Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Libertarianism = W(IM)WF

malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 9:39:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The World Intellectual Midget Wrestling Foundation (as it applies to economics).

(also - WallStreetAthiest is now SesameStreetAthiest)

Discuss...
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
2/16/2013 9:47:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I mean, I keep hearing how smart and right you are, and I keep hearing your fallacious theory, but as soon as y stand it up to reality, it crumbles and is exposed as the bllsh!t propaganda that it is.

Here's a Libertarian principle I agree with - airline travel would eventually become safe with the absence of regulation.

Yes, Quantus would rule the skies at a certain point, but here's the issue that Libertarians can't seem to solve - what happens in the interim?

What happens is that the industry falls apart in a cost cutting, price war where safety is the 1st thing which is cut (because no one sees the mechanic or pilot doing a pre-flight check of all the systems except the pilot and the mechanic).

By the time the dust clears, the industry would be in ruins and take Boeing and Airbus right along with it, and the whole thing would have to start up again from scratch, setting air travel back 50 years at the MINIMUM.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 6:36:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
It would be preferable for it to be realized that your critiques of Libertarianism, regardless of their validity, only address Right-Libertarianism.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 6:51:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
How would airlines suddenly become safer at all without regulation? As libertarians and anarchists enjoy reminding us (in my experience), all it does is shift the responsibility from the government to the corporation. Doesn't change anything for those trying to bomb the airplanes...
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 7:11:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 6:51:18 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
How would airlines suddenly become safer at all without regulation? As libertarians and anarchists enjoy reminding us (in my experience), all it does is shift the responsibility from the government to the corporation. Doesn't change anything for those trying to bomb the airplanes...

Yes, because the 1 in 14 million shot you have at dying in an airplane related terrorist attack is really gonna be the problem once corporations have the "responsibility shifted" to them.

If you look at the psychological profile of a corporation, they're sociopaths...it doesn't exactly give me a confident feeling with them at the helm of the industry regulatory functions.
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
2/16/2013 7:12:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 6:36:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It would be preferable for it to be realized that your critiques of Libertarianism, regardless of their validity, only address Right-Libertarianism.

Um, yeah...they're the stupid ones. Where you been? (I believe in civil liberties, too, freedo...)

HAN SHOT FIRST.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 7:19:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 7:12:27 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/16/2013 6:36:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It would be preferable for it to be realized that your critiques of Libertarianism, regardless of their validity, only address Right-Libertarianism.

Um, yeah...they're the stupid ones. Where you been? (I believe in civil liberties, too, freedo...)

HAN SHOT FIRST.

I'm talking about the economy, not civil liberties. The economy can be organized without government regulation, while maintaining the same level of control.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 7:39:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 7:19:12 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/16/2013 7:12:27 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/16/2013 6:36:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It would be preferable for it to be realized that your critiques of Libertarianism, regardless of their validity, only address Right-Libertarianism.

Um, yeah...they're the stupid ones. Where you been? (I believe in civil liberties, too, freedo...)

HAN SHOT FIRST.

I'm talking about the economy, not civil liberties. The economy can be organized without government regulation, while maintaining the same level of control.

Not in all cases and not in all markets.

Also, some markets are more efficient when taken over by the government.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 7:43:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 7:39:58 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/16/2013 7:19:12 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/16/2013 7:12:27 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/16/2013 6:36:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It would be preferable for it to be realized that your critiques of Libertarianism, regardless of their validity, only address Right-Libertarianism.

Um, yeah...they're the stupid ones. Where you been? (I believe in civil liberties, too, freedo...)

HAN SHOT FIRST.

I'm talking about the economy, not civil liberties. The economy can be organized without government regulation, while maintaining the same level of control.

Not in all cases and not in all markets.

Also, some markets are more efficient when taken over by the government.

A government is not a magical entity with powers which other entities, organized without force, do not posses. The issue is structure, not means.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 8:01:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 7:43:32 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/16/2013 7:39:58 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/16/2013 7:19:12 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/16/2013 7:12:27 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/16/2013 6:36:55 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It would be preferable for it to be realized that your critiques of Libertarianism, regardless of their validity, only address Right-Libertarianism.

Um, yeah...they're the stupid ones. Where you been? (I believe in civil liberties, too, freedo...)

HAN SHOT FIRST.

I'm talking about the economy, not civil liberties. The economy can be organized without government regulation, while maintaining the same level of control.

Not in all cases and not in all markets.

Also, some markets are more efficient when taken over by the government.

A government is not a magical entity with powers which other entities, organized without force, do not posses. The issue is structure, not means.

The issue is bias. Now granted, a government can have bias, based on the bias of her people, but how do you not have an even more corrupt private police force?

How does the fire department work in a for-profit set up?

Call it what you want, but an independent, non-profit body set up by the people over whom it doles out justice is necessary for certain things.

Does this mean there will also be abuses by this body? Sure. Are they worse than the privately constructed, for-profit organizations?

Hardly.
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
2/16/2013 8:06:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, what organization, other than a government, can fund and put forth space exploration, or quantum physics exploration, or deep sea exploration?

Sure, the private companies will come in after the exploring is done and capitalize on the discoveries, but who knows what, if anything will be discovered, and given the massive costs of these endeavors and the limited known potential for return, who does it?

No one, if not a government.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 8:07:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 8:01:37 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
The issue is bias. Now granted, a government can have bias, based on the bias of her people, but how do you not have an even more corrupt private police force?

How does the fire department work in a for-profit set up?

Call it what you want, but an independent, non-profit body set up by the people over whom it doles out justice is necessary for certain things.

Does this mean there will also be abuses by this body? Sure. Are they worse than the privately constructed, for-profit organizations?

Hardly.

For-profit would be Right-Libertarianism. When a non-for profit is organized along voluntary lines, it is Left-Libertarian. You can choose to call it a government if you want to but I think the idea organizing a government-like structure along voluntary lines, without the need for the profit motive, is a plausible idea. It's been done before. Such was the case of Anarchist Catalonia.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 8:15:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 8:07:38 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/16/2013 8:01:37 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
The issue is bias. Now granted, a government can have bias, based on the bias of her people, but how do you not have an even more corrupt private police force?

How does the fire department work in a for-profit set up?

Call it what you want, but an independent, non-profit body set up by the people over whom it doles out justice is necessary for certain things.

Does this mean there will also be abuses by this body? Sure. Are they worse than the privately constructed, for-profit organizations?

Hardly.

For-profit would be Right-Libertarianism. When a non-for profit is organized along voluntary lines, it is Left-Libertarian. You can choose to call it a government if you want to but I think the idea organizing a government-like structure along voluntary lines, without the need for the profit motive, is a plausible idea. It's been done before. Such was the case of Anarchist Catalonia.

I love the concept of true Anarchism. I just don't think we're evolved enough for it to sustain itself.

People get greedy...scared...scared to lose that which they so greedily covet. That necessitates a government.

Maybe in a couple (few) thousand years, but it seems completely untenable now.

That's a completely opinion based assertion, and certainly an area where intelligent minds can have valid disagreement.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 8:20:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 8:15:34 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

I love the concept of true Anarchism. I just don't think we're evolved enough for it to sustain itself.

People get greedy...scared...scared to lose that which they so greedily covet. That necessitates a government.

Maybe in a couple (few) thousand years, but it seems completely untenable now.

That's a completely opinion based assertion, and certainly an area where intelligent minds can have valid disagreement.

I think the only thing standing in the way is precedent.

People will always do what everyone around them is doing. If a person had never heard of a profit run economy, they would likely think it impossible.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 8:22:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 8:20:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/16/2013 8:15:34 PM, malcolmxy wrote:

I love the concept of true Anarchism. I just don't think we're evolved enough for it to sustain itself.

People get greedy...scared...scared to lose that which they so greedily covet. That necessitates a government.

Maybe in a couple (few) thousand years, but it seems completely untenable now.

That's a completely opinion based assertion, and certainly an area where intelligent minds can have valid disagreement.

I think the only thing standing in the way is precedent.

People will always do what everyone around them is doing. If a person had never heard of a profit run economy, they would likely think it impossible.

Naw...trade happens pretty quickly once civilizations run into one another. Trade usually involves profit before too long.

People enjoy leisure too much for it not to.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 8:29:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 8:22:54 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Naw...trade happens pretty quickly once civilizations run into one another. Trade usually involves profit before too long.

People enjoy leisure too much for it not to.

When Christopher Columbus first arrived on shore, he records that the first thing the natives did were bring them many gifts.

They had no money. It was a gift economy. Gift economies were highly prevalent in pre-agricultural societies but are just as possible in industrialized societies as well.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 8:31:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
As behavioral economists have proven with a variety of experiments, social incentives are actually more powerful than monetary incentives.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 8:35:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 8:29:45 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/16/2013 8:22:54 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
Naw...trade happens pretty quickly once civilizations run into one another. Trade usually involves profit before too long.

People enjoy leisure too much for it not to.

When Christopher Columbus first arrived on shore, he records that the first thing the natives did were bring them many gifts.

They had no money. It was a gift economy. Gift economies were highly prevalent in pre-agricultural societies but are just as possible in industrialized societies as well.

Generosity in North Americans was a symbol of prestige and success in leadership. It was a power play, just one that Colombus didn't understand, not having been immersed in the culture.

Asian cultures are similar (Japanese business ALWAYS involves gift giving...Chinese business involves a day of gluttony followed by 10 minutes of actual business being transacted).

It's a different tact, not a different intent (though, granted, given the options, I choose that as the measuring stick of quality leadership over what we got these days as well).

This is gonna seem like an odd segue, but do you like Devo? If you don't, I think if you listened to them, you would.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 8:43:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 8:35:55 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
This is gonna seem like an odd segue, but do you like Devo? If you don't, I think if you listened to them, you would.

Hadn't heard of them.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 8:52:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 8:43:41 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 2/16/2013 8:35:55 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
This is gonna seem like an odd segue, but do you like Devo? If you don't, I think if you listened to them, you would.

Hadn't heard of them.

Beautiful World, Freedom of Choice, Blockhead, Praying Hands (which is about masturbation, which is awesome because of the title)...good titles to start with.

They, along with The Ramones, were the 1st punk bands to exist...ever.

They attended Kent State, and they were there when the shootings took place. The people shot were their friends...pretty easy to rebel against the hippies when you know their failure so personally.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2013 5:45:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
FREEDO, Devo sing "Whip it".
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 5:06:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You seem to be anti-libertarianism. You started a couple other threads where you bashed libertarianism. Are you a fascist (nationalist, socialist, or national socialist) by any chance? Not an ad hominem; it's a real question, not a rhetorical question.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 5:35:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 5:06:40 PM, DanT wrote:
You seem to be anti-libertarianism. You started a couple other threads where you bashed libertarianism. Are you a fascist (nationalist, socialist, or national socialist) by any chance? Not an ad hominem; it's a real question, not a rhetorical question.

Realist...pragmatist...I like plenty of Libertarian ideas - the ones which make sense. The ones which have demonstrably positive results in the economy, but as much as you think Marxists are bad, you should buddy up with them, because Marxism, like Libertarianism as demonstrated through the "Austrian School of Economics" are two sides of the same coin - philosophies that are trying to pull themselves off as economic theory.

I don't not like Libertarianism because I'm a Marxist. I don't like Libertarianism because it's stupid and usually wrong.
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
2/21/2013 8:02:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 5:35:20 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/21/2013 5:06:40 PM, DanT wrote:
You seem to be anti-libertarianism. You started a couple other threads where you bashed libertarianism. Are you a fascist (nationalist, socialist, or national socialist) by any chance? Not an ad hominem; it's a real question, not a rhetorical question.

Realist...
JimmTimmy called his racist rants realist too. Realism is not an answer, because it depends on what one believes is reality. Hence any political belief can be considered realist, so long as its not based on idealism.
So again I ask you; are you a fascist-realist?
pragmatist...
Again, this does not answer my question.
I like plenty of Libertarian ideas - the ones which make sense.
That would be all of them. (Not including psudo libertarianism)
The ones which have demonstrably positive results in the economy, but as much as you think Marxists are bad, you should buddy up with them, because Marxism, like Libertarianism as demonstrated through the "Austrian School of Economics" are two sides of the same coin - philosophies that are trying to pull themselves off as economic theory.

That's bull. The Austrian school focuses on microeconomics. Marxism has no economic base, as it is purely idealist.
I don't not like Libertarianism because I'm a Marxist.
Wait, so you like libertarianism because you are a Marxist? That makes no sense.
I don't like Libertarianism because it's stupid and usually wrong.
Wanna debate me on that? Just don't forfeit on me again.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 8:05:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 7:49:45 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I don't think I'm an intellectual midget.

That's right. You're a big boy...

who's mama's big boy? Show mama how the piggie finishes their supper...

(*you're probably not. are you an absolutist? do you never account for the possibility of Libertarian/Austrian/Free Market economics being incorrect, holding it up to the level of scientific certainty as one would the Laws of Thermodynamics? If not, you may only be an intellectual Dwarf or a regular intellectual dude with a Napoleonic complex*)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 8:24:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Libertarians are often very intelligent. Hell, I'm even a member of my college's Libertarian Club just because its one of the few serious political groups on campus.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 8:30:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 8:24:00 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Libertarians are often very intelligent. Hell, I'm even a member of my college's Libertarian Club just because its one of the few serious political groups on campus.

You're (especially you) supposed to be a Marxist right now. You're not supposed to switch to Libertarianism as a wild reactionary move until you realize the futility of Pure Marxism on your own.

Damn you, Ron Paul and your youth voter strategy!!!
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2013 8:40:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/21/2013 8:05:03 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/21/2013 7:49:45 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I don't think I'm an intellectual midget.

That's right. You're a big boy...

who's mama's big boy? Show mama how the piggie finishes their supper...

(*you're probably not. are you an absolutist?

Is that the political form of biblical inerrantism?

do you never account for the possibility of Libertarian/Austrian/Free Market economics being incorrect, holding it up to the level of scientific certainty as one would the Laws of Thermodynamics?

I'm not particularly concerned with economics; but, I also think it's impossible to apply the methods of the natural sciences to economics. The ebb and flow of human behavior isn't concretely reducible to a series of equations (even sophisticated econometric models are forced to fiat values for important variables and assume away complicating forces that might preclude that model's use). Lorenz and his intellectual successors found that, even with arbitrarily advanced predictive modeling capabilities, something as trivial as the weather couldn't be accurately predicted past a 5 or 6-day horizon, and that even predictions within that barrier could diverge wildly from actual conditions. If we cannot even make accurate predictions about whether it will rain next week, it would be very arrogant of us to assume that human behavior can be modeled with any accuracy, particularly in the longer term. On this view, it comes as no surprise that the success--and, therefore, the usefulness--of "expert" prognostication is statistically inferior to coin-flipping.

So, no, I don't hold economics to such a high standard; however, this is not because I'm misguided or dogmatic, but because I think it's a mistake to suppose the discipline could be as methodologically rigid as the hard sciences.

If not, you may only be an intellectual Dwarf or a regular intellectual dude with a Napoleonic complex*)