there, while trying to differentiate themselves in various ways.

No, the government hasn't been dissolved. Still you refuse to answer though. When the monopoly was discarded and anyone was free to compete what you said would happen hasn't happened. Why do you think that is? Perhaps reality isn't as simple as you'd like it to be?

Well, Fuck. You're right. Your single exception invalidates the whole of libertarian theory. 

(PS: Yes, that IS how markets work: If people don't see the need to compete... they don't)

[JA37]

Well, Fuck. You're right. Your single exception invalidates the whole of libertarian theory. 

(PS: Yes, that IS how markets work: If people don't see the need to compete... they don't)

I have more examples, but don't give up. Some of your ideology can still be saved. Having certain areas being subjects to competition is a good thing. Not everything about libertarianism is completely bonkers. I can give examples of good things about libertarianism too.

Really? That's how markets work? That's why if there is  a supermarket somewhere there won't be another supermarket in the same area? Again, reality doesn't agree. People see the need to compete all the time, because some things can always be done better.

[myrkul]

Really? That's how markets work? That's why if there is  a supermarket somewhere there won't be another supermarket in the same area? Again, reality doesn't agree. People see the need to compete all the time, because some things can always be done better.

Then I guess, people don't want green innovation, and therefore, Government is wasting our money.

[JA37]

Then I guess, people don't want green innovation, and therefore, Government is wasting our money.

Perhaps not. But people need green innovation, which is why the Government is wasting our money.

[myrkul]

Then I guess, people don't want green innovation, and therefore, Government is wasting our money.

Perhaps not. But people need green innovation, which is why the Government is wasting our money.

If they needed it, they would want it.

[ascent]

Perhaps not. But people need green innovation, which is why the Government is wasting our money.

Truly a classic response. One of the best, because it is so true. What myrkul doesn't understand is that free markets employ short term thinking to ensure black bottom lines. The bottom line comes first. The environment comes second. Until everything is gone. Always pick the lowest hanging fruit. It is not rational to not do so. And if you opt to not pick the low hanging fruit, your competitor will.

[myrkul]

Perhaps not. But people need green innovation, which is why the Government is wasting our money.

Truly a classic response. One of the best, because it is so true. What myrkul doesn't understand is that free markets employ short term thinking to ensure black bottom lines. The bottom line comes first. The environment comes second. Until everything is gone. Always pick the lowest hanging fruit. It is not rational to not do so. And if you opt to not pick the low hanging fruit, your competitor will.

What you can't seem to see is that they can't pick your fruit.

[JA37]

Then I guess, people don't want green innovation, and therefore, Government is wasting our money.

Perhaps not. But people need green innovation, which is why the Government is wasting our money.

If they needed it, they would want it.

Only if they know that they need it.

[myrkul]

Then I guess, people don't want green innovation, and therefore, Government is wasting our money.

Perhaps not. But people need green innovation, which is why the Government is wasting our money.

If they needed it, they would want it.

Only if they know that they need it.

If they didn't know they needed it, why did they vote for it?

[JA37]

Then I guess, people don't want green innovation, and therefore, Government is wasting our money.

Perhaps not. But people need green innovation, which is why the Government is wasting our money.

If they needed it, they would want it.

Only if they know that they need it.

If they didn't know they needed it, why did they vote for it?

Where I'm at a political party is kind of a package deal. You might not vote for exactly this, but you get it as a bonus, because it's necessary.

[myrkul]

Then I guess, people don't want green innovation, and therefore, Government is wasting our money.

Perhaps not. But people need green innovation, which is why the Government is wasting our money.

If they needed it, they would want it.

Only if they know that they need it.

If they didn't know they needed it, why did they vote for it?

Where I'm at a political party is kind of a package deal. You might not vote for exactly this, but you get it as a bonus, because it's necessary.

Yes, Political parties are rather like that everywhere. Here's a question for you: what's that political party that pushed green initiative made up of?

[JA37]

Yes, Political parties are rather like that everywhere. Here's a question for you: what's that political party that pushed green initiative made up of?

Meat popsicles?

[myrkul]

Yes, Political parties are rather like that everywhere. Here's a question for you: what's that political party that pushed green initiative made up of?

Meat popsicles?

lol.. yes, Humans. People, like you (presumably), and me. If they feel that green projects are important, and popular enough that pushing them won't get them de-elected, then why don't they start a kickstarter, instead of a political party? Perhaps because there's more money for themselves in running a government than a charity?

[FredericBastiat]

Scenario 1: I go to my neighbor and ask for money for a green initiative. He responds, "no I've got my own thing going on, don't need you." You walk away bummed, but that's life.
 
Scenario 2: I go to my neighbor and ask for money for a green initiative. He responds, "no I've got my own thing going on, don't need you." You threaten him with force (i.e. point of a gun). He gets pissed, goes in his house and comes out with a shotgun in hand. Doesn't matter what happens next, because this isn't going to end nicely.

Scenario 3: I vote for a politician to promote green initiatives, he signs a bill into law, hires a bunch of pencil pushers to create the taxes (or prints money) and hires IRS agents to "collect" it. No one asks anybody personally about money for a green initiative, the man can't respond and say no, because he doesn't know who to say no to. He pays his taxes, and goes his way. Grumbling no doubt.

Scenario 4: Repeat of 3 except the man knows that his taxes are diverted away from just causes ("green" initiatives being one of many). He decides to stand up for himself and refuses to pay his taxes until they (politicians and other agents of the government) extricate the "green" initiative tax from off of the law books. Everybody thinks he's a kook. The IRS won't stand for it, and they threaten financial doom. That doesn't work, he ignores them. The FBI comes in, surround the place and demands he come out. He refuses and get's his shotgun. Doesn't matter what happens next, because this isn't going to end nicely.

Sound familiar?

Theft is theft regardless if you get your agents to act on your behalf, or you do it personally. It results in the same outcome. Somebody's going to get hurt. The question isn't whether it's just. We all know the answer to that. The question is who's going to back down first. You with the shotgun, or them with the 2 dozen .50 caliber sniper rifles and 50 law enforcement agents knocking down your door.

You merely fear death, injury, or imprisonment greater than the taxes you unwillingly give in return.

With exception to the "language" myrkul is almost always right. His logic is almost infallible, but that's because the subject matter is easy to understand. Anybody else who believes they and their cadre of believers has any greater right to other peoples property is deluding themselves. You either think you're God, my nanny, my mother, or a thief. I don't care whether you call it government, the system, society, or any other concoction, what's mine is mine and what's yours is yours. LEAVE ME ALONE!

[ascent]

What you can't seem to see is that they can't pick your fruit.

We already had this discussion. For about the tenth time, I'm going to point that I have provided some reading material for you. I would prefer to debate with someone who is a little more educated in real world issues and problems, rather than with someone who only chooses to argue about hypothetical untested scenarios without said education related to the real world issues and problems.

[myrkul]

What you can't seem to see is that they can't pick your fruit.

We already had this discussion. For about the tenth time, I'm going to point that I have provided some reading material for you. I would prefer to debate with someone who is a little more educated in real world issues and problems, rather than with someone who only chooses to argue about hypothetical untested scenarios without said education related to the real world issues and problems.

How about you actually argue the points I'm supposed to glean from this 'education'. I know good info, and I know BS when I see it.

[ascent]

How about you actually argue the points I'm supposed to glean from this 'education'. I know good info, and I know BS when I see it.

I already have argued the points. It's not really in my interest to devote a lot of time to answering every little obfuscation and misdirection you care to apply. Read up, or don't. It's your choice. I'm beyond caring. You aren't going to change the world one way or the other. However, if you're interested in expanding your viewpoint, then you can read some of the books I've recommended. Or is it the case that the information and insights you gain from reading such material might muddy your vision?

[myrkul]

How about you actually argue the points I'm supposed to glean from this 'education'. I know good info, and I know BS when I see it.

I already have argued the points. It's not really in my interest to devote a lot of time to answering every little obfuscation and misdirection you care to apply. Read up, or don't. It's your choice. I'm beyond caring. You aren't going to change the world one way or the other. However, if you're interested in expanding your viewpoint, then you can read some of the books I've recommended. Or is it the case that the information and insights you gain from reading such material might muddy your vision?

You've never actually suggested anything to replace any of my theories. If AnCap is so destructive, what do you suggest in its stead?

Try some constructive criticism for a change, eh?

[bitplane]

You've never actually suggested anything to replace any of my theories. If AnCap is so destructive, what do you suggest in its stead?

I personally think that if there was an ideal form of politics that worked well in all situations then we'd have found it already, the fact that we haven't is testament to how much of a non-trivial problem it is. Hard line stances are often childish views of a complex world, for example hard-line libertarianism completely lacks social responsibility, which is not a sensible nor practical way to run a society. Hard-line socialism tramples on personal liberty, which is also not sensible.

[myrkul]

You've never actually suggested anything to replace any of my theories. If AnCap is so destructive, what do you suggest in its stead?

I personally think that if there was an ideal form of politics that worked well in all situations then we'd have found it already, the fact that we haven't is testament to how much of a non-trivial problem it is. Hard line stances are often childish views of a complex world, for example hard-line libertarianism completely lacks social responsibility, which is not a sensible nor practical way to run a society. Hard-line socialism tramples on personal liberty, which is also not sensible.

hard line libertarianism allows for social responsibility, and even encourages it, for renewable resources.