The Space Industry: An example of why governments fail and freedom prevails.

[rainingbitcoins]

Funny how you consistently say that I am ignoring the human element while you do the same yourself. Liability can be enforced in more ways than the guns of government.

But it won't be unless you have an entity more powerful than the people they're going after.

https://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=17853.0

Haha wow, seriously? See, this is why I tell you should examine your own beliefs - because when you don't, you'll end up believing any old thing that supports them, no matter how ridiculous it is.

I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, but I often see this ridiculous criticism of anarcho-capitalism that somehow if it were implemented, the poor would just starve and have no healthcare etc. So, let's do some maths based on some core assumptions that even you guys accept:


50% of the USA is left-leaning
These people want the poor to have essential services

OK, let's assume for now that all evil right-wingers won't donate a cent, and that income is split approx 30/70 in favour of the right (this probably isn't true as many high-paid jobs are mostly practiced by left-wingers, but just to use ridiculous maths), so you have 30% of the wealth between all of you lefties.

He assumes that because moderately liberal people make up about half the population that they have half (or even 30%) of the wealth. When then top 10% of this country owns 56% of the weath. Do I even need to point out how ridiculous these starting premises are?

Right now, this is somewhere in the realm of $1.4 trillion. Now, let's take a socialist country like the UK, and work out what $1.4 trillion (about £900 billion) could pay for. I'll multiply the budgets by 2.5, assuming that you're providing for the 50% of poorest Americans, as these services are currently provided to all of the UK.

You could pay for:
- The entire NHS service (free of charge healthcare which achieves a greater HALE than the US healthcare system) - £315 billion
- The entire state education service (free of charge education which achieves a reasonable global standard) - £200 billion
- The welfare state (provides up to $20,000 a year of welfare to the poor) - £290 billion

Ah yes, a socialist country like the U.K. where the workers clearly own the means of production! 

Somehow we're supposed to buy the most expensive health care in the world for the same price as UHC. Love to know how that's going to work. The great thing about this post is that in trying to argue for free market capitalism, he admits that government-provided health care is cheaper and more efficient than private alternatives. Bravo! Well done!

It says a lot about your standards for evidence and logic that you'll trust some random pontificating teenager on a message board for your beliefs every time over the people who spend their lives studying these subjects. It also says a lot about your belief system and sense of morality when your solution to the problems of the underclass is literally "liberal nutjobs are the only ones who care about those poor losers, so let them pay for their health care!". You pay the problem as much lip service as is required for people not to call you a monster, and not a bit more. It's plainly obvious you don't give a damn about those people.

[1713403775]

1713403775

[1713403775]

1713403775

[1713403775]

1713403775

[1713403775]

1713403775

[myrkul]

Oh, I see. I didn't read it enough the first time, obviously, because I still think his theories are bullshit?

Point out the bullshit.

Well, see, it starts on page 1...

Is that your way of hinting that you have nothing meaningful to back up your claim?

No, That's my way of saying that the entire thing is bunk.

He works on the assumption that will, and should, never expand out from this planet. That alone makes it bullshit.

[ascent]

No, That's my way of saying that the entire thing is bunk.

He works on the assumption that will, and should, never expand out from this planet. That alone makes it bullshit.

You're pathetic. I can recommend two books for you:

Interstellar Migrations and the Human Experience

Entering Space: Creating a Spacefaring Civilization.

Taking into account the information contained in those two books, you'll find that the authors' extrapolations in no way obviate the theories in Daly's paper. And you are still failing to point out the bullshit. I've read both the above books, so if you want to engage in the argument about the potential for a human diaspora out into space, we can. But before you earn that right, I suggest you try somewhat harder in providing an analysis of why Daly's paper is 'bunk', as you put it.

[myrkul]

Funny how you consistently say that I am ignoring the human element while you do the same yourself. Liability can be enforced in more ways than the guns of government.

But it won't be unless you have an entity more powerful than the people they're going after.

How about um... Everybody?

Haha wow, seriously? See, this is why I tell you should examine your own beliefs - because when you don't, you'll end up believing any old thing that supports them, no matter how ridiculous it is.

See, I accepted the maths in there not because I felt it was accurate, but because I felt that it was low. I do not think that all the funding would necessarily come from the bleeding heart types, because a surprising amount of right-wingers are the giving type, too. I have faith that Charities will be amply funded.

[myrkul]

No, That's my way of saying that the entire thing is bunk.

He works on the assumption that will, and should, never expand out from this planet. That alone makes it bullshit.

You're pathetic. I can recommend two books for you:

Let's see, you've called me an asshole, and pathetic. I have yet to call you anything. That's about to change.

You are a troll. No more, no less. I'm done with you. God damn I wish this forum had an ignore button.

[ascent]

myrkul,

You might want to become a regular reader of centauri-dreams.org as well. The more you become versed in the idea of inhabiting the Universe beyond our world, the more you'd come to realize the value of what Daly is saying.

You just picked a debate against someone who is a big fan of realizing the colonization of space, and well read on the subject as well, so be careful of how you choose to argue your points.

[ascent]

Let's see, you've called me an asshole, and pathetic. I have yet to call you anything. That's about to change.

You are a troll. No more, no less. I'm done with you. God damn I wish this forum had an ignore button.

I also called you a hypocrite. But I never referred to you as anything which you didn't earn in the prior post made by yourself.

[rainingbitcoins]

See, I accepted the maths in there not because I felt it was accurate, but because I felt that it was low. I do not think that all the funding would necessarily come from the bleeding heart types, because a surprising amount of right-wingers are the giving type, too. I have faith that Charities will be amply funded.

Well, see, the thing is, I asked you why you thought that charities that are severely underfunded in our current environment would somehow be BETTER off when none of their recipients have a social safety net and they have even more people in need and less money coming in due to lack of a minimum wage, and you still haven't answered that question.  Unless "I have faith" is your answer. Which I'm kinda figuring it is.

Again, you're going with what you think, in some vague theory, that people might be capable of doing, and definitely not what they are doing, what they've demonstrated themselves capable of. Are those beliefs based in reality or some blind faith in the rightness of your own ideology, no matter what the facts? Oh wait. You already answered that question!

[myrkul]

Well, see, the thing is, I asked you why you thought that charities that are severely underfunded in our current environment would somehow be BETTER off when none of their recipients have a social safety net and they have even more people in need and less money coming in due to lack of a minimum wage, and you still haven't answered that question. 

Why do you assume that in a world without a parasitic State, that everyone would be worse off?

Do you have any idea how much money the Government takes, before you even see it? How much what you DO get to see is watered down by inflation? How much the minimum wage inflates the unemployment levels, and how much more leverage that gives employers?

[rainingbitcoins]

Why do you assume that in a world without a parasitic State, that everyone would be worse off?

Do you have any idea how much money the Government takes, before you even see it? How much what you DO get to see is watered down by inflation? How much the minimum wage inflates the unemployment levels, and how much more leverage that gives employers?

Do you have any idea how much money you're going to spend on all of the newly privatized and profit-oriented services now that the government is no longer providing them? You'll also be paying for all of their advertising, of course, for services that didn't used to need advertisement, but thanks to the totally efficient free market, you're now paying companies billions to watch their commercials. And for duplicated efforts by competitors that erase the economies of scale enjoyed by government services. Somehow that's supposed to be more efficient and better for society than using that money to pay state workers who get a fair wage, benefits, and retirement? I know which one I'd rather my money go to.

“I think the entire government should be privatized. Chuck E. Cheese could run the parks; everything operated by tokens. Drop in a token, go on the swingset. Drop in another token, take a walk. Drop in a token, look at a duck.” - Ron Swanson from Parks & Recreation

I, for one, can't wait for the day when state parks have advertisements for tampons and Coke nailed to the trees!

[JohnDoeZ]

Let's see, you've called me an asshole, and pathetic. I have yet to call you anything. That's about to change.

You are a troll. No more, no less. I'm done with you. God damn I wish this forum had an ignore button.

I also called you a hypocrite. But I never referred to you as anything which you didn't earn in the prior post made by yourself.

I can have experience space with Private company if i had U$200K 
Space tourism  = generate revenue !

NASA is soo good for many years ago in the past, '2K NASA is BAD, Big Fat Liar, Generate Few Science! Accomplished Very Few!
To much NASA Fat Ass Liar = Generate more TAX Increase !

[myrkul]

“I think the entire government should be privatized. Chuck E. Cheese could run the parks; everything operated by tokens. Drop in a token, go on the swingset. Drop in another token, take a walk. Drop in a token, look at a duck.” - Ron Swanson from Parks & Recreation

I, for one, can't wait for the day when state parks have advertisements for tampons and Coke nailed to the trees!

It's all well and good to poo-poo the flaws of Anarchy, but you know what?

I don't give a fuck. I seriously don't. Fiat justitia ruat caelum.

Government, by it's definition, is theft, coercion, and murder. It's wrong, and you shouldn't let stupid shit like advertisements get in the way of doing what's right.

[rainingbitcoins]

Government, by it's definition, is theft, coercion, and murder. It's wrong, and you shouldn't let stupid shit like advertisements get in the way of doing what's right.

From my viewpoint, capitalism is all of those things, and all to such an extent that it inevitably corrupts government. You might argue that it's the other way around, but I'd say that if that's the case, the U.S. wouldn't have invaded dozens of countries over the past hundred years for the sake of higher profits for U.S. businesses.

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

I ask you, does that sound like a country where the government controls business interests, or is it the opposite? It seems pretty obvious to me.

[myrkul]

I ask you, does that sound like a country where the government controls business interests, or is it the opposite? It seems pretty obvious to me.

You are essentially making my point here... Government and Business working in tandem is called fascism, and is essentially the opposite of what I espouse.

[rainingbitcoins]

I ask you, does that sound like a country where the government controls business interests, or is it the opposite? It seems pretty obvious to me.

You are essentially making my point here... Government and Business working in tandem is called fascism, and is essentially the opposite of what I espouse.

Yes, thank you, I know what fascism is, although it's arguable if you could classify the U.S. as that. It certainly seems to be heading in that direction at a breakneck pace, though, doesn't it? They may be working in tandem, but it seems like more of a hostage situation than a friendly partnership to me. Look at all of the rich people who start smugly insisting that they'll move to some other country if the government dares to raise their taxes to the same rate they paid 15 years ago. Big business owns America.

My argument is that, by the very nature of capitalism, big business always devours small business and becomes so powerful that it will eventually control any government that tries to reign it in. Doubly so in the modern age. If you have to work within the confines of a capitalist system, you need massive amounts of regulations to keep them in check, and even then it's damn near impossible and very open to corruption. It's better than nothing, but not by a whole hell of a lot.

[myrkul]

My argument is that, by the very nature of capitalism, big business always devours small business and becomes so powerful that it will eventually control any government that tries to reign it in. Doubly so in the modern age. If you have to work within the confines of a capitalist system, you need massive amounts of regulations to keep them in check, and even then it's damn near impossible and very open to corruption. It's better than nothing, but not by a whole hell of a lot.

OK, so your argument is that big business will always control government, so we need more government?

[rainingbitcoins]

OK, so your argument is that big business will always control government, so we need more government?

My argument is that businesses should be owned and run by workers' collectives - the people who make the profits should share in the profits rather than having them all be channeled to some guy who never did an honest day's work in his life and only owns a business because his daddy owned it (or is only CEO because he went to the right schools and comes from the right background and has never known a day of hardship).

I think that businesses owned by the same people who are affected by the actions of said businesses will necessarily make them more socially responsible and less prone to corruption. It's much easier to convince a small cabal of a few rich people who have never known what it's like to be poor to screw over the poor than it is to convince a thousand working men of the same.

A strong central government with constantly reviewable procedures for preventing corruption would also be a plus. That's easier said than done, but far from impossible, and considering the alternatives, I don't see much other way to go.

[myrkul]

OK, so your argument is that big business will always control government, so we need more government?

My argument is that businesses should be owned and run by workers' collectives - the people who make the profits should share in the profits rather than having them all be channeled to some guy who never did an honest day's work in his life and only owns a business because his daddy owned it (or is only CEO because he went to the right schools and comes from the right background and has never known a day of hardship).

I think that businesses owned by the same people who are affected by the actions of said businesses will necessarily make them more socially responsible and less prone to corruption. It's much easier to convince a small cabal of a few rich people who have never known what it's like to be poor to screw over the poor than it is to convince a thousand working men of the same.

A strong central government with constantly reviewable procedures for preventing corruption would also be a plus. That's easier said than done, but far from impossible, and considering the alternatives, I don't see much other way to go.

None of that (Except of course, the strong central government) is disallowed, or even discouraged, in AnCap. It's possible that the worker's collectives may even turn out to be more efficient than the top-down organizations, and out-compete them.

[rainingbitcoins]

None of that (Except of course, the strong central government) is disallowed, or even discouraged, in AnCap. It's possible that the worker's collectives may even turn out to be more efficient than the top-down organizations, and out-compete them.

I actually don't think they'd thrive in that environment, because in a world driven purely by profits, the businesses most willing to get their hands dirty will always win. And use the money to cover up their actions with massive PR blitzes to pacify the easily-misled public. I tend to think that purely from the standpoint of cold, hard, cash, they would be less efficient than a top-down business (especially with the inevitably higher wages for the worker-owners), but that a slight loss of efficiency would be a small price to pay to prevent the havoc that big business wreaks on this entire planet.

I do think there are still problems with this approach. For instance, very few Americans seem to care at all that the backbreaking labor and wealth stolen from the Global South is what makes it possible for us to enjoy our current standard of living. I don't know if I see that changing. Out of sight, out of mind, right? But at least collectives would be a step in the right direction.

[myrkul]

None of that (Except of course, the strong central government) is disallowed, or even discouraged, in AnCap. It's possible that the worker's collectives may even turn out to be more efficient than the top-down organizations, and out-compete them.

I actually don't think they'd thrive in that environment, because in a world driven purely by profits, the businesses most willing to get their hands dirty will always win. And use the money to cover up their actions with massive PR blitzes to pacify the easily-misled public. I tend to think that purely from the standpoint of cold, hard, cash, they would be less efficient than a top-down business (especially with the inevitably higher wages for the worker-owners), but that a slight loss of efficiency would be a small price to pay to prevent the havoc that big business wreaks on this entire planet.

I do think there are still problems with this approach. For instance, very few Americans seem to care at all that the backbreaking labor and wealth stolen from the Global South is what makes it possible for us to enjoy our current standard of living. I don't know if I see that changing. Out of sight, out of mind, right? But at least collectives would be a step in the right direction.

Let me ask you something: Do you believe that your opinion is shared by a majority, or a minority of the population, or that if presented with the information that lead you to this conclusion, that a majority would share your opinion?