Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

I take on Libertarianism

Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 7:00:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In this debate, I make some general arguments about libertarianism. How almost everything in the budget plan raises the deficit. Can these people really be so stupid? How does any of this help the economy. I demand answers!!!!

Rand Paul Budget Plan
http://www.paul.senate.gov...

Debate
http://www.debate.org...
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 3:53:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Cutting taxes. Reducing Debt. Reducing burden of government. All that helps the economy.

But, I'm not feeling a formal debate. But, I will gladly debate it informally in the forums.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 11:14:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 3:53:45 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Cutting taxes. Reducing Debt. Reducing burden of government. All that helps the economy.

But, I'm not feeling a formal debate. But, I will gladly debate it informally in the forums.

Is there anything in the platform that doesn't raise the deficit and cutting out 4 of America's most essential departments. This guy is reckless. Read my debate.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 11:24:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 11:14:39 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/12/2014 3:53:45 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Cutting taxes. Reducing Debt. Reducing burden of government. All that helps the economy.

But, I'm not feeling a formal debate. But, I will gladly debate it informally in the forums.

Is there anything in the platform that doesn't raise the deficit and cutting out 4 of America's most essential departments. This guy is reckless. Read my debate.

You're contradicting yourself. First, you say that there is "nothing" in the budget that reduces the deficit and then complain about his cuts.

Cuts, like them or not, do reduce the deficit. So, you need to clarify what you mean.

Second, it is hardly reckless to cut an extremely overbloated government that is dangerously large. I don't like Ryan's budget myself because it boosts the military and fails to actually reduce government very much.

The problem is that this budget isn't libertarian. If it was, it would be a much better budget. The kind this nation needs.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 11:27:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 11:24:10 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/12/2014 11:14:39 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/12/2014 3:53:45 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Cutting taxes. Reducing Debt. Reducing burden of government. All that helps the economy.

But, I'm not feeling a formal debate. But, I will gladly debate it informally in the forums.

Is there anything in the platform that doesn't raise the deficit and cutting out 4 of America's most essential departments. This guy is reckless. Read my debate.

You're contradicting yourself. First, you say that there is "nothing" in the budget that reduces the deficit and then complain about his cuts.

Cuts, like them or not, do reduce the deficit. So, you need to clarify what you mean.

Second, it is hardly reckless to cut an extremely overbloated government that is dangerously large. I don't like Ryan's budget myself because it boosts the military and fails to actually reduce government very much.

The problem is that this budget isn't libertarian. If it was, it would be a much better budget. The kind this nation needs.

Cutting a program do not always reduce the deficit. Raising the military budget increases the deficit. Abolishing the Department of Education, produces more uneducated people, and increases the deficit.

Abolishing the department of commerce, will off set current established documents, and increase the deficit. There is nothing innovative besides recklessly eliminating programs, and the right don't realize that the spending is there to make money.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2014 11:32:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/12/2014 11:27:12 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/12/2014 11:24:10 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/12/2014 11:14:39 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/12/2014 3:53:45 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
Cutting taxes. Reducing Debt. Reducing burden of government. All that helps the economy.

But, I'm not feeling a formal debate. But, I will gladly debate it informally in the forums.

Is there anything in the platform that doesn't raise the deficit and cutting out 4 of America's most essential departments. This guy is reckless. Read my debate.

You're contradicting yourself. First, you say that there is "nothing" in the budget that reduces the deficit and then complain about his cuts.

Cuts, like them or not, do reduce the deficit. So, you need to clarify what you mean.

Second, it is hardly reckless to cut an extremely overbloated government that is dangerously large. I don't like Ryan's budget myself because it boosts the military and fails to actually reduce government very much.

The problem is that this budget isn't libertarian. If it was, it would be a much better budget. The kind this nation needs.

Cutting a program do not always reduce the deficit. Raising the military budget increases the deficit. Abolishing the Department of Education, produces more uneducated people, and increases the deficit.

That's a rather extraordinary claim and thus requires extraordinary evidence and yet non is offered.


Abolishing the department of commerce, will off set current established documents, and increase the deficit. There is nothing innovative besides recklessly eliminating programs, and the right don't realize that the spending is there to make money.

How about recklessly creating programs?

The government has been doing this for years.

There is quite literally no evidence that these programs do anything to help the nation. Again, the BoP is on these programs to prove they actually help people. I'm still waiting.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 12:25:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've come to notice that jimtimmy's tactic is to falsely assign the burden of proof on others making perfectly valid points in order to pontificate on issues he doesn't understand.

Jimtimmy, you are the one advocating that these programs should be done away with, which is contrary to the status quo. The burden of proof is on you to show that they are so wasteful, inefficient and useless that they provide no value whatsoever and we would be better off with the "free market."

That's the problem with libertarians. If something doesn't fit your ludicrous worldview, you don't try to learn more: you suppress it and stick to your BS. It's a theology, by and large, though worse than religious fundamentalism because there are actually people in power who buy into this nonsense. Too many people have already suffered by virtue of the anti-government agenda, and I think it is about time we call it for what it is: government nihilism.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 12:26:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh, and the Rand Paul budget is a joke. Anyone with the slightest modicum of understanding of economics would denounce it for the farce that it is.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 3:54:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 12:25:24 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I've come to notice that jimtimmy's tactic is to falsely assign the burden of proof on others making perfectly valid points in order to pontificate on issues he doesn't understand.

Jimtimmy, you are the one advocating that these programs should be done away with, which is contrary to the status quo. The burden of proof is on you to show that they are so wasteful, inefficient and useless that they provide no value whatsoever and we would be better off with the "free market."

That's the problem with libertarians. If something doesn't fit your ludicrous worldview, you don't try to learn more: you suppress it and stick to your BS. It's a theology, by and large, though worse than religious fundamentalism because there are actually people in power who buy into this nonsense. Too many people have already suffered by virtue of the anti-government agenda, and I think it is about time we call it for what it is: government nihilism.

Okay everybody. I want you all to note what is going on here. Statists spend billions of our dollars on programs they claim should do all this good. And then they claim that the burden of proof is on the opposition to show that they don't work. Utterly absurd?

Yes. But, statism is in general.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 3:55:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 12:26:42 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Oh, and the Rand Paul budget is a joke. Anyone with the slightest modicum of understanding of economics would denounce it for the farce that it is.

How so?

People who understand economics understand that markets are superior to central planning. Progressivism is, in general, based on economic illiteracy.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 3:57:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 3:54:35 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 12:25:24 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I've come to notice that jimtimmy's tactic is to falsely assign the burden of proof on others making perfectly valid points in order to pontificate on issues he doesn't understand.

Jimtimmy, you are the one advocating that these programs should be done away with, which is contrary to the status quo. The burden of proof is on you to show that they are so wasteful, inefficient and useless that they provide no value whatsoever and we would be better off with the "free market."

That's the problem with libertarians. If something doesn't fit your ludicrous worldview, you don't try to learn more: you suppress it and stick to your BS. It's a theology, by and large, though worse than religious fundamentalism because there are actually people in power who buy into this nonsense. Too many people have already suffered by virtue of the anti-government agenda, and I think it is about time we call it for what it is: government nihilism.

Okay everybody. I want you all to note what is going on here. Statists spend billions of our dollars on programs they claim should do all this good. And then they claim that the burden of proof is on the opposition to show that they don't work. Utterly absurd?

Yes. But, statism is in general.

What's statism? Believing that there should be a state (read: a government) of any kind?

The burden of proof is on you because you're advocating for a policy contrary to the status quo. Nobody denies -- at least, nobody that I've seen and taken seriously -- that the government can, has and will waste money: I think Iraq was a giant, immoral, illegal mistake, and I never would have authorized the trillions of dollars we spent in Iraq. But I also believe that the government can do some good -- Medicare is a phenomenal program, for instance, that I'd like to be expanded. Indeed, there's waste and fraud in Medicare that I want to be curtailed, and I think single-payer moves us to that end. But how do you argue against all government on the basis of SOME inefficiency? That's why you have the burden of proof. Provide evidence that government programs, in principle, by virtue of the fact that they're run by the government, are inefficient. From there, you have to justify your alternative. But moving around from thread to thread, spouting nonsense, does not prove your case in the least bit.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 3:59:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 3:57:57 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 3:54:35 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 12:25:24 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I've come to notice that jimtimmy's tactic is to falsely assign the burden of proof on others making perfectly valid points in order to pontificate on issues he doesn't understand.

Jimtimmy, you are the one advocating that these programs should be done away with, which is contrary to the status quo. The burden of proof is on you to show that they are so wasteful, inefficient and useless that they provide no value whatsoever and we would be better off with the "free market."

That's the problem with libertarians. If something doesn't fit your ludicrous worldview, you don't try to learn more: you suppress it and stick to your BS. It's a theology, by and large, though worse than religious fundamentalism because there are actually people in power who buy into this nonsense. Too many people have already suffered by virtue of the anti-government agenda, and I think it is about time we call it for what it is: government nihilism.

Okay everybody. I want you all to note what is going on here. Statists spend billions of our dollars on programs they claim should do all this good. And then they claim that the burden of proof is on the opposition to show that they don't work. Utterly absurd?

Yes. But, statism is in general.

What's statism? Believing that there should be a state (read: a government) of any kind?

The burden of proof is on you because you're advocating for a policy contrary to the status quo. Nobody denies -- at least, nobody that I've seen and taken seriously -- that the government can, has and will waste money: I think Iraq was a giant, immoral, illegal mistake, and I never would have authorized the trillions of dollars we spent in Iraq. But I also believe that the government can do some good -- Medicare is a phenomenal program, for instance, that I'd like to be expanded. Indeed, there's waste and fraud in Medicare that I want to be curtailed, and I think single-payer moves us to that end. But how do you argue against all government on the basis of SOME inefficiency? That's why you have the burden of proof. Provide evidence that government programs, in principle, by virtue of the fact that they're run by the government, are inefficient. From there, you have to justify your alternative. But moving around from thread to thread, spouting nonsense, does not prove your case in the least bit.

So, Progressivedem, would you also argue that the burden of proof was on those who opposed the Iraq war?

That is what your logic suggests.

Also. I noticed that you stopped responding to me when I owned you on Diamond and Saez. Your welcome for showing you what a joke their work is.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 4:02:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 3:59:46 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 3:57:57 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 3:54:35 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 12:25:24 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I've come to notice that jimtimmy's tactic is to falsely assign the burden of proof on others making perfectly valid points in order to pontificate on issues he doesn't understand.

Jimtimmy, you are the one advocating that these programs should be done away with, which is contrary to the status quo. The burden of proof is on you to show that they are so wasteful, inefficient and useless that they provide no value whatsoever and we would be better off with the "free market."

That's the problem with libertarians. If something doesn't fit your ludicrous worldview, you don't try to learn more: you suppress it and stick to your BS. It's a theology, by and large, though worse than religious fundamentalism because there are actually people in power who buy into this nonsense. Too many people have already suffered by virtue of the anti-government agenda, and I think it is about time we call it for what it is: government nihilism.

Okay everybody. I want you all to note what is going on here. Statists spend billions of our dollars on programs they claim should do all this good. And then they claim that the burden of proof is on the opposition to show that they don't work. Utterly absurd?

Yes. But, statism is in general.

What's statism? Believing that there should be a state (read: a government) of any kind?

The burden of proof is on you because you're advocating for a policy contrary to the status quo. Nobody denies -- at least, nobody that I've seen and taken seriously -- that the government can, has and will waste money: I think Iraq was a giant, immoral, illegal mistake, and I never would have authorized the trillions of dollars we spent in Iraq. But I also believe that the government can do some good -- Medicare is a phenomenal program, for instance, that I'd like to be expanded. Indeed, there's waste and fraud in Medicare that I want to be curtailed, and I think single-payer moves us to that end. But how do you argue against all government on the basis of SOME inefficiency? That's why you have the burden of proof. Provide evidence that government programs, in principle, by virtue of the fact that they're run by the government, are inefficient. From there, you have to justify your alternative. But moving around from thread to thread, spouting nonsense, does not prove your case in the least bit.

So, Progressivedem, would you also argue that the burden of proof was on those who opposed the Iraq war?

That is what your logic suggests.

Also. I noticed that you stopped responding to me when I owned you on Diamond and Saez. Your welcome for showing you what a joke their work is.

No, you're missing the point. "We should invade Iraq" is a departure from the status quo. Your lack of capacity for logic is utterly baffling.

No, you didn't "own" me on Diamond and Saez. The paper was still largely in support of my position, and you hadn't disproved anything that I offered. I simply ran out of time to respond to because I happen to have a life outside of DDO -- like I have now, which is why I'm going to respond to you on here and the other thread, and sign off temporarily.
jimtimmy3
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 4:08:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 4:02:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 3:59:46 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 3:57:57 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 3:54:35 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 12:25:24 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I've come to notice that jimtimmy's tactic is to falsely assign the burden of proof on others making perfectly valid points in order to pontificate on issues he doesn't understand.

Jimtimmy, you are the one advocating that these programs should be done away with, which is contrary to the status quo. The burden of proof is on you to show that they are so wasteful, inefficient and useless that they provide no value whatsoever and we would be better off with the "free market."

That's the problem with libertarians. If something doesn't fit your ludicrous worldview, you don't try to learn more: you suppress it and stick to your BS. It's a theology, by and large, though worse than religious fundamentalism because there are actually people in power who buy into this nonsense. Too many people have already suffered by virtue of the anti-government agenda, and I think it is about time we call it for what it is: government nihilism.

Okay everybody. I want you all to note what is going on here. Statists spend billions of our dollars on programs they claim should do all this good. And then they claim that the burden of proof is on the opposition to show that they don't work. Utterly absurd?

Yes. But, statism is in general.

What's statism? Believing that there should be a state (read: a government) of any kind?

The burden of proof is on you because you're advocating for a policy contrary to the status quo. Nobody denies -- at least, nobody that I've seen and taken seriously -- that the government can, has and will waste money: I think Iraq was a giant, immoral, illegal mistake, and I never would have authorized the trillions of dollars we spent in Iraq. But I also believe that the government can do some good -- Medicare is a phenomenal program, for instance, that I'd like to be expanded. Indeed, there's waste and fraud in Medicare that I want to be curtailed, and I think single-payer moves us to that end. But how do you argue against all government on the basis of SOME inefficiency? That's why you have the burden of proof. Provide evidence that government programs, in principle, by virtue of the fact that they're run by the government, are inefficient. From there, you have to justify your alternative. But moving around from thread to thread, spouting nonsense, does not prove your case in the least bit.

So, Progressivedem, would you also argue that the burden of proof was on those who opposed the Iraq war?

That is what your logic suggests.

Also. I noticed that you stopped responding to me when I owned you on Diamond and Saez. Your welcome for showing you what a joke their work is.

No, you're missing the point. "We should invade Iraq" is a departure from the status quo. Your lack of capacity for logic is utterly baffling.

I understand now. If you support the program, like Medicare or the DoE, the burden of proof is on opponents. If you oppose it, like the Iraq War, the burden of proof is on supporters.

And, you're going to cover this up with some bogus nonsense about the status quo. Once the Iraq war was in place, it was as much the status quo as any other state program.

If progressives are going to seriously argue that the burden of proof is not on the people demanding billions of taxpayer dollars for programs they claim works, they need to at least be consistent in that.


No, you didn't "own" me on Diamond and Saez. The paper was still largely in support of my position, and you hadn't disproved anything that I offered. I simply ran out of time to respond to because I happen to have a life outside of DDO -- like I have now, which is why I'm going to respond to you on here and the other thread, and sign off temporarily.

Ya. I did own you and D and S. That's why you stopped responding.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2014 4:25:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/13/2014 4:08:21 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 4:02:34 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 3:59:46 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 3:57:57 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 3:54:35 PM, jimtimmy3 wrote:
At 4/13/2014 12:25:24 PM, progressivedem22 wrote:
I've come to notice that jimtimmy's tactic is to falsely assign the burden of proof on others making perfectly valid points in order to pontificate on issues he doesn't understand.

Jimtimmy, you are the one advocating that these programs should be done away with, which is contrary to the status quo. The burden of proof is on you to show that they are so wasteful, inefficient and useless that they provide no value whatsoever and we would be better off with the "free market."

That's the problem with libertarians. If something doesn't fit your ludicrous worldview, you don't try to learn more: you suppress it and stick to your BS. It's a theology, by and large, though worse than religious fundamentalism because there are actually people in power who buy into this nonsense. Too many people have already suffered by virtue of the anti-government agenda, and I think it is about time we call it for what it is: government nihilism.

Okay everybody. I want you all to note what is going on here. Statists spend billions of our dollars on programs they claim should do all this good. And then they claim that the burden of proof is on the opposition to show that they don't work. Utterly absurd?

Yes. But, statism is in general.

What's statism? Believing that there should be a state (read: a government) of any kind?

The burden of proof is on you because you're advocating for a policy contrary to the status quo. Nobody denies -- at least, nobody that I've seen and taken seriously -- that the government can, has and will waste money: I think Iraq was a giant, immoral, illegal mistake, and I never would have authorized the trillions of dollars we spent in Iraq. But I also believe that the government can do some good -- Medicare is a phenomenal program, for instance, that I'd like to be expanded. Indeed, there's waste and fraud in Medicare that I want to be curtailed, and I think single-payer moves us to that end. But how do you argue against all government on the basis of SOME inefficiency? That's why you have the burden of proof. Provide evidence that government programs, in principle, by virtue of the fact that they're run by the government, are inefficient. From there, you have to justify your alternative. But moving around from thread to thread, spouting nonsense, does not prove your case in the least bit.

So, Progressivedem, would you also argue that the burden of proof was on those who opposed the Iraq war?

That is what your logic suggests.

Also. I noticed that you stopped responding to me when I owned you on Diamond and Saez. Your welcome for showing you what a joke their work is.

No, you're missing the point. "We should invade Iraq" is a departure from the status quo. Your lack of capacity for logic is utterly baffling.


I understand now. If you support the program, like Medicare or the DoE, the burden of proof is on opponents. If you oppose it, like the Iraq War, the burden of proof is on supporters.

And, you're going to cover this up with some bogus nonsense about the status quo. Once the Iraq war was in place, it was as much the status quo as any other state program.

If progressives are going to seriously argue that the burden of proof is not on the people demanding billions of taxpayer dollars for programs they claim works, they need to at least be consistent in that.

For the love of God, the point went completely over your head.


No, you didn't "own" me on Diamond and Saez. The paper was still largely in support of my position, and you hadn't disproved anything that I offered. I simply ran out of time to respond to because I happen to have a life outside of DDO -- like I have now, which is why I'm going to respond to you on here and the other thread, and sign off temporarily.

Ya. I did own you and D and S. That's why you stopped responding.

Sound logic, reasoning and analysis. Would read again.