Total Posts:81|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Fighting It Out

malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 2:22:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hayak fails to view the economy from a sovereign perspective and recognize the wonderfully positive effect having all the competition blow itself to smithereens, with the US finishing the job on Japan and their ridiculously fast production of the Mitsubishi motors which powered their P1s, had on the US economy for the greater part of the 20th Century.

Keynes fails to recognize that his theories are tenable, but fundamentally flawed such that Keynesian economics will NEVER "get it right" and thus forces continued tinkering via spending for as long as it is the only theory being used by the economists which advise the government.

Wonder Twin Powers, ACTIVATE!

(Do I sound like a broken record yet. No one's got it right, and no one's got it wrong. These theories endure, or pop up and gain steam, because they both have merit and can be used in such a way as to not render them mutually exclusive.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 12:22:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
wut?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 12:26:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 12:22:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
wut?

7
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2013 10:31:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 2:22:04 AM, malcolmxy wrote:


Hayak fails to view the economy from a sovereign perspective and recognize the wonderfully positive effect having all the competition blow itself to smithereens, with the US finishing the job on Japan and their ridiculously fast production of the Mitsubishi motors which powered their P1s, had on the US economy for the greater part of the 20th Century.

Competition is not the problem, the lack of competition is. Competition keeps the quality high, the price low, and the customer happy; competition drives innovation, because without innovation the company will fail. If monopolies and oligopolies form, they must maintain customer satisfaction or they would lose their supremacy to a smaller company; unless the government steps in to protect the monopolies and oligopolies from failing.
When the government steps in to stimulate a bear market industry, or bail out a failing company, all they are doing is promoting bad business. Government Stimulus goes against the market, in order to artificially prop up an unprofitable industry or company.
Keynes fails to recognize that his theories are tenable, but fundamentally flawed such that Keynesian economics will NEVER "get it right" and thus forces continued tinkering via spending for as long as it is the only theory being used by the economists which advise the government.

Economic Liberalism is the most Pragmatically Optimal economic policy.
Wonder Twin Powers, ACTIVATE!

(Do I sound like a broken record yet. No one's got it right, and no one's got it wrong. These theories endure, or pop up and gain steam, because they both have merit and can be used in such a way as to not render them mutually exclusive.

Again; laissez-faire is the most Pragmatically Optimal economic policy.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2013 10:43:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 2:22:04 AM, malcolmxy wrote:

Hayak fails to view the economy from a sovereign perspective and recognize the wonderfully positive effect having all the competition blow itself to smithereens, with the US finishing the job on Japan and their ridiculously fast production of the Mitsubishi motors which powered their P1s, had on the US economy for the greater part of the 20th Century.

Is economic nationalism supposed to be a good thing?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 1:12:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/20/2013 10:43:49 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/17/2013 2:22:04 AM, malcolmxy wrote:

Hayak fails to view the economy from a sovereign perspective and recognize the wonderfully positive effect having all the competition blow itself to smithereens, with the US finishing the job on Japan and their ridiculously fast production of the Mitsubishi motors which powered their P1s, had on the US economy for the greater part of the 20th Century.

Is economic nationalism supposed to be a good thing?

I'm an American. I care about Americans first.

This isn't to say that I do not care about all people, but since we do not have a world economic counsel which works to stabilize and improve the economy of the entire world, then we're stuck with Nationalism.

My nation is America. My countrymen are American. I care about my county and the people in it, therefore, more than others.

I would necessarily expect the same of all people of all nations.

I didn't design how the world works. I just recognize it.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 1:27:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 1:12:07 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/20/2013 10:43:49 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/17/2013 2:22:04 AM, malcolmxy wrote:

Hayak fails to view the economy from a sovereign perspective and recognize the wonderfully positive effect having all the competition blow itself to smithereens, with the US finishing the job on Japan and their ridiculously fast production of the Mitsubishi motors which powered their P1s, had on the US economy for the greater part of the 20th Century.

Is economic nationalism supposed to be a good thing?

I'm an American. I care about Americans first.

A descriptive account of your prejudice doesn't necessitate normative validity.

This isn't to say that I do not care about all people, but since we do not have a world economic counsel which works to stabilize and improve the economy of the entire world, then we're stuck with Nationalism.

It's not a dichotomy between multi-national economic planning/regulation or national economic planning/regulation. See Hayek.

My nation is America. My countrymen are American. I care about my county and the people in it, therefore, more than others.

I would necessarily expect the same of all people of all nations.

I didn't design how the world works. I just recognize it.

Lol @realism. See my first point.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 2:14:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 1:27:54 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/21/2013 1:12:07 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/20/2013 10:43:49 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/17/2013 2:22:04 AM, malcolmxy wrote:

Hayak fails to view the economy from a sovereign perspective and recognize the wonderfully positive effect having all the competition blow itself to smithereens, with the US finishing the job on Japan and their ridiculously fast production of the Mitsubishi motors which powered their P1s, had on the US economy for the greater part of the 20th Century.

Is economic nationalism supposed to be a good thing?

I'm an American. I care about Americans first.

A descriptive account of your prejudice doesn't necessitate normative validity.

I care about my family more than other people as well. If that makes me a famlyist, then so be it. In my family, we have white sheets, but they normally go on the bed...if not, they're in the closet, so I feel pretty good about all of this.


This isn't to say that I do not care about all people, but since we do not have a world economic counsel which works to stabilize and improve the economy of the entire world, then we're stuck with Nationalism.

It's not a dichotomy between multi-national economic planning/regulation or national economic planning/regulation. See Hayek.

I did. He's wrong.

My nation is America. My countrymen are American. I care about my county and the people in it, therefore, more than others.

I would necessarily expect the same of all people of all nations.

I didn't design how the world works. I just recognize it.

Lol @realism. See my first point.

I did. You're also wrong.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 3:07:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/17/2013 10:31:40 PM, DanT wrote:
At 1/17/2013 2:22:04 AM, malcolmxy wrote:


Hayak fails to view the economy from a sovereign perspective and recognize the wonderfully positive effect having all the competition blow itself to smithereens, with the US finishing the job on Japan and their ridiculously fast production of the Mitsubishi motors which powered their P1s, had on the US economy for the greater part of the 20th Century.

Competition is not the problem, the lack of competition is. Competition keeps the quality high, the price low, and the customer happy; competition drives innovation, because without innovation the company will fail. If monopolies and oligopolies form, they must maintain customer satisfaction or they would lose their supremacy to a smaller company; unless the government steps in to protect the monopolies and oligopolies from failing.

It is literally impossible for a monopoly or an oligopoly to fail unless they are in an industry, or produce a product, which is perfectly elastic (which kinda makes it impossible for them to have become a monopoly legally), or unless they are broken up by a government.

Yes, governments support natural monopolies, but if they didn't, you would not be able to b!tch and moan about them, because their industry wouldn't exist.

NO ONE IS GOING TO PUT UP PHONE LINES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY BECAUSE IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE AND ANYONE WHO TRIED WITHOUT GOV'T SUPPORT WOUD FOLD BEFORE THE FIRST PHONE CALL WAS EVER MADE.

This is the nature of the natural monopoly. Without the monopoly, the industry wouldn't exist...or, in this case, we would have had to wait for cellphones before long distance voice communication beyond shouting range would have been possible.

When the government steps in to stimulate a bear market industry, or bail out a failing company, all they are doing is promoting bad business. Government Stimulus goes against the market, in order to artificially prop up an unprofitable industry or company.

They may also be saving people from starving to death, and since they are responsible for the public's welfare, I'm cool with that.

Also, Boeing almost went out of business in the 70s. Is Boeing a bad business? Seems pretty good to me.

http://gilmanpark.files.wordpress.com...

Everyone needs a helping hand now and again.

At the same time, this is where I agree with Hayak that the whole deal has gotten way out of hand. This is a tool that should be used only after doing so has been examined and deemed to be necessary, and is treated like an investment where a return on the gov't money is expected/has at least some chance of happening.

Instead of the biggest charity, they should be the biggest venture capitalist.

Keynes fails to recognize that his theories are tenable, but fundamentally flawed such that Keynesian economics will NEVER "get it right" and thus forces continued tinkering via spending for as long as it is the only theory being used by the economists which advise the government.

Economic Liberalism is the most Pragmatically Optimal economic policy.

No, just like in your own life, a professionally managed economy is. In this case, it also needs to look out for the welfare of the people in it.

Wonder Twin Powers, ACTIVATE!

(Do I sound like a broken record yet. No one's got it right, and no one's got it wrong. These theories endure, or pop up and gain steam, because they both have merit and can be used in such a way as to not render them mutually exclusive.

Again; laissez-faire is the most Pragmatically Optimal economic policy.

That's like saying farting is the most pragmatically optimal air freshener.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 8:36:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 2:14:56 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/21/2013 1:27:54 AM, Noumena wrote:
A descriptive account of your prejudice doesn't necessitate normative validity.

I care about my family more than other people as well. If that makes me a famlyist, then so be it. In my family, we have white sheets, but they normally go on the bed...if not, they're in the closet, so I feel pretty good about all of this.

Again, "a descriptive account of your prejudice doesn't necessitate normative validity". You can not care about that all you want but when making an actual argument you have to take that into account.

It's not a dichotomy between multi-national economic planning/regulation or national economic planning/regulation. See Hayek.

I did. He's wrong.

Oh okay then. All you did was say Hayek was wrong because he wasn't a nationalist. I said nationalism was shlt. You said "nope cause it's either that or world guvment". I said Hayek's view was an obvious alternative not accounted for in your dichotomy. Just saying you already refuted Hayek is ridiculously circular since there supposedly not being legit alternatives was your entire argument in the first place. You have to actually show what's wrong with them!

Lol @realism. See my first point.

I did. You're also wrong.

Dude, all you're saying is "dis is how stuff works". I obviously understand that. People are dumb, nationalistic, and don't understand basic economics. That doesn't mean they're "right" though. You seem to be equivocating normativity with descriptive accounts of the current state of affairs.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 10:12:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 8:36:42 AM, Noumena wrote:

blah, blah, blah...rhetoric and words I found in my dictionary.

Hayak was wrong because of the utter failure to recognize the effect of Nationalistic, and especially those of the reigning superpower/empire, practices on the world economy, such that he is under the illusion that there is actually such thing as a free market, when there simply isn't one that exists outside of small villages who barter for beads and papayas.

Hayak, like the Economic Libertarians who have co-opted his teachings (much like they also did with Dr. Milgrim's), live in a fantasy world where power struggles of terrible men and horrible ideas don't exist, and everyone will magically play fair within a free market system, and if they don't, the market will necessarily punish them for their abhorrent, anti-free market behavior, except there's one problem with that idea - IT'S NEVER F*CKING HAPPENED BEFORE.

There...better?

Give me an argument worth countering with something substantive an I will, but give me your bullsh!t, "racist, nationalist, blah blah blah" rhetoric and all you're gonna get is that same sh!t shoved back in your face.

I'm an economic historian (as in, I have a diploma with those two majors listed across it...though, that was 17 years ago, and I burned my diploma, so I should say that I could order a diploma with those words on it which would be authentic should I choose to do so), so I know both how economics is supposed to work, and how the world actually works, and I apply both to my criticisms of those who espouse economic theory.

I've yet to be proven wrong on any matter relating to economics where I've been bold enough to relay that criticism or espouse my own theory, but if you think you're the person to do it with your ridiculous lessons in logic, please, explain to me how I am incorrect in anything I've said.

You're gonna run into an issue when you realize I am every bit your intellectual equal (though I don't put it on display as readily as you do) and I have much more experience with the topic than you do.

But, you read a paper by von Mises, so please, explain to me how I am wrong in this instance...
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 10:31:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 10:12:11 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/21/2013 8:36:42 AM, Noumena wrote:

blah, blah, blah...rhetoric and words I found in my dictionary.

Hayak was wrong because of the utter failure to recognize the effect of Nationalistic, and especially those of the reigning superpower/empire, practices on the world economy, such that he is under the illusion that there is actually such thing as a free market, when there simply isn't one that exists outside of small villages who barter for beads and papayas.

1) Free markets in their entirety need not exist to be defended as an ideal.
2) One can recognize the effects of economic nationalism without defending it. That's pretty much what most libertarians do. Meaning we get that economic nationalism exists as a reality. But again, you're making the same mistake of trying to base your normative beliefs on a co-opting of existing institutions whereas libertarians don't give them special treatment.

Hayak, like the Economic Libertarians who have co-opted his teachings (much like they also did with Dr. Milgrim's), live in a fantasy world where power struggles of terrible men and horrible ideas don't exist, and everyone will magically play fair within a free market system, and if they don't, the market will necessarily punish them for their abhorrent, anti-free market behavior, except there's one problem with that idea - IT'S NEVER F*CKING HAPPENED BEFORE.

1) Hayek as a minarchist defended States as legitimately defending private property, and "setting the rules" allowing markets to operate. So it's myopic to say that he defended markets alone to protect people.
2) Libertarians don't purport an optimistic role of human nature in how society operates. People can be shltty, we get that. In fact, that's a main argument against giving a single institution such control over how people interact since institutions are necessarily made up of just that....people. See public choice.

There...better?

Give me an argument worth countering with something substantive an I will, but give me your bullsh!t, "racist, nationalist, blah blah blah" rhetoric and all you're gonna get is that same sh!t shoved back in your face.

I'm an economic historian (as in, I have a diploma with those two majors listed across it...though, that was 17 years ago, and I burned my diploma, so I should say that I could order a diploma with those words on it which would be authentic should I choose to do so), so I know both how economics is supposed to work, and how the world actually works, and I apply both to my criticisms of those who espouse economic theory.

I've yet to be proven wrong on any matter relating to economics where I've been bold enough to relay that criticism or espouse my own theory, but if you think you're the person to do it with your ridiculous lessons in logic, please, explain to me how I am incorrect in anything I've said.

You're gonna run into an issue when you realize I am every bit your intellectual equal (though I don't put it on display as readily as you do) and I have much more experience with the topic than you do.

But, you read a paper by von Mises, so please, explain to me how I am wrong in this instance...

1) Arguments from credentials/authority don't work in argumentation.
2) Don't think of me as trying to put my "intellect" on display as a means of counteracting your arguments. I don't think I've done that at all. You're just making very basic mistakes. Sorry if I come off that way.
3) I'm not trying to make this personal so the personal attacks are unwarranted.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 10:36:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
As far as my Nationalism goes, as I said, I'm an American. I'm also a patriot. Patriot, in its earliest use, meant son of the fatherland (no Germany references, please...they stole the swastika as well. Doesn't mean every Buddhist deserves to get their @ss kicked on a daily basis).

Therefore, all TRUE American Patriots (not flag waving @ssholes with a pickup truck, gun rack and no sense of civic duty or the law) are my brothers and sisters (the world was misogynistic back then...don't blame me for it).

I love my siblings (went with family for a reason on the counter...). Is this not true of everyone?

Here's what makes America great and me proud to be American - it is one of the few nations on Earth where if I say that, it has no ties to genetics.

Germanic people have genetic traits. Mediterranean people have genetic traits. These traits are symbolic of what you call race and they are completely random when it comes to the people of the U.S.A., or that is to say that there aren't any US genetic traits (though a predisposition to obesity is quickly becoming one).

So yeah. I'm American, I'm proud of it (despite my government) and like every other person in every other country (LIKE AUSTRIA WHERE ONE IS REQUIRED TO PLEDGE AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE AT AGE 18), I care about my countrymen more than those elsewhere...except here, that care is not race/genetics based.

I guess that makes my question to you, if you're American, why the hell aren't you proud of it, and why don't you care about your countrymen more than those elsewhere?

In America, the country IS the people, and not the land on which it is situated. If we'd all wake up and realize it, maybe we could do something about the economic mess we're in (but seriously...stick too whatever it is you do and leave this part to the experts, 'kay?)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 10:48:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 10:31:17 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/21/2013 10:12:11 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/21/2013 8:36:42 AM, Noumena wrote:

blah, blah, blah...rhetoric and words I found in my dictionary.

Hayak was wrong because of the utter failure to recognize the effect of Nationalistic, and especially those of the reigning superpower/empire, practices on the world economy, such that he is under the illusion that there is actually such thing as a free market, when there simply isn't one that exists outside of small villages who barter for beads and papayas.

1) Free markets in their entirety need not exist to be defended as an ideal.
2) One can recognize the effects of economic nationalism without defending it. That's pretty much what most libertarians do. Meaning we get that economic nationalism exists as a reality. But again, you're making the same mistake of trying to base your normative beliefs on a co-opting of existing institutions whereas libertarians don't give them special treatment.

1) Neither does Nirvana, but since we've never been there, and are never gonna be there until, perhaps, death, building a system as if it exists right here, right now is stupid and arguing for it is asinine.
2) No, Libertarians give institutions which now have more power than governments and do more damage than any government ever thought to that kind of preference.

Mitsubishi, in the VERY FREE, uncontrolled by any government, deep sea, is purposefully fishing the blue fin tuna into extinction, because they have a series of warehouses that are at a near 0 degrees kelvin and they will soon be the only supplier of blue fin tuna in the world (and, if you know anything about the blue fin tuna market in Japan, you know how lucrative this monopoly will be).\

EVERY actor in a free market dreams of a monopoly, and once one of them has the power to gain one, they will. THEY DO IT EVERY TIME. Free Markets only increase choice in their infancy, because EVERY free, unregulated market will end in monopoly without the power of the state to combat it.

The libertarian argument is purely theoretical, because within theory is the only place it can possibly work. Espousing it as an ideal, since the ideal doesn't take the inherently wicked nature of man when mixed with power, is stupid and without merit.


Hayak, like the Economic Libertarians who have co-opted his teachings (much like they also did with Dr. Milgrim's), live in a fantasy world where power struggles of terrible men and horrible ideas don't exist, and everyone will magically play fair within a free market system, and if they don't, the market will necessarily punish them for their abhorrent, anti-free market behavior, except there's one problem with that idea - IT'S NEVER F*CKING HAPPENED BEFORE.

1) Hayek as a minarchist defended States as legitimately defending private property, and "setting the rules" allowing markets to operate. So it's myopic to say that he defended markets alone to protect people.

OK...I didn't say that, and my eyes work fine, Webster.

2) Libertarians don't purport an optimistic role of human nature in how society operates. People can be shltty, we get that. In fact, that's a main argument against giving a single institution such control over how people interact since institutions are necessarily made up of just that....people. See public choice.

So instead of a government with a legislative body or parliament, let's place this control in an amorphous multinational entity which is subject to no laws.

F*CKING BRILLIANT, EINSTEIN. E=MCWE'REF*CKED.


There...better?

Give me an argument worth countering with something substantive an I will, but give me your bullsh!t, "racist, nationalist, blah blah blah" rhetoric and all you're gonna get is that same sh!t shoved back in your face.

I'm an economic historian (as in, I have a diploma with those two majors listed across it...though, that was 17 years ago, and I burned my diploma, so I should say that I could order a diploma with those words on it which would be authentic should I choose to do so), so I know both how economics is supposed to work, and how the world actually works, and I apply both to my criticisms of those who espouse economic theory.

I've yet to be proven wrong on any matter relating to economics where I've been bold enough to relay that criticism or espouse my own theory, but if you think you're the person to do it with your ridiculous lessons in logic, please, explain to me how I am incorrect in anything I've said.

You're gonna run into an issue when you realize I am every bit your intellectual equal (though I don't put it on display as readily as you do) and I have much more experience with the topic than you do.

But, you read a paper by von Mises, so please, explain to me how I am wrong in this instance...

1) Arguments from credentials/authority don't work in argumentation.

Just layin my bona fides out there before you decided, ignorantly and arrogantly, that you knew more than I did.

2) Don't think of me as trying to put my "intellect" on display as a means of counteracting your arguments. I don't think I've done that at all. You're just making very basic mistakes. Sorry if I come off that way.

You're an intellectual snob with a moderately interesting vocabulary, a decently varied education in theory, and obviously no practical experience with which to back it up.

Putting your intellect on display is all you got, man.

3) I'm not trying to make this personal so the personal attacks are unwarranted.

Sure, but they're fun, and it's the internet. What do you want?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 10:57:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
A fundamental tenet of economics is that there is but one correct answer to this question -

How much do you want?

Care to take a shot at the answer?

If you answer it correctly, and then match that answer against 7 Billion people and the scarcity of resources on the planet Earth as well as our inability to colonize interstellar planets just yet, it should give you some insight into why total free market economics is completely ridiculous and untenable.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 11:08:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 10:48:35 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/21/2013 10:31:17 AM, Noumena wrote:
1) Free markets in their entirety need not exist to be defended as an ideal.
2) One can recognize the effects of economic nationalism without defending it. That's pretty much what most libertarians do. Meaning we get that economic nationalism exists as a reality. But again, you're making the same mistake of trying to base your normative beliefs on a co-opting of existing institutions whereas libertarians don't give them special treatment.

1) Neither does Nirvana, but since we've never been there, and are never gonna be there until, perhaps, death, building a system as if it exists right here, right now is stupid and arguing for it is asinine.

The way I see it, it's sort of like Plato's Republic. He admitted it was idealistic but stressed that we align our practical considerations towards it as an ideal. Throwing away libertarian theory because it's not directly attainable totally ignores all normative considerations (which you've still not brought up).

2) No, Libertarians give institutions which now have more power than governments and do more damage than any government ever thought to that kind of preference.

Mitsubishi, in the VERY FREE, uncontrolled by any government, deep sea, is purposefully fishing the blue fin tuna into extinction, because they have a series of warehouses that are at a near 0 degrees kelvin and they will soon be the only supplier of blue fin tuna in the world (and, if you know anything about the blue fin tuna market in Japan, you know how lucrative this monopoly will be).\

See seasteading. Overfishing is an obvious example of why social property doesn't work. The answer isn't regulation (though I can see the reasoning in the absence of libertarian alternatives), it's propertarianism applied to the situation.

EVERY actor in a free market dreams of a monopoly, and once one of them has the power to gain one, they will. THEY DO IT EVERY TIME. Free Markets only increase choice in their infancy, because EVERY free, unregulated market will end in monopoly without the power of the state to combat it.

That's not really an argument, more along the lines of you just stating your position.

The libertarian argument is purely theoretical, because within theory is the only place it can possibly work. Espousing it as an ideal, since the ideal doesn't take the inherently wicked nature of man when mixed with power, is stupid and without merit.

You didn't respond to the public choice comment. If people are inherently bad/power hungry, then why does giving a single institution such power magically solve the problem?

1) Hayek as a minarchist defended States as legitimately defending private property, and "setting the rules" allowing markets to operate. So it's myopic to say that he defended markets alone to protect people.

OK...I didn't say that, and my eyes work fine, Webster.

You implied it. You're saying that markets are sh'tty, therefore government. Except Hayek wasn't an anarchist. He defended the State in (what he thought were) its legitimate roles i.e., protection of people and property.

2) Libertarians don't purport an optimistic role of human nature in how society operates. People can be shltty, we get that. In fact, that's a main argument against giving a single institution such control over how people interact since institutions are necessarily made up of just that....people. See public choice.

So instead of a government with a legislative body or parliament, let's place this control in an amorphous multinational entity which is subject to no laws.

F*CKING BRILLIANT, EINSTEIN. E=MCWE'REF*CKED.

Not what I said and please stay civil. I'm trying my best to at least. See left wing market anarchism and theorists like Sheldom Richman, Gary Chartier, Roderick Long, Brad Spangler, etc. They understand that States more than often work in the hands of corporations rather than against them. Public choice theory backs this up. See, States don't have some separate set of institutional incentives. They're just the same as you and me. More than that though, large scale democracy impedes socially beneficial policy, given that special interests have more resources to affect elections than any single citizen. It's a classic public goods problem. Except that instead of it being something like national defense or roads (lol), it's socially optimal policy. States aren't the solution because they're part of the problem.

1) Arguments from credentials/authority don't work in argumentation.

Just layin my bona fides out there before you decided, ignorantly and arrogantly, that you knew more than I did.

I decided that based on your argument and your "bona fides" doesn't change that.

2) Don't think of me as trying to put my "intellect" on display as a means of counteracting your arguments. I don't think I've done that at all. You're just making very basic mistakes. Sorry if I come off that way.

You're an intellectual snob with a moderately interesting vocabulary, a decently varied education in theory, and obviously no practical experience with which to back it up.

Okay. I'm really not trying to get hostile here.

Putting your intellect on display is all you got, man.

3) I'm not trying to make this personal so the personal attacks are unwarranted.

Sure, but they're fun, and it's the internet. What do you want?

Rational and civil discourse but okay.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 11:11:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 10:36:13 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
As far as my Nationalism goes, as I said, I'm an American. I'm also a patriot. Patriot, in its earliest use, meant son of the fatherland (no Germany references, please...they stole the swastika as well. Doesn't mean every Buddhist deserves to get their @ss kicked on a daily basis).

Therefore, all TRUE American Patriots (not flag waving @ssholes with a pickup truck, gun rack and no sense of civic duty or the law) are my brothers and sisters (the world was misogynistic back then...don't blame me for it).

I love my siblings (went with family for a reason on the counter...). Is this not true of everyone?

Here's what makes America great and me proud to be American - it is one of the few nations on Earth where if I say that, it has no ties to genetics.

Germanic people have genetic traits. Mediterranean people have genetic traits. These traits are symbolic of what you call race and they are completely random when it comes to the people of the U.S.A., or that is to say that there aren't any US genetic traits (though a predisposition to obesity is quickly becoming one).

So yeah. I'm American, I'm proud of it (despite my government) and like every other person in every other country (LIKE AUSTRIA WHERE ONE IS REQUIRED TO PLEDGE AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE AT AGE 18), I care about my countrymen more than those elsewhere...except here, that care is not race/genetics based.

I guess that makes my question to you, if you're American, why the hell aren't you proud of it, and why don't you care about your countrymen more than those elsewhere?

In America, the country IS the people, and not the land on which it is situated. If we'd all wake up and realize it, maybe we could do something about the economic mess we're in (but seriously...stick too whatever it is you do and leave this part to the experts, 'kay?)

I don't see any difference between this and racism honestly. You're simply substituting genetics as a reason for favoritism with geographical location. Why should I care about some dude in Wyoming who I've never going to meet or be affected by more than an Afghan shepard?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 11:12:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 10:57:36 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
A fundamental tenet of economics is that there is but one correct answer to this question -

How much do you want?

Care to take a shot at the answer?

If you answer it correctly, and then match that answer against 7 Billion people and the scarcity of resources on the planet Earth as well as our inability to colonize interstellar planets just yet, it should give you some insight into why total free market economics is completely ridiculous and untenable.

Free markets are generally positive-sum, politics on the other hand is generally zero-sum. So your argument undermines itself.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 11:15:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 11:11:10 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/21/2013 10:36:13 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
As far as my Nationalism goes, as I said, I'm an American. I'm also a patriot. Patriot, in its earliest use, meant son of the fatherland (no Germany references, please...they stole the swastika as well. Doesn't mean every Buddhist deserves to get their @ss kicked on a daily basis).

Therefore, all TRUE American Patriots (not flag waving @ssholes with a pickup truck, gun rack and no sense of civic duty or the law) are my brothers and sisters (the world was misogynistic back then...don't blame me for it).

I love my siblings (went with family for a reason on the counter...). Is this not true of everyone?

Here's what makes America great and me proud to be American - it is one of the few nations on Earth where if I say that, it has no ties to genetics.

Germanic people have genetic traits. Mediterranean people have genetic traits. These traits are symbolic of what you call race and they are completely random when it comes to the people of the U.S.A., or that is to say that there aren't any US genetic traits (though a predisposition to obesity is quickly becoming one).

So yeah. I'm American, I'm proud of it (despite my government) and like every other person in every other country (LIKE AUSTRIA WHERE ONE IS REQUIRED TO PLEDGE AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE AT AGE 18), I care about my countrymen more than those elsewhere...except here, that care is not race/genetics based.

I guess that makes my question to you, if you're American, why the hell aren't you proud of it, and why don't you care about your countrymen more than those elsewhere?

In America, the country IS the people, and not the land on which it is situated. If we'd all wake up and realize it, maybe we could do something about the economic mess we're in (but seriously...stick too whatever it is you do and leave this part to the experts, 'kay?)

I don't see any difference between this and racism honestly. You're simply substituting genetics as a reason for favoritism with geographical location. Why should I care about some dude in Wyoming who I've never going to meet or be affected by more than an Afghan shepard?

Geographic location only when mixed with an equal understanding of what America is, an equal sense of civic duty and respect for the law, and a dearth of ownership of pickup trucks with gun racks.

It's a multifaceted criteria, but ignore all the rest if you feel the need to continue to support your stupid argument. Cool by me.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 11:18:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 11:15:52 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/21/2013 11:11:10 AM, Noumena wrote:

I don't see any difference between this and racism honestly. You're simply substituting genetics as a reason for favoritism with geographical location. Why should I care about some dude in Wyoming who I've never going to meet or be affected by more than an Afghan shepard?

Geographic location only when mixed with an equal understanding of what America is, an equal sense of civic duty and respect for the law, and a dearth of ownership of pickup trucks with gun racks.

It's a multifaceted criteria, but ignore all the rest if you feel the need to continue to support your stupid argument. Cool by me.

You still at some point have to rely solely on geographical location. I doubt you would extend the same sympathies to someone in Peru who holds similar civic values as you. If you wouldn't, you're being inconsistent in your extra-national criterion. If you would, than nationalism qua geographical location clearly isn't in itself enough, thus removing any need for the term "nationalism" at all.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 11:31:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 11:08:45 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/21/2013 10:48:35 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/21/2013 10:31:17 AM, Noumena wrote:
1) Free markets in their entirety need not exist to be defended as an ideal.
2) One can recognize the effects of economic nationalism without defending it. That's pretty much what most libertarians do. Meaning we get that economic nationalism exists as a reality. But again, you're making the same mistake of trying to base your normative beliefs on a co-opting of existing institutions whereas libertarians don't give them special treatment.

1) Neither does Nirvana, but since we've never been there, and are never gonna be there until, perhaps, death, building a system as if it exists right here, right now is stupid and arguing for it is asinine.

The way I see it, it's sort of like Plato's Republic. He admitted it was idealistic but stressed that we align our practical considerations towards it as an ideal. Throwing away libertarian theory because it's not directly attainable totally ignores all normative considerations (which you've still not brought up).

A. I wouldn't know. I'm waiting for the movie to come out.
B. Look at my original post. Does that read to you as if I want to completely abandon everything relating to either Hayak or Libertarianism? I'm Libertarian Socialist by political affiliation. And, yes, I realize this is somewhat contradictory, but only when you are coming from the perspective of today's economic libertarian, and not the civil libertarians of the movement's roots.

I think there is much to be used from within economic libertarianism...just not all of it, and just not for every application. I wasn't trying to throw away libertarianism. You were espousing libertarian totalitarianism, and yeah, I disagree with that in general as well as in principle and I will bang the gong all day long and shout as to why that is stupid.


2) No, Libertarians give institutions which now have more power than governments and do more damage than any government ever thought to that kind of preference.

Mitsubishi, in the VERY FREE, uncontrolled by any government, deep sea, is purposefully fishing the blue fin tuna into extinction, because they have a series of warehouses that are at a near 0 degrees kelvin and they will soon be the only supplier of blue fin tuna in the world (and, if you know anything about the blue fin tuna market in Japan, you know how lucrative this monopoly will be).\

See seasteading. Overfishing is an obvious example of why social property doesn't work. The answer isn't regulation (though I can see the reasoning in the absence of libertarian alternatives), it's propertarianism applied to the situation.

Who is going to take ownership of breathable atmosphere, because we've now seen what can happen with a combination of poor planning and global warming as the sahara expands and the entire continent of Africa is about to starve to death in a Malthusian level event that we may see within our lifetimes.

Next comes potable water, and after that comes breathable air.

How will you partition ownership of the atmosphere?


EVERY actor in a free market dreams of a monopoly, and once one of them has the power to gain one, they will. THEY DO IT EVERY TIME. Free Markets only increase choice in their infancy, because EVERY free, unregulated market will end in monopoly without the power of the state to combat it.

That's not really an argument, more along the lines of you just stating your position.

No, it's an argument. If you look into the fundamental ways markets work, as well as the fundamental nature of man, it's really not hard to see why a regulated market, unless the product/service is nearly perfectly elastic, is necessary.

I'm 100% for free markets in the commodities markets...free market away on those. But, not every market is designed to be completely free, and some are actually handled better by a government. Each market needs to be examined to determined how it would be best handled


The libertarian argument is purely theoretical, because within theory is the only place it can possibly work. Espousing it as an ideal, since the ideal doesn't take the inherently wicked nature of man when mixed with power, is stupid and without merit.

You didn't respond to the public choice comment. If people are inherently bad/power hungry, then why does giving a single institution such power magically solve the problem?

Because a government isn't controlled (typically) by a single person. Therefore, there are inherently better than the corporate monopolies that will replace them as the power entities in the world.


1) Hayek as a minarchist defended States as legitimately defending private property, and "setting the rules" allowing markets to operate. So it's myopic to say that he defended markets alone to protect people.

OK...I didn't say that, and my eyes work fine, Webster.

You implied it. You're saying that markets are sh'tty, therefore government. Except Hayek wasn't an anarchist. He defended the State in (what he thought were) its legitimate roles i.e., protection of people and property.

NO, again, the original post - I like markets just fine when they work. You believe they are useful in all applications. Are you an absolutist in any other part of life? How's that working out for you?


2) Libertarians don't purport an optimistic role of human nature in how society operates. People can be shltty, we get that. In fact, that's a main argument against giving a single institution such control over how people interact since institutions are necessarily made up of just that....people. See public choice.

So instead of a government with a legislative body or parliament, let's place this control in an amorphous multinational entity which is subject to no laws.

F*CKING BRILLIANT, EINSTEIN. E=MCWE'REF*CKED.

Not what I said and please stay civil. I'm trying my best to at least. See left wing market anarchism and theorists like Sheldom Richman, Gary Chartier, Roderick Long, Brad Spangler, etc. They understand that States more than often work in the hands of corporations rather than against them...

Yes, as my man Jack said, "this town needs an enema..."

1) Arguments from credentials/authority don't work in argumentation.

Just layin my bona fides out there before you decided, ignorantly and arrogantly, that you knew more than I did.

I decided that based on your argument and your "bona fides" doesn't change that.

You hadn't properly divined my argument, so I have no idea how you did this, but whatever.


2) Don't think of me as trying to put my "intellect" on display as a means of counteracting your arguments. I don't think I've done that at all. You're just making very basic mistakes. Sorry if I come off that way.

You're an intellectual snob with a moderately interesting vocabulary, a decently varied education in theory, and obviously no practical experience with which to back it up.

Okay. I'm really not trying to get hostile here.

I like to pop off clever insults. I'm not getting hostile either. Take it easy, p*ssy.


Putting your intellect on display is all you got, man.

3) I'm not trying to make this personal so the personal attacks are unwarranted.

Sure, but they're fun, and it's the internet. What do you want?

Rational and civil discourse but okay.

When has that ever been a part of debate? Not in the history of it that I know.

You don't like Christopher Hitchens, Mr. Libertarian? Civil, was he? He usually wasn't sober enough to keep his bodily functions civil, let alone his tongue, but he was one hell of a debater.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 11:32:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 11:12:05 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/21/2013 10:57:36 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
A fundamental tenet of economics is that there is but one correct answer to this question -

How much do you want?

Care to take a shot at the answer?

If you answer it correctly, and then match that answer against 7 Billion people and the scarcity of resources on the planet Earth as well as our inability to colonize interstellar planets just yet, it should give you some insight into why total free market economics is completely ridiculous and untenable.

Free markets are generally positive-sum, politics on the other hand is generally zero-sum. So your argument undermines itself.

Just answer the f*cking question, genius.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 11:41:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 11:18:50 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/21/2013 11:15:52 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/21/2013 11:11:10 AM, Noumena wrote:

I don't see any difference between this and racism honestly. You're simply substituting genetics as a reason for favoritism with geographical location. Why should I care about some dude in Wyoming who I've never going to meet or be affected by more than an Afghan shepard?

Geographic location only when mixed with an equal understanding of what America is, an equal sense of civic duty and respect for the law, and a dearth of ownership of pickup trucks with gun racks.

It's a multifaceted criteria, but ignore all the rest if you feel the need to continue to support your stupid argument. Cool by me.

You still at some point have to rely solely on geographical location. I doubt you would extend the same sympathies to someone in Peru who holds similar civic values as you. If you wouldn't, you're being inconsistent in your extra-national criterion. If you would, than nationalism qua geographical location clearly isn't in itself enough, thus removing any need for the term "nationalism" at all.

Are you married? You had to rely on geographic location to meet your wife as well.

Geographic location dictates what I eat, the esoteric cultural references I understand, the color of my hair and skin (in direct sunlight, one gets lighter and the other gets much darker, but in the direct cloudlight of Sea-town, both morph into the same color).

Yeah...Geography matters. It shapes everything about a person, including their friends and loved ones.

I am located in America, so I love Americans more than others I've never met, and even should I be lucky enough meet them, will likely not understand them on the level I do Americans.

How is this a confusing concept to you. You feel the same way, but I'm honest enough to admit it.

That is the sum total of the difference between you and I in this matter.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 11:49:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 11:41:26 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/21/2013 11:18:50 AM, Noumena wrote:

You still at some point have to rely solely on geographical location. I doubt you would extend the same sympathies to someone in Peru who holds similar civic values as you. If you wouldn't, you're being inconsistent in your extra-national criterion. If you would, than nationalism qua geographical location clearly isn't in itself enough, thus removing any need for the term "nationalism" at all.

Are you married? You had to rely on geographic location to meet your wife as well.

Geographic location dictates what I eat, the esoteric cultural references I understand, the color of my hair and skin (in direct sunlight, one gets lighter and the other gets much darker, but in the direct cloudlight of Sea-town, both morph into the same color).

Yeah...Geography matters. It shapes everything about a person, including their friends and loved ones.

I am located in America, so I love Americans more than others I've never met, and even should I be lucky enough meet them, will likely not understand them on the level I do Americans.

How is this a confusing concept to you. You feel the same way, but I'm honest enough to admit it.

That is the sum total of the difference between you and I in this matter.

The difference is that you ascribe normative superiority to people located near you whereas I recognize that there's no difference other than my own subjective inclinations.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 11:50:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 11:32:22 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/21/2013 11:12:05 AM, Noumena wrote:

Free markets are generally positive-sum, politics on the other hand is generally zero-sum. So your argument undermines itself.

Just answer the f*cking question, genius.

The question itself is flawed and counters against your argument so what's the point?
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 11:57:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 11:31:38 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/21/2013 11:08:45 AM, Noumena wrote:
The way I see it, it's sort of like Plato's Republic. He admitted it was idealistic but stressed that we align our practical considerations towards it as an ideal. Throwing away libertarian theory because it's not directly attainable totally ignores all normative considerations (which you've still not brought up).

A. I wouldn't know. I'm waiting for the movie to come out.
B. Look at my original post. Does that read to you as if I want to completely abandon everything relating to either Hayak or Libertarianism? I'm Libertarian Socialist by political affiliation. And, yes, I realize this is somewhat contradictory, but only when you are coming from the perspective of today's economic libertarian, and not the civil libertarians of the movement's roots.

No it's not contradictory. I'm partial to it myself.

I think there is much to be used from within economic libertarianism...just not all of it, and just not for every application. I wasn't trying to throw away libertarianism. You were espousing libertarian totalitarianism, and yeah, I disagree with that in general as well as in principle and I will bang the gong all day long and shout as to why that is stupid.

I'm merely supporting markets against your own (imo) flawed arguments.

See seasteading. Overfishing is an obvious example of why social property doesn't work. The answer isn't regulation (though I can see the reasoning in the absence of libertarian alternatives), it's propertarianism applied to the situation.

Who is going to take ownership of breathable atmosphere, because we've now seen what can happen with a combination of poor planning and global warming as the sahara expands and the entire continent of Africa is about to starve to death in a Malthusian level event that we may see within our lifetimes.

1) Can I take it that you conceded the overfishing point?
2) Perhaps self-autonomous libsoci communities? Like I said I'm partial to the idea. I just don't think States are the answer.

Next comes potable water, and after that comes breathable air.

How will you partition ownership of the atmosphere?

I never suggested that.

That's not really an argument, more along the lines of you just stating your position.

No, it's an argument. If you look into the fundamental ways markets work, as well as the fundamental nature of man, it's really not hard to see why a regulated market, unless the product/service is nearly perfectly elastic, is necessary.

I'm 100% for free markets in the commodities markets...free market away on those. But, not every market is designed to be completely free, and some are actually handled better by a government. Each market needs to be examined to determined how it would be best handled

I agree with your methodology, just not with your conclusion then.


The libertarian argument is purely theoretical, because within theory is the only place it can possibly work. Espousing it as an ideal, since the ideal doesn't take the inherently wicked nature of man when mixed with power, is stupid and without merit.

You didn't respond to the public choice comment. If people are inherently bad/power hungry, then why does giving a single institution such power magically solve the problem?

Because a government isn't controlled (typically) by a single person. Therefore, there are inherently better than the corporate monopolies that will replace them as the power entities in the world.

I don't think that's the case. See my point about corporations being propped up at current *by* governments. Furthermore if you're a libertarian socialist you clearly understand that it's not a dichotomy between markets and States.

You implied it. You're saying that markets are sh'tty, therefore government. Except Hayek wasn't an anarchist. He defended the State in (what he thought were) its legitimate roles i.e., protection of people and property.

NO, again, the original post - I like markets just fine when they work. You believe they are useful in all applications. Are you an absolutist in any other part of life? How's that working out for you?

Political application of philosophy =/= personal application.

Not what I said and please stay civil. I'm trying my best to at least. See left wing market anarchism and theorists like Sheldom Richman, Gary Chartier, Roderick Long, Brad Spangler, etc. They understand that States more than often work in the hands of corporations rather than against them...

Yes, as my man Jack said, "this town needs an enema..."

Wut.

Rational and civil discourse but okay.

When has that ever been a part of debate? Not in the history of it that I know.

You don't like Christopher Hitchens, Mr. Libertarian? Civil, was he? He usually wasn't sober enough to keep his bodily functions civil, le

I don't think he was really all that good of a debater. His skill clearly came from writing, not oratory.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 12:20:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 11:50:27 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/21/2013 11:32:22 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/21/2013 11:12:05 AM, Noumena wrote:

Free markets are generally positive-sum, politics on the other hand is generally zero-sum. So your argument undermines itself.

Just answer the f*cking question, genius.

The question itself is flawed and counters against your argument so what's the point?

If you weren't such a stubborn little prick, you'd know it, but since you continue on as if you understand, or know the answer, without using google, we are embroiled in the exact game of cat and mouse that you said you prefer to bypass in favor of civil discourse.

Let me use this opportunity to point out to you that you enjoy contemptuous, pseudo-intellectual discourse over actual useful, civil discourse, just in case you ever scold me for my tongue in the future.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 12:24:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 12:01:53 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Those videos are awesome.

Word. I think they should be required viewing in High School...more in 18 minutes than I got in an entire year of playing some BS Widget computer simulation and buying as many fake shares of The Boston Celtics as I could for the investment competition.

Though, the widget game did teach me one good lesson - if ya wanna win, don't try to beat the competition in the race. Destroy them before the race is over.

Every time we played that game, I won, because I wasn't trying to be better than the competition. I was trying to destroy them, one by one until I was the only one left, and it worked every time.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2013 12:25:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/21/2013 12:20:30 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 1/21/2013 11:50:27 AM, Noumena wrote:
At 1/21/2013 11:32:22 AM, malcolmxy wrote:

Just answer the f*cking question, genius.

The question itself is flawed and counters against your argument so what's the point?

If you weren't such a stubborn little prick, you'd know it, but since you continue on as if you understand, or know the answer, without using google, we are embroiled in the exact game of cat and mouse that you said you prefer to bypass in favor of civil discourse.

Let me use this opportunity to point out to you that you enjoy contemptuous, pseudo-intellectual discourse over actual useful, civil discourse, just in case you ever scold me for my tongue in the future.

K.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.