Total Posts:73|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Command Economy Fail

lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 1:35:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Who really thinks a command economy can work?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 1:46:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That is not the kind of command economy I advocate. I only advocate good command economies.

On a more serious note, how do you know that their allocation of resources is uneconomic?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 1:50:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The estimated 64 million empty apartments?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 2:54:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 1:50:21 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The estimated 64 million empty apartments?

So you have a better idea about what an economy should look like?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 2:58:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I would personally opt for the more optimal 63 million empty apartments that there is no demand for.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2011 4:28:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 2:58:22 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I would personally opt for the more optimal 63 million empty apartments that there is no demand for.

How do you know there's no demand for empty apartments?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 1:00:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 1:46:18 PM, Sieben wrote:
That is not the kind of command economy I advocate. I only advocate good command economies.

On a more serious note, how do you know that their allocation of resources is uneconomic?

Do you advocate Somalia's economy?
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 1:15:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
What I don't understand is why the prices are so high. There is little demand, there's a vast over-supply, so unless the government is keeping the prices up for no reason, these people should be able to move into those places pretty cheap.

Also, what's going to be very different once this bubble bursts? There are already a ton of empty buildings and stuff, which as far as I know, means it already did burst in a way. I guess it could just spread to the rest of the economy later on...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 1:36:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 1:00:03 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 4/11/2011 1:46:18 PM, Sieben wrote:
That is not the kind of command economy I advocate. I only advocate good command economies.

On a more serious note, how do you know that their allocation of resources is uneconomic?

Do you advocate Somalia's economy?

I only advocate good things. I advocate Somalia insofar as it is good, and condemn it insofar as it is bad. Zzzz

And I told you to stop trolling on Somalia. You're totally ignorant. Its a large topic so it should be reserved for a debate where your public a­ss kicking can be compensation for the tedium of debating over your sophomoronic pep-rally mantras.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 3:20:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
My God, construction is 60% of the economy. They're probably done for lol.

Btw, these videos were really, really good. Thanks for posting them.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 3:27:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 1:36:05 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 4/12/2011 1:00:03 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Do you advocate Somalia's economy?

I only advocate good things. I advocate Somalia insofar as it is good, and condemn it insofar as it is bad. Zzzz

And I told you to stop trolling on Somalia. You're totally ignorant. Its a large topic so it should be reserved for a debate where your public a­ss kicking can be compensation for the tedium of debating over your sophomoronic pep-rally mantras.

Exactly my point.

It's only you whose allowed to reserve these contradictions; you're a hypocrite. Not to mention, China's governmental control goes way past what I support on many different levels, but in your warped, absolutist mind, everything must be taken to its logical end, so I'm either a Communist dictator, or I'm an Anarchist -- no in between.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 3:36:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 3:27:11 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

It's only you whose allowed to reserve these contradictions; you're a hypocrite.
It was sarcasm. Your whole framework on this issue is wrong. I just don't particularly want to go through the pain of trying to explain it to you. Nuanced ideas have a way of shattering when you get your hands on them.

Not to mention, China's governmental control goes way past what I support on many different levels, but in your warped, absolutist mind, everything must be taken to its logical end, so I'm either a Communist dictator, or I'm an Anarchist -- no in between.

Total straw man. I already know you support the "middle" ground. Where you have "enough" planning but "not too much". You provide services that the market does a "bad" job of providing and let it provide services that it does a "good" job of distributing. Your philosophy is defined in terms of "good" things. Its a total joke. There is literally NO WAY you could come up with a more intellectually lazy philosophy.

And by the way? Refusal to commit to an absolutist position is itself an absolutist position. Nice performative contradiction. I've pointed this out to you several times before, but like I said above, you go full retard any time a conversation gets slightly philosophical.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 4:21:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 3:36:10 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 4/12/2011 3:27:11 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

It's only you whose allowed to reserve these contradictions; you're a hypocrite.
It was sarcasm. Your whole framework on this issue is wrong. I just don't particularly want to go through the pain of trying to explain it to you. Nuanced ideas have a way of shattering when you get your hands on them.

Yeah apparently, since you can't seem to understand my positions at all, being demonstrated by your repeated inaccurate generalizations of them. But, it's only okay when you make those accusations, because only you can make such nuanced arguments. Thus, this statement is still implicitly hypocritical.

Not to mention, China's governmental control goes way past what I support on many different levels, but in your warped, absolutist mind, everything must be taken to its logical end, so I'm either a Communist dictator, or I'm an Anarchist -- no in between.

Total straw man. I already know you support the "middle" ground. Where you have "enough" planning but "not too much". You provide services that the market does a "bad" job of providing and let it provide services that it does a "good" job of distributing. Your philosophy is defined in terms of "good" things. Its a total joke. There is literally NO WAY you could come up with a more intellectually lazy philosophy.

Well, it can be empirically determined where markets do things in the way people want them to, along with governments. The government can't fix prices on food and clothes in a very successful manner, but it can provide widely accessible healthcare without utterly destroying the planet as you might fear. And, it's not intellectually lazy at all; in fact, it's tougher than your position because I have to empirically determine which instances that governmental intervention is best served for.

And by the way? Refusal to commit to an absolutist position is itself an absolutist position. Nice performative contradiction. I've pointed this out to you several times before, but like I said above, you go full retard any time a conversation gets slightly philosophical.

Another straw-man. I'm not absolutely committed to non-absolutism; I'm just not absolutely committed to any single political philosophy. Nice try....again.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 5:02:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 4:21:35 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Yeah apparently, since you can't seem to understand my positions at all, being demonstrated by your repeated inaccurate generalizations of them.
They are very accurate. Your only charge has been that I think you're a communist dictator, which is a total lie.

But, it's only okay when you make those accusations, because only you can make such nuanced arguments. Thus, this statement is still implicitly hypocritical.

No its not about me. Its about your incompetence. Other people make coherant arguments just fine. Again, I was being SARCASTIC with my response, and I said the framework of your question is totally wrong. I think the only reason you're replying to this blurb is because you want to save face.

Well, it can be empirically determined where markets do things in the way people want them to, along with governments.

This is just according to your subjective list of things you want done in society. If the market produces X of a good, you look on your list and see if thats "enough". Your complaints about free markets amount to complaints that society doesn't produce exactly what you want.

Its a total straw man because no market advocate has ever said they find market outcomes universally aesthetically pleasing. For example, people who eat junk food disgust me, but I keep it out of my political philosophy.

The government can't fix prices on food and clothes in a very successful manner, but it can provide widely accessible healthcare

Wait, it can't set price controls on food, but it can set a price of zero on healthcare? Bwahahah that's funny. No no, let's not get dragged into a discussion about healthcare. This is just you trolling - paying lip service to an orthodox belief without actually defending it. Zzzzzz

Pick a god damn topic and stick to it.

without utterly destroying the planet as you might fear.
Straw man. I don't think states automatically destroy the planet.

And, it's not intellectually lazy at all;
No. It is really really lazy. You advocate "good" government that does things the government is "good" at and avoids things governments are "bad" at.

in fact, it's tougher than your position because I have to empirically determine which instances that governmental intervention is best served for.

Wow. You are again using a layman's definition of philosophy. What a god damn philistine you are. Your position is the easiest A PRIORI framework. It consists of semantic relations between political concepts. Whether or not it is difficult to do empiricism cannot be said a priori.

But your skill empirically is totally laughable. I already told you not to make an empirical argument ever again after your total failure to challenge my econometric model which begins by assuming you're wrong. Combine that with cherry picking around failed democracies because they're not democracies because they didn't "work", and you are reduced to "look at Norway" for you entire political philosophy.

Another straw-man. I'm not absolutely committed to non-absolutism; I'm just not absolutely committed to any single political philosophy. Nice try....again.

Wow. You really can't generalize anything. Oh well. If this only applies to politics, then your political philosophy is to not commit yourself to any political philosophy.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 5:34:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 4:28:42 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 4/11/2011 2:58:22 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I would personally opt for the more optimal 63 million empty apartments that there is no demand for.

How do you know there's no demand for empty apartments?:

The first video explained it. China's number one goal is their GDP, so the government mandates construction efforts just to keep their GDP high. This ghost city's property value is also astronomically high, much more than the average Chinese worker can afford.

63 million empty homes is the worst property bubble I've ever heard of, and it makes the US housing bubble look insignificant in comparison.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 5:39:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've pointed this out to you several times before, but like I said above, you go full retard any time a conversation gets slightly philosophical.:

Sigged.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 5:46:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 5:34:22 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 4/11/2011 4:28:42 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 4/11/2011 2:58:22 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I would personally opt for the more optimal 63 million empty apartments that there is no demand for.

How do you know there's no demand for empty apartments?:

The first video explained it. China's number one goal is their GDP, so the government mandates construction efforts just to keep their GDP high. This ghost city's property value is also astronomically high, much more than the average Chinese worker can afford.

63 million empty homes is the worst property bubble I've ever heard of, and it makes the US housing bubble look insignificant in comparison.

I think he was saying that the OP couldn't know what the 'right' amount of houses was any more than the Chinese government could.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 2:17:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 5:02:10 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 4/12/2011 4:21:35 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Yeah apparently, since you can't seem to understand my positions at all, being demonstrated by your repeated inaccurate generalizations of them.
They are very accurate. Your only charge has been that I think you're a communist dictator, which is a total lie.

That was sarcasm.

But, it's only okay when you make those accusations, because only you can make such nuanced arguments. Thus, this statement is still implicitly hypocritical.

No its not about me. Its about your incompetence. Other people make coherant arguments just fine. Again, I was being SARCASTIC with my response, and I said the framework of your question is totally wrong. I think the only reason you're replying to this blurb is because you want to save face.

The framework of my question is wrong? The implicit point of the question is obvious; do you advocate Somalia's economy? It's obvious that you don't, but then that puts you right where I supposedly am, in that you cherry-pick only the good examples of Anarchism, such as the Icelandic Commonwealth. If the framework is wrong, then so is the framework of your accusations because they're essentially the same.

Well, it can be empirically determined where markets do things in the way people want them to, along with governments.

This is just according to your subjective list of things you want done in society. If the market produces X of a good, you look on your list and see if thats "enough". Your complaints about free markets amount to complaints that society doesn't produce exactly what you want.

Its a total straw man because no market advocate has ever said they find market outcomes universally aesthetically pleasing. For example, people who eat junk food disgust me, but I keep it out of my political philosophy.

Blah, blah, blah, I actually advocate that mixed economies be the most pleasing for the most amount of people. The best ways to attain these goals can be logically and empirically determined.

The government can't fix prices on food and clothes in a very successful manner, but it can provide widely accessible healthcare

Wait, it can't set price controls on food, but it can set a price of zero on healthcare? Bwahahah that's funny. No no, let's not get dragged into a discussion about healthcare. This is just you trolling - paying lip service to an orthodox belief without actually defending it. Zzzzzz

Pick a god damn topic and stick to it.

For one, it's just an example. Two, the state isn't fixing a price for private companies; it's supplying the service itself for next to nothing -- there's a difference. Private health providers can charge what they want.

without utterly destroying the planet as you might fear.
Straw man. I don't think states automatically destroy the planet.

It was sarcasm.

And, it's not intellectually lazy at all;
No. It is really really lazy. You advocate "good" government that does things the government is "good" at and avoids things governments are "bad" at.

Yeah, because there are some things the government is better at doing than others. The tough part comes into play when attempting to empirically determine which works best.

in fact, it's tougher than your position because I have to empirically determine which instances that governmental intervention is best served for.

Wow. You are again using a layman's definition of philosophy. What a god damn philistine you are. Your position is the easiest A PRIORI framework. It consists of semantic relations between political concepts. Whether or not it is difficult to do empiricism cannot be said a priori.

Uhh, the framework is to basically increase pleasure and reduce pain, and yours is "MARKETS ONLY!" So, even just as an a priori framework, it's still less simplistic than yours.

But your skill empirically is totally laughable. I already told you not to make an empirical argument ever again after your total failure to challenge my econometric model which begins by assuming you're wrong. Combine that with cherry picking around failed democracies because they're not democracies because they didn't "work", and you are reduced to "look at Norway" for you entire political philosophy.

No, I acknowledge that there are crap democracies in the world. I don't advocate the bad results, but then again, I doubt that you advocate living in Somalia.

Another straw-man. I'm not absolutely committed to non-absolutism; I'm just not absolutely committed to any single political philosophy. Nice try....again.

Wow. You really can't generalize anything. Oh well. If this only applies to politics, then your political philosophy is to not commit yourself to any political philosophy.

LOL, neither can you! Are you absolutely committed to absolutism?
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 3:16:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 3:36:10 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 4/12/2011 3:27:11 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

It's only you whose allowed to reserve these contradictions; you're a hypocrite.
It was sarcasm. Your whole framework on this issue is wrong. I just don't particularly want to go through the pain of trying to explain it to you. Nuanced ideas have a way of shattering when you get your hands on them.

Not to mention, China's governmental control goes way past what I support on many different levels, but in your warped, absolutist mind, everything must be taken to its logical end, so I'm either a Communist dictator, or I'm an Anarchist -- no in between.

Total straw man. I already know you support the "middle" ground. Where you have "enough" planning but "not too much". You provide services that the market does a "bad" job of providing and let it provide services that it does a "good" job of distributing. Your philosophy is defined in terms of "good" things. Its a total joke. There is literally NO WAY you could come up with a more intellectually lazy philosophy.

I think this type of economic philosophy makes good sense actually. The free market has some good qualities but leads to massive wealth inequalities. However I don't think the government would be able to provide everything. Things like healthcare and electricity though I think are necessities and there should be some safety net for people who fall under.

In my opinion, anarchistic free market capitalism and government controlled communism go to far on both ends. I don't see anything wrong with a sort of middle ground economic philosophy although I lean more towards socialism.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 5:40:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 2:17:40 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 4/12/2011 5:02:10 PM, Sieben wrote:

The framework of my question is wrong? The implicit point of the question is obvious; do you advocate Somalia's economy? It's obvious that you don't, but then that puts you right where I supposedly am, in that you cherry-pick only the good examples of Anarchism, such as the Icelandic Commonwealth. If the framework is wrong, then so is the framework of your accusations because they're essentially the same.

1) I have never rooted my arguments via empirical claims.

2) I have never advocated any particular economic structure. I don't advocate somalia's "economy" any more than I recommend japan's economy or 60/30/10 service/industry/agri etc.

3) You still don't understand why your framework is wrong. What a joke. All you can do is try and trap me in the same academic cesspool you live in by chanting "tu quoque".

This is just according to your subjective list of things you want done in society. If the market produces X of a good, you look on your list and see if thats "enough". Your complaints about free markets amount to complaints that society doesn't produce exactly what you want.

Its a total straw man because no market advocate has ever said they find market outcomes universally aesthetically pleasing. For example, people who eat junk food disgust me, but I keep it out of my political philosophy.

Blah, blah, blah, I actually advocate that mixed economies be the most pleasing for the most amount of people. The best ways to attain these goals can be logically and empirically determined.

Blah blah blah red herrings. Let me recap for you:

1) You have a list of things you want for society. This is necessarily arbitrary, particularly because you are not committed to a guiding philosophy like utilitarianism or justice

2) Free market advocates do not think the market will produce what any one individual person wants. Your fundamental problem is that you'll never stop till everyone produces exactly what you want. So you just snap your fingers, call it "statism", and pretend like that's political philosophy.

the state isn't fixing a price for private companies; it's supplying the service itself for next to nothing -- there's a difference. Private health providers can charge what they want.

Wait... so its a de facto price control. Private companies might compete on really high end medical care, but de facto, the price of basic services will be zero. It doesn't matter if the government foots the bill. That's just a necessary ad hoc response to stop the system from instantly collapsing (because its so retarded).

It was sarcasm.

Oh. If I ever make a stupid mistake it was sarcasm.

Yeah, because there are some things the government is better at doing than others. The tough part comes into play when attempting to empirically determine which works best.

SEMANTICS. You have NO political philosophy beyond "good things are good" and "bad things are bad". Your next step is to go out into the world and figure out which things are good, but you do so with no basis.

Wow. You are again using a layman's definition of philosophy. What a god damn philistine you are. Your position is the easiest A PRIORI framework. It consists of semantic relations between political concepts. Whether or not it is difficult to do empiricism cannot be said a priori.

Uhh, the framework is to basically increase pleasure and reduce pain,

No its not. I already cornered you on this. You're not willing to steal from rich people if they don't "belong" to "a majority" which you can't ever give a criterion for. You're not willing to sacrifice 1 person for 3 even if your utility comes out positive. Your proposed method of implementing utilitarianism is actually egalitarian. Etc etc. You have no governing philosophy.

But that's a red herring you just threw at me! What you dodged is the fact that your POLITICAL philosophy just says "good government is good"/"its good when government does good things". Hur hur hur.

and yours is "MARKETS ONLY!" So, even just as an a priori framework, it's still less simplistic than yours.

Err, "markets only", or more specifically "don't attack innocent people" is rooted in a modified version of hoppean argumentation ethics. I explained it before. You didn't understand it. That's why we keep having this conversation.

But yeah - it actually starts from what argumentation presupposes. Its not a non-sequitur like your "pleasure/pain" nonsense you pull out of the air (again, fashion).

Still going full retard on the philosophy...

No, I acknowledge that there are crap democracies in the world. I don't advocate the bad results, but then again, I doubt that you advocate living in Somalia.

So your empirical support is again reduced to "democracy works when it works" therefore "I support working democracy".

This is why your framework is sooooooooooo retarded. Your starting point is actually the END result of societies.

Another straw-man. I'm not absolutely committed to non-absolutism; I'm just not absolutely committed to any single political philosophy. Nice try....again.

Wow. You really can't generalize anything. Oh well. If this only applies to politics, then your political philosophy is to not commit yourself to any political philosophy.

LOL, neither can you! Are you absolutely committed to absolutism?

Actually I generalize everything. I prefer the theoretical world. I like game theory. I like math. I don't even like assuming that my agents are automatically human (consider animals...).

And yes. I am absolutely committed to absolutism. Cus that's what words mean. When I say I believe in X, I mean I believe it (absolutely).

See my philosophy isn't retarded, so I don't have to keep a back door open by saying I only half-advocated something.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 5:46:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 3:16:20 PM, socialpinko wrote:

I think this type of economic philosophy makes good sense actually. The free market has some good qualities but leads to massive wealth inequalities. However I don't think the government would be able to provide everything. Things like healthcare and electricity though I think are necessities and there should be some safety net for people who fall under.

To avoid dragging you into a long discussion which you will have eventually with me or one of the other libertarians...

You gave actual reasons (sort of) why government should provide some things and not others. Namely that they're important. Maybe you would have made reference to the public goods problem. Whatever.

This is COMPLETELY different from saying that the government should do things its "good" at. The only reason TAA advocates government healthcare is because he thinks they're "good" at it. Philosophically, its a semantic relation between concepts. Empirically its just TAA maximizing his arbitrary shopping list of stuff he wants to happen.

In my opinion, crime-free society and repeated monopoly aggression go to far on both ends. I don't see anything wrong with a sort of middle ground society with some theft, murder, and rape, although I lean more towards initiating violence against innocent people because then they can do what I want them to do.

Fix'd
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 5:56:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think he was saying that the OP couldn't know what the 'right' amount of houses was any more than the Chinese government could.:

Sure, the "right" amount of homes to people is arbitrary, but doesn't 63 million unoccupied homes seem like an excessive waste of time, resources, money, and land?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 1:08:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I advocate what the Chinese government is doing. It will soon cause a revolution and I am looking forward to it.

You see, China has not discovered something which America has long ago. It is called stabilization. It is the act of keeping people comfortable with their enslavement and it only serves as an ally of slavery. Unlike Americans, the Chinese will become fed up.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 1:09:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/11/2011 1:46:18 PM, Sieben wrote:
That is not the kind of command economy I advocate. I only advocate good command economies.


lol
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 8:40:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 5:40:58 PM, Sieben wrote:

I can't communicate effectively, so I write 9 different paragraphs/sentences to make the same point again and again.

Essentially, you're angry that I don't fully commit to a single philosophy, nor that it is legitimate. For one, there is no such thing as a legitimate ethical philosophy because any basis point is inherently subjective and arbitrary -- your opposition to stealing is just as arbitrary as Utilitarianism. Also, it's obvious that no political or ethical philosophy is complete, otherwise everyone would agree, so it's almost necessary to make ad hoc decisions based on the circumstances at hand. You yourself are guilty of this, in that you stole a meteor from an innocent person in order to save the human race, so I don't see why you're throwing such a tantrum over it.

Also, a public service isn't equivalent to price fixing. If the market can set it's own prices, then there's obviously a problem with your accusation.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 9:16:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 8:40:59 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Essentially, you're angry that I don't fully commit to a single philosophy,
This is a single philosophy in itself.

nor that it is legitimate. For one, there is no such thing as a legitimate ethical philosophy because any basis point is inherently subjective and arbitrary

Well when you're as philosophically inept as you are this is no surprise.

But this is funny. You're admitting that your philosophy is arbitrary and instead of defending yourself, you're just trying to drag me down into the muck with you. As I wrote before: "All you can do is try and trap me in the same academic cesspool you live in by chanting "tu quoque"."

-- your opposition to stealing is just as arbitrary as Utilitarianism.

No its not. Seriously for the 17th time, hoppean argumentation ethics. It is non-arbitrary.

Also, it's obvious that no political or ethical philosophy is complete, otherwise everyone would agree,

Argumentum ad populum. Some people will always disagree with anything. So again, you're trying to bring me down to your amateurish level.

so it's almost necessary to make ad hoc decisions based on the circumstances at hand.

No. By your own standard of popularity you just arbitrarily introduced for no reason, people will always disagree with decisions even if they are ad hoc.

You yourself are guilty of this, in that you stole a meteor from an innocent person in order to save the human race, so I don't see why you're throwing such a tantrum over it.

You don't understand the difference between philosophy and action. You're retarded. It is possible for someone to be a mass murderer and still believe that anarcho capitalism is the only coherent (political) philosophy.

Also, a public service isn't equivalent to price fixing. If the market can set it's own prices, then there's obviously a problem with your accusation.

I said it was de facto price fixing. Way to not address the argument.

Hur hur hur I'm TAA and Sieben really whopped my as­s. So it took me a couple days to lick my wounds but now I'm back to save face and ignore the vast majority of his points that he actually has me beat on. Hur hur hur.

Me? I'm always game.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 9:27:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 9:16:41 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 4/14/2011 8:40:59 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:

Essentially, you're angry that I don't fully commit to a single philosophy,
This is a single philosophy in itself.

nor that it is legitimate. For one, there is no such thing as a legitimate ethical philosophy because any basis point is inherently subjective and arbitrary

Well when you're as philosophically inept as you are this is no surprise.

But this is funny. You're admitting that your philosophy is arbitrary and instead of defending yourself, you're just trying to drag me down into the muck with you. As I wrote before: "All you can do is try and trap me in the same academic cesspool you live in by chanting "tu quoque"."

Yeah, because that's where everyone ultimately ends up when you push the issue as far as you do.

-- your opposition to stealing is just as arbitrary as Utilitarianism.

No its not. Seriously for the 17th time, hoppean argumentation ethics. It is non-arbitrary.

What is your presupposition?

Also, it's obvious that no political or ethical philosophy is complete, otherwise everyone would agree,

Argumentum ad populum. Some people will always disagree with anything. So again, you're trying to bring me down to your amateurish level.

so it's almost necessary to make ad hoc decisions based on the circumstances at hand.

No. By your own standard of popularity you just arbitrarily introduced for no reason, people will always disagree with decisions even if they are ad hoc.

Sure, but a consensus can be formed. However, if we're following your doctrine, that doesn't get to happen.

You yourself are guilty of this, in that you stole a meteor from an innocent person in order to save the human race, so I don't see why you're throwing such a tantrum over it.

You don't understand the difference between philosophy and action. You're retarded. It is possible for someone to be a mass murderer and still believe that anarcho capitalism is the only coherent (political) philosophy.

Yeah, I realize that, but the theft was part of a thought experiment. If you think that negative rights are coherent, then why hypothetically steal the meteor? This is where you fail to be consistent with your philosophy, and also why you have no justification to scream and cry over my lack of consistency.

Also, a public service isn't equivalent to price fixing. If the market can set it's own prices, then there's obviously a problem with your accusation.

I said it was de facto price fixing. Way to not address the argument.

Hur hur hur I'm TAA and Sieben really whopped my as­s. So it took me a couple days to lick my wounds but now I'm back to save face and ignore the vast majority of his points that he actually has me beat on. Hur hur hur.

Me? I'm always game.

Oh please, you're just some dishonest hypocrite who gets mad and accuses me of doing what you yourself do. And, why can't you speak without the 400 million character sentence fragments? You're only making two points here...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 9:39:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 9:27:01 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
Yeah, because that's where everyone ultimately ends up when you push the issue as far as you do.

Retards who don't know what they're talking about end up there. People who aren't retarded can move forward and stand on their own instead of just trying to make their opponent look worse than whatever crap they're pitching.

What is your presupposition?

That we're forming propositions. It is a SELF EVIDENT proposition if you know what that means.

No. By your own standard of popularity you just arbitrarily introduced for no reason, people will always disagree with decisions even if they are ad hoc.

Sure, but a consensus can be formed. However, if we're following your doctrine, that doesn't get to happen.

You're shifting the goalposts again retard. You wrote: "Also, it's obvious that no political or ethical philosophy is complete, otherwise everyone would agree,"

So you now back off the universal criterion, then say its "enough" if there's a "consensus", which COMPLETELY ignores the fact that you're making an argumentum ad populum like a retard. So yeah - tldr - retarded.

Yeah, I realize that, but the theft was part of a thought experiment. If you think that negative rights are coherent, then why hypothetically steal the meteor?

Because sometimes I prefer to violate rights.

This is where you fail to be consistent with your philosophy, and also why you have no justification to scream and cry over my lack of consistency.

I did not ever claim that I lived a philosophical life.

Oh please, you're just some dishonest hypocrite who gets mad and accuses me of doing what you yourself do.

Okay. You don't know what words mean. A "hypocrite" and someone who "causes me of doing what you yourself do" mean the same thing.

But that's okay. Bla bla bla rhetoric.

And, why can't you speak without the 400 million character sentence fragments? You're only making two points here...

QQ. You jam pack your paragraphs full of so much disconnected nonsense that I pretty much have to split your shi­t in order to keep up with the issues. If conversations increase in length it is because I address your red herrings AND the original arguments. That's because im super thorough and you're retarded.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 10:34:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 8:40:59 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
You yourself are guilty of this, in that you stole a meteor from an innocent person in order to save the human race, so I don't see why you're throwing such a tantrum over it.

Ugh, I've heard this same argument from you so many freaking times. I'm just going to put it to rest right now so we can finally stop talking about it. K?

An "innocent threat" is an person who, though innocent and deserving no retribution, is nonetheless a causal agent in a process such that he would be an aggressor had he chosen to become one. For example, if someone picks up a third party and throws him at me while I'm at the bottom of a deep well, the third party is an "innocent threat" insofar as he would have been an aggressor had he chosen to set himself on that trajectory.

Let's say I have a ray gun that could disintegrate his falling body before he crushes and kills me. Would it be permissible for me to use the ray gun, even if the innocent threat would otherwise survive his fall? Intuitively, it seems like it would be. Libertarian principles are generally formulated so as to prohibit the use of force against innocent persons, but innocent threats, I think, are a different matter to which different principles apply.

But let's forget that for a second. Let's say it really is wrong to steal the man's meteor. First of all, you're deliberately concocting a ridiculously, and frankly, hilariously unrealistic scenario to try to prove libertarian ethics "wrong." Here's another thought experiment. Scenario (1) Let's say Bob is driving along a country road, when suddenly a dog darts rights in front of his car. He slams on the brakes, but hits it anyway. Scenario (2) Bob is driving a long a country road when, about 150 yards in front of him, a dog crosses. Had Bob been paying attention instead of tuning the radio, he could have avoided hitting it. (3) Bob is shitfaced drunk driving down a country road when suddenly, he hits a dog. Had he not downed 8 shots of Bourbon, he could have avoided hitting the dog. (4) Bob sees a dog near the side of the road. He deliberately swerves out of his way to hit it, just to be a huge dïck.

Does Bob have the same level of moral responsibility in all four cases? Again, it seems obvious the answer would be no. This seems to imply that the human concept of moral responsibility is tied to intentionality, so the punishment for such actions will have to take the level of responsibility into account. In your spaceman scenario, whoever ends up stealing the meteor is probably not doing so out of malicious intent and the legal punishment for his actions would be lessened accordingly.

Finally, the non-aggression principle doesn't say whether it is right or wrong to steal the meteor, it just says that doing so carries a punishment.

Happy?? Are we finished now??
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/15/2011 3:27:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 10:34:31 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 4/14/2011 8:40:59 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
You yourself are guilty of this, in that you stole a meteor from an innocent person in order to save the human race, so I don't see why you're throwing such a tantrum over it.

Ugh, I've heard this same argument from you so many freaking times. I'm just going to put it to rest right now so we can finally stop talking about it. K?

An "innocent threat" is an person who, though innocent and deserving no retribution, is nonetheless a causal agent in a process such that he would be an aggressor had he chosen to become one. For example, if someone picks up a third party and throws him at me while I'm at the bottom of a deep well, the third party is an "innocent threat" insofar as he would have been an aggressor had he chosen to set himself on that trajectory.

Let's say I have a ray gun that could disintegrate his falling body before he crushes and kills me. Would it be permissible for me to use the ray gun, even if the innocent threat would otherwise survive his fall? Intuitively, it seems like it would be. Libertarian principles are generally formulated so as to prohibit the use of force against innocent persons, but innocent threats, I think, are a different matter to which different principles apply.

But let's forget that for a second. Let's say it really is wrong to steal the man's meteor. First of all, you're deliberately concocting a ridiculously, and frankly, hilariously unrealistic scenario to try to prove libertarian ethics "wrong." Here's another thought experiment. Scenario (1) Let's say Bob is driving along a country road, when suddenly a dog darts rights in front of his car. He slams on the brakes, but hits it anyway. Scenario (2) Bob is driving a long a country road when, about 150 yards in front of him, a dog crosses. Had Bob been paying attention instead of tuning the radio, he could have avoided hitting it. (3) Bob is shitfaced drunk driving down a country road when suddenly, he hits a dog. Had he not downed 8 shots of Bourbon, he could have avoided hitting the dog. (4) Bob sees a dog near the side of the road. He deliberately swerves out of his way to hit it, just to be a huge dïck.

Does Bob have the same level of moral responsibility in all four cases? Again, it seems obvious the answer would be no. This seems to imply that the human concept of moral responsibility is tied to intentionality, so the punishment for such actions will have to take the level of responsibility into account. In your spaceman scenario, whoever ends up stealing the meteor is probably not doing so out of malicious intent and the legal punishment for his actions would be lessened accordingly.

Finally, the non-aggression principle doesn't say whether it is right or wrong to steal the meteor, it just says that doing so carries a punishment.

Happy?? Are we finished now??

I didn't propose the thought experiment to prove Libertarian ethics wrong; it was to try and stop Sieben from constantly whining about my inconsistencies when he himself has inconsistencies. In any case, I don't disagree that intentionality matters, but the same could be applied to the morality of a Robin Hood state, could it not?