Total Posts:48|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Pirates and the True Free Market

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2012 10:14:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm not typically grouped with the Anarcho-Capitalists here. I find no inherent problems in a lot of the functions of the state, including taxation. But I'm actually much closer than is realized. In-fact, I AM an Anarcho-Capitalist, in that I recognize all the economic theory that they do, if you forget about me having no moral standards that hold me to them. The only difference is that I recognize a fundamental aspect of Anarcho-Capitalist society that follows logically from it's sort of theory but is often ignored by Anarcho-Capitalists because it disagrees with the moral principles that brought them to believe in it in the first place.

I'm talking about the important role of the pirate in society.

Like all aspects of what follows from a free-market, it has not actually disappeared from the economy. It has only been skewed and monopolized by the state. The great tragedy of the state is not merely that is has a monopoly on defense but that it also has a monopoly on piracy; a monopoly on the two most in-competition sectors of the economy. So we see that the modern state is a complete inconsistency with itself, protecting the property and taking it away. Not only does this reduce the efficiency of these sectors by eliminating the competition but it also twists their purposes according to whoever is in control of the state. Defense would be used in a certain way in the free-market, but with a state we can have it used for things like protecting us from homosexuals and Mexicans. Likewise, piracy is used in ways that the free-market would not have it allocated.

Usually, someone with these sort of theories would spend their time railing against the government with complaints about taxation being theft. Now, don't get me wrong, taxation IS theft. But what sets me apart is that I don't see any inherent problems with that. Theft can be productive or destructive depending on how it is used, just as defense is.

Recognizing this has large practical implications. For instance, it would imply that, although an AnCap society would be more productive, a "Libertarian" government which is mostly AnCap would be catastrophic. For these sort of governments are ones that attempt to remove an entire trait of the economy from existence. It can NEVER accomplish this. It may only change it's form. The lack of a private piracy agencies(yes, I just coined that) will be reflected in the masses in the form of mass discontent with wealth inequality, both conscious and sub-conscious, which results in a rise of crime. It is easily demonstratable that the more wealth accumulates in the hands of a few in society, the higher crime will become.

But mostly I just love being able to sound like a Capitalist and a Communist at the same time.

Discuss.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2012 1:25:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Theft can be productive or destructive depending on how it is used, just as defense is.
Theft is inherently destructive. The only time it's good is if it destroys destructive things.
Just like defense, inherently destructive, only good if it destroys destructive things.

For instance, it would imply that, although an AnCap society would be more productive, a "Libertarian" government which is mostly AnCap would be catastrophic. For these sort of governments are ones that attempt to remove an entire trait of the economy from existence. It can NEVER accomplish this. It may only change it's form. The lack of a private piracy agencies(yes, I just coined that) will be reflected in the masses in the form of mass discontent with wealth inequality, both conscious and sub-conscious, which results in a rise of crime.
These don't string together logically. Also, crime isn't a thing with constant meaning, what "Crime" is differs in these societies, which makes your statement inherently equivocal.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 12:31:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/15/2012 1:25:23 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Theft can be productive or destructive depending on how it is used, just as defense is.
Theft is inherently destructive. The only time it's good is if it destroys destructive things.
Just like defense, inherently destructive, only good if it destroys destructive things.

Aye, good observation. Though I wouldn't equate the word "good" with productive.

For instance, it would imply that, although an AnCap society would be more productive, a "Libertarian" government which is mostly AnCap would be catastrophic. For these sort of governments are ones that attempt to remove an entire trait of the economy from existence. It can NEVER accomplish this. It may only change it's form. The lack of a private piracy agencies(yes, I just coined that) will be reflected in the masses in the form of mass discontent with wealth inequality, both conscious and sub-conscious, which results in a rise of crime.
These don't string together logically. Also, crime isn't a thing with constant meaning, what "Crime" is differs in these societies, which makes your statement inherently equivocal.

Oh Ragnar, don't be prudish. Language is a barbaric tool.

Will it suffice you to say "violence"?
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 12:33:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I didn't feel like responding, I saw it right after you posted... but was to lazy to respond :)
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 12:44:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 12:33:20 AM, 16kadams wrote:
I didn't feel like responding, I saw it right after you posted... but was to lazy to respond :)

Well...thank you for helping me bump it, at least.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 11:26:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 12:44:13 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/17/2012 12:33:20 AM, 16kadams wrote:
I didn't feel like responding, I saw it right after you posted... but was to lazy to respond :)

Well...thank you for helping me bump it, at least.

yay!
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 11:32:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Actually it is true that taxes are theft, and one could argue the tax dollars are going wasted, as we have many agencies that do nothing. The department of education has a large budget, but they do not educate 1 child, the schooling should be controlled at a local level. We also have many federal laws, and many of which are dumb.
http://www.dumblaws.com...

I agree we need taxation, as I am a conservative not an ancap, but some taxes are going to waste and are not needed, and ending these agencies/laws would make our money go to real things that we need. Also it may lower taxes which is good for the economy. So I agree this theft is needed to a certain extent, but some of it is a waste.

OK I responded :)
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 6:49:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 11:32:12 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually it is true that taxes are theft, and one could argue the tax dollars are going wasted, but some taxes are going to waste and are not needed,
Name 100billion without including military spending
At 2/17/2012 11:32:12 AM, 16kadams wrote:
as we have many agencies that do nothing.
Name one.
At 2/17/2012 11:32:12 AM, 16kadams wrote:
The department of education has a large budget, but they do not educate 1 child, the schooling should be controlled at a local level.
That's only if you leave out then 10million students yearly who get loans/grants for college, and Title 1grants which create $10 in benefits for every dollar spent, and IDEA grants which alow states to have elementary schools for every student
At 2/17/2012 11:32:12 AM, 16kadams wrote:
the schooling should be controlled at a local level.
School is pretty much already controlled primarily at the local level and the direct result of that is that poor neighborhoods get significantly worse education then rich neighborhoods. So I ask why do you want to make it so poor people have less opportunities then rich people?
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 7:02:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 6:49:27 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/17/2012 11:32:12 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually it is true that taxes are theft, and one could argue the tax dollars are going wasted, but some taxes are going to waste and are not needed,
Name 100billion without including military spending

Welfare social security EPA

At 2/17/2012 11:32:12 AM, 16kadams wrote:
as we have many agencies that do nothing.
Name one.

Department of energy EPA could be reformed department of education department of commerce

At 2/17/2012 11:32:12 AM, 16kadams wrote:
The department of education has a large budget, but they do not educate 1 child, the schooling should be controlled at a local level.
That's only if you leave out then 10million students yearly who get loans/grants for college, and Title 1grants which create $10 in benefits for every dollar spent, and IDEA grants which alow states to have elementary schools for every student
At 2/17/2012 11:32:12 AM, 16kadams wrote:
the schooling should be controlled at a local level.
School is pretty much already controlled primarily at the local level and the direct result of that is that poor neighborhoods get significantly worse education then rich neighborhoods. So I ask why do you want to make it so poor people have less opportunities then rich people?

I agree but the federal agency is worthless and costly. That's my point they enforce no child left behind (stupid bush) and are costly with no benifit.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 7:54:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 7:02:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/17/2012 6:49:27 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/17/2012 11:32:12 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually it is true that taxes are theft, and one could argue the tax dollars are going wasted, but some taxes are going to waste and are not needed,
Name 100billion without including military spending

Welfare social security EPA
Plz explain how food is a waste. If we were to follow your logic then we should all starve because you're saying that buying food is a waste of money.
Also welfare reduces non violent crime by 11% resulting in 13billion saved yearly
http://www2.davidson.edu...
http://www.voxeu.org...

Plz explain why people being able to retire is a waste of money, especially when SS provides 26% more benefits then private counterparts. I guess you're never going to retire because according to you retiring is a waste
http://www.epi.org...

Total new EPA regulations from 1999-2009 saved the economy a net of 50-500billion dollars.
http://www.whitehouse.gov...
3 EPA regulations (the CAAA, the SOP, and the CAA) have saved the economy over the past 30 years more then 22trillion dollars
http://mainstreetalliance.org...
So plz explain why you think that preventing people getting sick and dying is a waste.

At 2/17/2012 7:02:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/17/2012 6:49:27 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/17/2012 11:32:12 AM, 16kadams wrote:
as we have many agencies that do nothing.
Name one.
Department of energy EPA could be reformed department of education department of commerce
You're claim was that there are government agencies that do nothing. I asked you to name one, of which you have not done yet. Are you conceding that there are agencies that do nothing?

At 2/17/2012 6:49:27 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/17/2012 11:32:12 AM, 16kadams wrote:
The department of education has a large budget, but they do not educate 1 child, the schooling should be controlled at a local level.
That's only if you leave out then 10million students yearly who get loans/grants for college, and Title 1grants which create $10 in benefits for every dollar spent, and IDEA grants which alow states to have elementary schools for every student
So I see you are conceding that your ignorant post about the department of education was completely bogus

At 2/17/2012 11:32:12 AM, 16kadams wrote:
the schooling should be controlled at a local level.
School is pretty much already controlled primarily at the local level and the direct result of that is that poor neighborhoods get significantly worse education then rich neighborhoods. So I ask why do you want to make it so poor people have less opportunities then rich people?

I agree but the federal agency is worthless and costly. That's my point they enforce no child left behind (stupid bush) and are costly with no benifit.
If you really do agree that poor people should have the same quality education as rich people then you would support more Federal funding of education.
Can you explain why you think college degrees have no benefit.
Can you also explain why you think that special education for disabled people has no benefit.
Also there have been a dozen studies on TITLE 1 grants which make up 14billion of the DOE's 70billion budget showing that it creates around $5-$10 in benefit for every dollar spent, meaning just in TITLE 1 alone the DOE pays for itself.
http://news.prnewswire.com...=
http://www.eschoolnews.com...?
http://nieer.org...
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 7:56:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 11:32:12 AM, 16kadams wrote:
the schooling should be controlled at a local level.
School is pretty much already controlled primarily at the local level and the direct result of that is that poor neighborhoods get significantly worse education then rich neighborhoods. So I ask why do you want to make it so poor people have less opportunities then rich people?

I agree but the federal agency is worthless and costly. That's my point they enforce no child left behind (stupid bush) and are costly with no benifit.

Most of what dept. of Ed. does is redistributes money from rich states to poor states. That's actually a big role of the Federal Government as a whole. This is what the Eurozone lacks and what prevents one of our states from turning into Greece. The Federal government runs a surplus in some states and a deficit in others (net deficit, yes). Ironically, the states that get the most spending relative to their taxes tend to be the most conservative.

Incidentally, the administrative budget for the dept. of Ed. is only $59M, about the cost of 7 hours of the Iraq war.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 9:44:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 7:54:41 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/17/2012 7:02:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/17/2012 6:49:27 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/17/2012 11:32:12 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually it is true that taxes are theft, and one could argue the tax dollars are going wasted, but some taxes are going to waste and are not needed,
Name 100billion without including military spending

Welfare social security EPA
Plz explain how food is a waste.
Food for the unproductive is unproductive, A is A.

If we were to follow your logic then we should all starve because you're saying that buying food is a waste of money.
We aren't all unproductive.
Also welfare reduces non violent crime by 11% resulting in 13billion saved yearly
Correlation is not causation.

Plz explain why people being able to retire is a waste of money
People are able to retire if social security is abolished by investing the money they would have paid on payroll taxes. Or more if they like, or less if they like. All social security does is distort incentives for retirement between people and relative to other goods.

Total new EPA regulations from 1999-2009 saved the economy a net of 50-500billion dollars.
http://www.whitehouse.gov...
3 EPA regulations (the CAAA, the SOP, and the CAA) have saved the economy over the past 30 years more then 22trillion dollars
http://mainstreetalliance.org...
"The economy" is not a coherent whole. It is impossible and meaningless to determine these numbers you are giving us. Correlation is not causation. Regulations have more costs than can even be imagined, let alone tracked, let alone tracked objectively by the bureaucrats whose jobs depend on these regulations.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2012 10:51:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 9:44:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/17/2012 7:54:41 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/17/2012 7:02:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/17/2012 6:49:27 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/17/2012 11:32:12 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually it is true that taxes are theft, and one could argue the tax dollars are going wasted, but some taxes are going to waste and are not needed,
Name 100billion without including military spending

Welfare social security EPA
Plz explain how food is a waste.
Food for the unproductive is unproductive, A is A.

If we were to follow your logic then we should all starve because you're saying that buying food is a waste of money.
We aren't all unproductive.
Also welfare reduces non violent crime by 11% resulting in 13billion saved yearly
Correlation is not causation.

Plz explain why people being able to retire is a waste of money
People are able to retire if social security is abolished by investing the money they would have paid on payroll taxes. Or more if they like, or less if they like. All social security does is distort incentives for retirement between people and relative to other goods.

Total new EPA regulations from 1999-2009 saved the economy a net of 50-500billion dollars.
http://www.whitehouse.gov...
3 EPA regulations (the CAAA, the SOP, and the CAA) have saved the economy over the past 30 years more then 22trillion dollars
http://mainstreetalliance.org...
"The economy" is not a coherent whole. It is impossible and meaningless to determine these numbers you are giving us. Correlation is not causation. Regulations have more costs than can even be imagined, let alone tracked, let alone tracked objectively by the bureaucrats whose jobs depend on these regulations.

I forgot about this forum, Ragnar got here before I did.

Also I needed to add this one could argue welfare increases crime.
http://www.cato.org...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 12:14:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 9:44:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/17/2012 7:54:41 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/17/2012 7:02:40 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/17/2012 6:49:27 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/17/2012 11:32:12 AM, 16kadams wrote:
Actually it is true that taxes are theft, and one could argue the tax dollars are going wasted, but some taxes are going to waste and are not needed,
Name 100billion without including military spending

Welfare social security EPA
Plz explain how food is a waste.
Food for the unproductive is unproductive, A is A
I see so according to you feeding children is a waste of money because they are unproductive
I say this because 75% of welfare recipients are children
http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org...
Feeding the retired and unemployed is also a waste because according to you they are unproductive.
You are 100% wrong that welfare recipients are unproductive; entry level jobs that require no education are enough to sustain oneself (albeit not comfortably). The only reason you think those people are unproductive is because we have a current economic system that leaves millions without jobs
A year after leaving welfare 75% of welfare recipients were above the poverty line, and living self-sufficiently. So your claim that they are unproductive is like always wrong.
http://books.google.com...

At 2/17/2012 9:44:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/17/2012 7:54:41 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
Also welfare reduces non violent crime by 11% resulting in 13billion saved yearly
Correlation is not causation.
So you explain why all the data in 12 different cities with different welfare policies, different demographics, all show that welfare reduces crime. Also explain why groups who suddenly get welfare see their crime rates drop and why groups leaving welfare see their crime rates increase.
http://www2.davidson.edu...
http://www.voxeu.org...

At 2/17/2012 9:44:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/17/2012 7:54:41 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
Plz explain why people being able to retire is a waste of money
People are able to retire if social security is abolished by investing the money they would have paid on payroll taxes. Or more if they like, or less if they like. All social security does is distort incentives for retirement between people and relative to other goods.
1)Before SS over 50% of seniors could not retire; and lived in extreme poverty.
2)The only analysis of SS compared with private market alternatives determine that SS provides 26% more benefits http://www.epi.org...
3)Two countries have privatized their SS system and as a result they saw benefits decrease by 13-20% http://tcf.org...
So yes people can retire without SS by using the private market however they will be poorer as a result.

At 2/17/2012 9:44:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/17/2012 7:54:41 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:: : Total new EPA regulations from 1999-2009 saved the economy a net of 50-500billion dollars.
http://www.whitehouse.gov...
3 EPA regulations (the CAAA, the SOP, and the CAA) have saved the economy over the past 30 years more then 22trillion dollars
http://mainstreetalliance.org...
"The economy" is not a coherent whole. It is impossible and meaningless to determine these numbers you are giving us. Correlation is not causation.
We're not talking about the economy. We are talking about environmental regulations that removed toxins from the air and water people breath and drink. The health impacts of those toxins were very high and the elimination of them resulted in lowered health costs and increased productivity.
At 2/17/2012 9:44:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Regulations have more costs than can even be imagined, let alone tracked, let alone tracked objectively by the bureaucrats whose jobs depend on these regulations.
Incorrect every analysis of the cost-benefit ratio of all regulations finds that regulations save the economy a net of hundreds of billions of dollars yearly.
http://mainstreetalliance.org...
I realize you're too stupid to know anything but that doesn't make the rest of us stupid
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 12:22:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/14/2012 10:14:42 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I'm not typically grouped with the Anarcho-Capitalists here. I find no inherent problems in a lot of the functions of the state, including taxation. But I'm actually much closer than is realized. In-fact, I AM an Anarcho-Capitalist, in that I recognize all the economic theory that they do, if you forget about me having no moral standards that hold me to them. The only difference is that I recognize a fundamental aspect of Anarcho-Capitalist society that follows logically from it's sort of theory but is often ignored by Anarcho-Capitalists because it disagrees with the moral principles that brought them to believe in it in the first place.

I'm talking about the important role of the pirate in society.

Like all aspects of what follows from a free-market, it has not actually disappeared from the economy. It has only been skewed and monopolized by the state. The great tragedy of the state is not merely that is has a monopoly on defense but that it also has a monopoly on piracy; a monopoly on the two most in-competition sectors of the economy. So we see that the modern state is a complete inconsistency with itself, protecting the property and taking it away. Not only does this reduce the efficiency of these sectors by eliminating the competition but it also twists their purposes according to whoever is in control of the state. Defense would be used in a certain way in the free-market, but with a state we can have it used for things like protecting us from homosexuals and Mexicans. Likewise, piracy is used in ways that the free-market would not have it allocated.

Usually, someone with these sort of theories would spend their time railing against the government with complaints about taxation being theft. Now, don't get me wrong, taxation IS theft. But what sets me apart is that I don't see any inherent problems with that. Theft can be productive or destructive depending on how it is used, just as defense is.

Recognizing this has large practical implications. For instance, it would imply that, although an AnCap society would be more productive, a "Libertarian" government which is mostly AnCap would be catastrophic. For these sort of governments are ones that attempt to remove an entire trait of the economy from existence. It can NEVER accomplish this. It may only change it's form. The lack of a private piracy agencies(yes, I just coined that) will be reflected in the masses in the form of mass discontent with wealth inequality, both conscious and sub-conscious, which results in a rise of crime. It is easily demonstratable that the more wealth accumulates in the hands of a few in society, the higher crime will become.

But mostly I just love being able to sound like a Capitalist and a Communist at the same time.

Discuss.

You NEED to check out this book. You'll thank me forever.

http://www.amazon.com...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 2:02:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 12:14:09 AM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
I see so according to you feeding children is a waste of money because they are unproductive
Correct, unless it is an incentive for the productive to do so or an investment for a share of . Neither purpose is supported by the shift from the private sector to taxation in these matters.

I say this because 75% of welfare recipients are children
http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org...

Um... 0 percent of welfare checks go to children. Your source does not contain the number 75. Perhaps you mean 75 percent of welfare recipients have children, but it's unlikely they measure how the money is spent, and your source backs neither claim.

Feeding the retired and unemployed is also a waste because according to you they are unproductive.
Correct, unless it is an incentive for production, which means it is triggered by past production (via insurance or savings rather than taxation).

You are 100% wrong that welfare recipients are unproductive; entry level jobs that require no education are enough to sustain oneself (albeit not comfortably).
The two clauses of that sentence are unrelated.

The only reason you think those people are unproductive is because we have a current economic system that leaves millions without jobs
An economic system that leaves things alone by definition cannot be the cause of anything. Causes are positive.

A year after leaving welfare 75% of welfare recipients were above the poverty line, and living self-sufficiently. So your claim that they are unproductive is like always wrong.
In other words, they are unproductive while on welfare, then off welfare they are productive? By that argument, take them off welfare :P.

http://books.google.com...

Citing a whole book is generally a poor idea for one factoid. Searching the number 75 had no progress.



At 2/17/2012 9:44:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/17/2012 7:54:41 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
Also welfare reduces non violent crime by 11% resulting in 13billion saved yearly
Correlation is not causation.
So you explain why all the data in 12 different cities with different welfare policies, different demographics, all show that welfare reduces crime.
I don't. It is better not to explain then to give unsupported explanations. And the data don't show that.

Also explain why groups who suddenly get welfare see their crime rates drop and why groups leaving welfare see their crime rates increase.
Not a controlled experiment. Also, frictional and long-term effects are different things.

Even if it were true that welfare reduced crime, this would not be sufficient to justify it, or even to show that the crime could not have been reduced more cheaply some other way.

1)Before SS over 50% of seniors could not retire; and lived in extreme poverty.
2)The only analysis of SS compared with private market alternatives determine that SS provides 26% more benefits http://www.epi.org...
50 does not appear in this source.
26 appears in this source twice, neither mentioning such a comparison.
Correlation is not causation.
Extreme poverty has not been defined.
A free market cannot possibly have been empirically analyzed even in an uncontrolled manner as a free market has never existed.
The purpose of production is to consume in general, over the course of one's lifetime, not to retire with more benefits. Even a showing that social security caused people on average to retire with more would not suffice to justify the hardship imposed by payroll taxes in the meantime.

3)Two countries have privatized their SS system and as a result they saw benefits decrease by 13-20% http://tcf.org...
Correlation is not causation.

We're not talking about the economy. We are talking about environmental regulations that removed toxins from the air and water people breath and drink. The health impacts of those toxins were very high and the elimination of them resulted in lowered health costs and increased productivity.
And increased production costs and unknown costs in reduced innovation and time spent filling out paperwork and YES YOU LIAR YOU MADE A CLAIM ABOUT THE ECONOMY SO CLEARLY YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IT.

At 2/17/2012 9:44:39 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Regulations have more costs than can even be imagined, let alone tracked, let alone tracked objectively by the bureaucrats whose jobs depend on these regulations.
Incorrect every analysis of the cost-benefit ratio of all regulations finds that regulations save the economy a net of hundreds of billions of dollars yearly.
Your conclusion of "incorrect" does not follow from the premise, as a cost-benefit analysis is meaningless if most costs are unseen.

I realize you're too stupid to know anything but that doesn't make the rest of us stupid
This is not an argument.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 2:04:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
an investment for a share of future production
fix'd
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 2:11:14 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 12:22:13 AM, Wnope wrote:
You NEED to check out this book. You'll thank me forever.

http://www.amazon.com...

I will! Thank you!
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 11:10:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 7:56:14 PM, Mimshot wrote:
At 2/17/2012 11:32:12 AM, 16kadams wrote:
the schooling should be controlled at a local level.
School is pretty much already controlled primarily at the local level and the direct result of that is that poor neighborhoods get significantly worse education then rich neighborhoods. So I ask why do you want to make it so poor people have less opportunities then rich people?

I agree but the federal agency is worthless and costly. That's my point they enforce no child left behind (stupid bush) and are costly with no benifit.

Most of what dept. of Ed. does is redistributes money from rich states to poor states. That's actually a big role of the Federal Government as a whole. This is what the Eurozone lacks and what prevents one of our states from turning into Greece. The Federal government runs a surplus in some states and a deficit in others (net deficit, yes). Ironically, the states that get the most spending relative to their taxes tend to be the most conservative.

Incidentally, the administrative budget for the dept. of Ed. is only $59M, about the cost of 7 hours of the Iraq war.

Where in the constitution does it sat the Feds can do this? The constitution does say this though:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 10 th amendment

Now as the constitution says nothing of distributation then only the states can quarrel this amongst themselves, not the Feds.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 5:00:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/17/2012 10:51:52 PM, 16kadams wrote:

Also I needed to add this one could argue welfare increases crime.
http://www.cato.org...
1) This source says that in the past 50% increasing in welfare benefits resulted in crime increasing by 117%. The problem with that is that there as never been a 50% increasing in welfare benefits.
2) This source didn't even analyze the effects of welfare instead it finds that poor people with out parents and who live in poor ares commit more crimes then other people, then your source blames that on welfare
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 5:05:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 5:00:47 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/17/2012 10:51:52 PM, 16kadams wrote:

Also I needed to add this one could argue welfare increases crime.
http://www.cato.org...
1) This source says that in the past 50% increasing in welfare benefits resulted in crime increasing by 117%. The problem with that is that there as never been a 50% increasing in welfare benefits.
2) This source didn't even analyze the effects of welfare instead it finds that poor people with out parents and who live in poor ares commit more crimes then other people, then your source blames that on welfare

It actually shows that the welfare benefits make people more likely to fit in these category's.

False the chart shows a 50% increase 1996-2002. More spending = more benefits most likely.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 5:40:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 5:05:43 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/18/2012 5:00:47 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/17/2012 10:51:52 PM, 16kadams wrote:

Also I needed to add this one could argue welfare increases crime.
http://www.cato.org...
1) This source says that in the past 50% increasing in welfare benefits resulted in crime increasing by 117%. The problem with that is that there as never been a 50% increasing in welfare benefits.

It actually shows that the welfare benefits make people more likely to fit in these category's.

False the chart shows a 50% increase 1996-2002. More spending = more benefits most likely.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...
Can you not do math? That is only a 35% increase.
Second your source states the increase occurred before the 90's,
Third the sources you just posted don't show welfare spending (TANF/AFDC). So your second source includes funding that your first source doesn't include.

At 2/18/2012 5:05:43 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 2/18/2012 5:00:47 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
2) This source didn't even analyze the effects of welfare instead it finds that poor people with out parents and who live in poor ares commit more crimes then other people, then your source blames that on welfare
It actually shows that the welfare benefits make people more likely to fit in these category's.
Out of wedlock births started skyrocketing when welfare was being cut; I'm curious for an explanation for that.
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 10:01:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 9:28:41 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Out of wedlock births started skyrocketing when welfare was being cut; I'm curious for an explanation for that.



Look here:

http://marginalcost-jim.blogspot.com...
ROTLF. Your source credits the early 1990's decline in out of wedlock birth on welfare reform which occurred in 1997. It is Impossible for something that happening in 1997 to cause something to happen in 1993.
Second when you just look at the data of your source the biggest increase in out of wedlock births occurred when welfare benefits were rapidly decreasing.
Want to try again?
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 10:02:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 10:01:02 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/18/2012 9:28:41 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Out of wedlock births started skyrocketing when welfare was being cut; I'm curious for an explanation for that.



Look here:

http://marginalcost-jim.blogspot.com...
ROTLF. Your source credits the early 1990's decline in out of wedlock birth on welfare reform which occurred in 1997. It is Impossible for something that happening in 1997 to cause something to happen in 1993.
Second when you just look at the data of your source the biggest increase in out of wedlock births occurred when welfare benefits were rapidly decreasing.
Want to try again?

Did you read my whole post?

If you did, then you are incredibly stupid... the point of my post is to explain WHY out of wedlock births stopped increasing BEFORE welfare reform.. how stupid are you?
President of DDO
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2012 10:58:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/18/2012 10:02:34 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/18/2012 10:01:02 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/18/2012 9:28:41 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
Out of wedlock births started skyrocketing when welfare was being cut; I'm curious for an explanation for that.



Look here:

http://marginalcost-jim.blogspot.com...
ROTLF. Your source credits the early 1990's decline in out of wedlock birth on welfare reform which occurred in 1997. It is Impossible for something that happening in 1997 to cause something to happen in 1993.
Second when you just look at the data of your source the biggest increase in out of wedlock births occurred when welfare benefits were rapidly decreasing.
Want to try again?

Did you read my whole post?

If you did, then you are incredibly stupid... the point of my post is to explain WHY out of wedlock births stopped increasing BEFORE welfare reform.. how stupid are you?
ROTFL so you think claiming that a bill that passed in 1997 and started in 1998 caused out of wedlock births to decrease in 1992.
I would call you a retard but that would be insulting retards