Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Frédéric Bastiat, fvcking bastard?

brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 8:52:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Frédéric Bastiat, the French 19th Century economic commentator, famously said:

"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."

("L'Etat, c'est la grande fiction par laquelle tout le monde s'efforce de vivre aux dépens de tout le monde.")

Bastiat is a darling of those people who believe in laissez-faire economics, low taxes, deregulated free market capitalism and minimum state intervention into (what they see as) private affairs: in other words; Libertarians, Republicans, Tories, etc.

Clearly, though, human civilisations developed through co-operation between the members of communities, societies, tribes, nations and empires, and, in any human grouping, as well as successful, prosperous members there will always be those in need of help.

Should this help be provided purely on a voluntary basis without any safety net, as Bastiat argues, or should governments organise society in such a way that assistance for the most vulnerable is guaranteed?
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 9:09:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/7/2011 8:52:01 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Frédéric Bastiat, the French 19th Century economic commentator, famously said:

"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."

("L'Etat, c'est la grande fiction par laquelle tout le monde s'efforce de vivre aux dépens de tout le monde.")

Bastiat is a darling of those people who believe in laissez-faire economics, low taxes, deregulated free market capitalism and minimum state intervention into (what they see as) private affairs: in other words; Libertarians, Republicans, Tories, etc.

Clearly, though, human civilisations developed through co-operation between the members of communities, societies, tribes, nations and empires, and, in any human grouping, as well as successful, prosperous members there will always be those in need of help.

Should this help be provided purely on a voluntary basis without any safety net, as Bastiat argues, or should governments organise society in such a way that assistance for the most vulnerable is guaranteed?:

The government doesn't organize society, but when it attempts to, the final condition is worse than the former. The only reason the global economy is in the state it is in is DIRECTLY attributed to governments systematically devaluing monetary systems. All of the evidence in human history proves this beyond all doubt. And still you want more of the status quo?

Government serves a purpose, within limitation. A huge, sprawling government who interferes with entreprenuership only stifles the innovation that benefits everyone.

How much more do you want the government to intrude? Do you need the government to wipe your @ss? What precisely do you think needs to happen in order for a successful society?

And what precisely makes Bastiat a f*cking bastard anyhow?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 10:39:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/7/2011 8:52:01 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:

Clearly, though, human civilisations developed through co-operation between the members of communities, societies, tribes, nations and empires, and, in any human grouping, as well as successful, prosperous members there will always be those in need of help.

Should this help be provided purely on a voluntary basis without any safety net, as Bastiat argues, or should governments organise society in such a way that assistance for the most vulnerable is guaranteed?

As nice as the welfare state sounds, said money is taken from people by force.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 10:57:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/7/2011 9:09:17 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 1/7/2011 8:52:01 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Frédéric Bastiat, the French 19th Century economic commentator, famously said:

"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."

("L'Etat, c'est la grande fiction par laquelle tout le monde s'efforce de vivre aux dépens de tout le monde.")

Bastiat is a darling of those people who believe in laissez-faire economics, low taxes, deregulated free market capitalism and minimum state intervention into (what they see as) private affairs: in other words; Libertarians, Republicans, Tories, etc.

Clearly, though, human civilisations developed through co-operation between the members of communities, societies, tribes, nations and empires, and, in any human grouping, as well as successful, prosperous members there will always be those in need of help.

Should this help be provided purely on a voluntary basis without any safety net, as Bastiat argues, or should governments organise society in such a way that assistance for the most vulnerable is guaranteed?:

The government doesn't organize society, but when it attempts to, the final condition is worse than the former. The only reason the global economy is in the state it is in is DIRECTLY attributed to governments systematically devaluing monetary systems. All of the evidence in human history proves this beyond all doubt. And still you want more of the status quo?

Government serves a purpose, within limitation. A huge, sprawling government who interferes with entreprenuership only stifles the innovation that benefits everyone.

How much more do you want the government to intrude? Do you need the government to wipe your @ss? What precisely do you think needs to happen in order for a successful society?

And what precisely makes Bastiat a f*cking bastard anyhow?

I'm not saying he is, there's a question mark after his name!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 11:06:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/7/2011 8:52:01 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Frédéric Bastiat, the French 19th Century economic commentator, famously said:

"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."

("L'Etat, c'est la grande fiction par laquelle tout le monde s'efforce de vivre aux dépens de tout le monde.")

Bastiat is a darling of those people who believe in laissez-faire economics, low taxes, deregulated free market capitalism and minimum state intervention into (what they see as) private affairs: in other words; Libertarians, Republicans, Tories, etc.

Republicans and Tories support laissez-faire? Lol...

Clearly, though, human civilisations developed through co-operation between the members of communities, societies, tribes, nations and empires, and, in any human grouping, as well as successful, prosperous members there will always be those in need of help.

Government is a disruption of the natural, spontaneous organization of society.

Should this help be provided purely on a voluntary basis without any safety net, as Bastiat argues, or should governments organise society in such a way that assistance for the most vulnerable is guaranteed?

"Individual alms-giving established valuable ties between the rich and the poor. The deed itself involves the giver in the fate of the one whose poverty he has undertaken to alleviate. The latter, supported by aid which he had no right to demand and which he may have had no hope of getting, feels inspired by gratitude. A moral tie is established between those two classes whose interests and passions so often conspire to separate them from each other, and although divided by circumstance they are willingly reconciled. This is not the case with legal charity. The latter allows the alms to persist, but removes its morality. The law strips the man of wealth of a part of his surplus without consulting him and he sees the poor man only as a greedy stranger invited by the legislator to share his wealth. The poor man, on the other hand, feels no gratitude for a benefit which no one can refuse him and which could not satisfy him in any case. Public alms guarantee life, but do not make it happier or more comfortable than individual alms-giving; legal charity does not thereby eliminate wealth or poverty in society." -- Alexis de Tocqueville
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 1:59:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
And what precisely makes Bastiat a f*cking bastard anyhow?

I'm not saying he is, there's a question mark after his name!:

Let's not be coy and pretend it wasn't a loaded question.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 2:04:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/7/2011 8:52:01 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Frédéric Bastiat, the French 19th Century economic commentator, famously said:

"The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."

("L'Etat, c'est la grande fiction par laquelle tout le monde s'efforce de vivre aux dépens de tout le monde.")

Bastiat is a darling of those people who believe in laissez-faire economics, low taxes, deregulated free market capitalism and minimum state intervention into (what they see as) private affairs: in other words; Libertarians, Republicans, Tories, etc.

Republicans pretend to support free markets.

Clearly, though, human civilisations developed through co-operation between the members of communities, societies, tribes, nations and empires, and, in any human grouping, as well as successful, prosperous members there will always be those in need of help.

Your wording seems to be implying that these things are not possible in a free market.

Should this help be provided purely on a voluntary basis without any safety net, as Bastiat argues, or should governments organise society in such a way that assistance for the most vulnerable is guaranteed?

Voluntary. State welfare largely replaced mutual aid, friendly and fraternal societies, etc.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 2:10:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/7/2011 10:39:17 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:

As nice as the welfare state sounds, said money is taken from people by force.

Damn, beat me to it. I was gonna post that.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 2:26:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The government doesn't organize society, but when it attempts to, the final condition is worse than the former.

Yes.

The only reason the global economy is in the state it is in is DIRECTLY attributed to governments systematically devaluing monetary systems. All of the evidence in human history proves this beyond all doubt.

That's a mighty grandiose claim but unfortunately the state is chained to the hip of capitalism. If you want to turn back the clock 200 years and start over with this great experiment then I would ask you why not think 200 years ahead instead? You libertarians want us to start from the raw constitution which was crafted before any of the modern issues were formed. We'd have to re-institute blacks as full people for Pete's sake if we started over. We can complain about how big the state has gotten but what about WHY it got that big in the first place? Are you saying we had a great thing going in the 1700s and just kept screwing it up until we got here? That's abusing history to no end. The answer to the problem isn't to reinstitute the problem without the failsafes that took us two centuries to make, the answer is to get rid of the problem.

Government serves a purpose, within limitation. A huge, sprawling government who interferes with entreprenuership only stifles the innovation that benefits everyone.

Interferes with entrepreneurship? It is the entrepreneurs themselves who are entering the government and causing all this mess. How do you propose to convince the entrepreneurs to give up their stranglehold on the government in the name of entrepreneurship? Even if you did get everything to where you wanted it - a minarchy or something that just has police and lawyers to protect property rights - then how do you propose to stop the money being concentrated again? The rich are going to re-gain control and then move us back in the direction of cancerous government growth. There's no way to stop them; they are able to manipulate us so efficiently it isn't even funny. They don't drag us out in the street and beat us into martyrs anymore; they convince us that capitalism is the only way to be free and then let people like you fight their battles for them.

How much more do you want the government to intrude? Do you need the government to wipe your @ss? What precisely do you think needs to happen in order for a successful society?

Get rid of government, by getting rid ofthe entrepreneurs who build them.

And what precisely makes Bastiat a f*cking bastard anyhow?

I'd sure like to know.
no comment
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 2:43:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As nice as the welfare state sounds, said money is taken from people by force.

That video's logic was so bad it was insulting. They talk down "agents of the state" but say nothing about actually getting rid of them. I'm sure as soon as all those liberal redistributive programs disappear then those minions will turn into smiling peace officers helping old ladies cross the street, right? The police are soulless agents straight out of Oddworld when we're talking about liberal policies, but when they are protecting property rights they are pleasantly plump and cheery men with a mustache and a flashlight.

And what of why their friend is broke in the first place? They didn't show all the entrepreneurs (who make more money than anyone else [i.e., the people who actually produce in society] because we're playing by their rules) on the side burning hundred dollar bills for fun while that guy's kids don't have an opportunity for an education? It's a bad idea to make education available to our citizens because we need to reserve it for the children of the entrepreneurs who deserve it more than us.
no comment
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 4:18:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That's a mighty grandiose claim but unfortunately the state is chained to the hip of capitalism. If you want to turn back the clock 200 years:

I hate to burst your bubble, but the world began capitalist. This isn't a "new experiment," it's common sense.

We can complain about how big the state has gotten but what about WHY it got that big in the first place? Are you saying we had a great thing going in the 1700s and just kept screwing it up until we got here?:

Please quote where I mentioned anything about the 1700's.

Interferes with entrepreneurship? It is the entrepreneurs themselves who are entering the government and causing all this mess.:

What fantasy world do you live in? Socialism or communism cannot work without PEOPLE raising CAPITAL. Are you seriously blaming inventors for creating things you use everyday, like the very computer you typed your scorn on? None of those inventions were under the order of a commissar, friend, those are the inventions of entrepreneurs.

If a company cannot figure out how to survive, you let it die so that another can take its place. You don't reward terrible managing through bail out's with other people's money.

How do you propose to convince the entrepreneurs to give up their stranglehold on the government in the name of entrepreneurship?:

Simple, get the f*ck out of the way -- lassez faire.

Even if you did get everything to where you wanted it - a minarchy or something that just has police and lawyers to protect property rights - then how do you propose to stop the money being concentrated again?:

By getting the f*ck out of the way! Your cronies are the ones stopping the free market and enfranchizing the very companies you're lambasting! How ironic. If government would simply stand aside, the little guy could finally attempt to compete, and corporatism (which is your actual problem, not entrepreneurs -- please learn something) could not last.

The government you're so fond of is the one's propping up the mega-corporations. Did you object?!?! Or does Daddy-Obama know best, even though he's tripled the national debt? These morons can't even manage their own books and you want them to wipe your @ss from cradle to grave.

The rich are going to re-gain control and then move us back in the direction of cancerous government growth. There's no way to stop them:

"The rich?" I'm sorry, I don't understand a world that dissuades you from achieving goals. I don't want to know a world like that.

they are able to manipulate us so efficiently it isn't even funny.:

Oh, but the government's your friend? Do you have to shop at Walmart under the threat of imprisonment? If you despise Walmart's business model, then boycott them. I only ask because if I don't bail out Washington's idiotic economic woes, I do go to prison. We don't have a choice in the matter. So please don't lecture me about freedom. You seem to want to trade freedom for the security of your Master... You deserve neither.

They don't drag us out in the street and beat us into martyrs anymore; they convince us that capitalism is the only way to be free and then let people like you fight their battles for them.:

And what do you propose to take it's place? Seriously. Do you think corporations who make the money go away under socialism? I guess Ikea isn't successful. I guess the CEO, who's Swedish, a notoriously socialist country, isn't one of the richest men on the planet. You think they want their cash cow gone? Not a chance.

And what about communism? Should we work for the government to make goods and then distribute the wealth to everyone? Be my guest and move to North Korea. I implore you to do just that if your life here is just so unbearable.

Because China is finally learning something... And my oh my, look what is happening as a result. Millions upon millions of people lifted out of poverty, and a thriving country. But you'd like to turn back the clock and have everyone equal... equally miserable, that is.

Get rid of government, by getting rid ofthe entrepreneurs who build them.:

I'm not an anarchist. I have no desire to destroy the government, only to scale it down to what it's designed to do. Military, infrastructure, courts, etc.

But do tell. I'm sure every one of these departments are worth the ghastly economic woes we're in.

The nation will clearly implode without the National Endowment of the Arts. God knows we need the government to fund art! We're over $14 TRILLION dollars in debt, and you want an even bigger government. Brilliant. It's mathematically impossible to pay it off, and yet government is the answer to your problems. Un-f*cking-real.

http://www.usa.gov...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 4:29:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/7/2011 4:18:59 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

Are you seriously blaming inventors for creating things you use everyday, like the very computer you typed your scorn on? None of those inventions were under the order of a commissar, friend, those are the inventions of entrepreneurs.

Actually, the internet was a government investment.

Or does Daddy-Obama know best, even though he's tripled the national debt?

Lol, when did that happen?
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 4:39:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/7/2011 4:29:55 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 1/7/2011 4:18:59 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

Are you seriously blaming inventors for creating things you use everyday, like the very computer you typed your scorn on? None of those inventions were under the order of a commissar, friend, those are the inventions of entrepreneurs.

Actually, the internet was a government investment.

Or does Daddy-Obama know best, even though he's tripled the national debt?

Lol, when did that happen?:

Now!

http://blog.heritage.org...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 4:40:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The government confiscates upwards of 30% of our wealth. It should be responsible for at least 30% of investments and inventions. Probably more if you assume that people consume first, and then invest if there's anything left over.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 4:53:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
You should also consider that a telecom monopoly makes it excessively difficult to enter the market of "internet". We think our current internet is awesome because its all we have, but it might be inferior to what we'd have without state control of information mediums.

Its also kind of funny because the market clearly invented telephones, and yet the internet is supposed to be inconceivable without the state when its really just telephones for computers. To be sure, there are technical problems that have to be worked out, but there aren't any fundamental reasons why the market wouldn't have done it.

There are a myriad of reasons why the government did it first, chief among them probably telecom cartels and opportunity cost. So what if they can develop the theory early? ARPANET was started in the 60's, but didn't become widely used till the mid 80's. The opportunity cost is particularly high if everyone knows the government is going to do it anyway - not much point reinventing the wheel.

Hope google can get this off though http://www.zdnet.com...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 6:57:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/7/2011 4:18:59 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
That's a mighty grandiose claim but unfortunately the state is chained to the hip of capitalism. If you want to turn back the clock 200 years:

I hate to burst your bubble, but the world began capitalist. This isn't a "new experiment," it's common sense.

Hmmm . . . cave men were anarchist, communist, capitalists, theocratic, [insert every form of economic/government types here] . . .


We can complain about how big the state has gotten but what about WHY it got that big in the first place? Are you saying we had a great thing going in the 1700s and just kept screwing it up until we got here?:

Please quote where I mentioned anything about the 1700's.

Interferes with entrepreneurship? It is the entrepreneurs themselves who are entering the government and causing all this mess.:

What fantasy world do you live in? Socialism or communism cannot work without PEOPLE raising CAPITAL. Are you seriously blaming inventors for creating things you use everyday, like the very computer you typed your scorn on? None of those inventions were under the order of a commissar, friend, those are the inventions of entrepreneurs.

Well I think they believe in a socialist regime with no system of money only object for object trade . . . and those are inventions of the military . . . http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://wn.com...


If a company cannot figure out how to survive, you let it die so that another can take its place. You don't reward terrible managing through bail out's with other people's money.

Hmmm . . . I agree . . .


How do you propose to convince the entrepreneurs to give up their stranglehold on the government in the name of entrepreneurship?:

Simple, get the f*ck out of the way -- lassez faire.

Laissez-Faire I believe you mean but this can only work in certain situations . . . http://www.u-s-history.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...


Even if you did get everything to where you wanted it - a minarchy or something that just has police and lawyers to protect property rights - then how do you propose to stop the money being concentrated again?:

By getting the f*ck out of the way! Your cronies are the ones stopping the free market and enfranchizing the very companies you're lambasting! How ironic. If government would simply stand aside, the little guy could finally attempt to compete, and corporatism (which is your actual problem, not entrepreneurs -- please learn something) could not last.

Hmmm . . . he who has the greatest clientele shall win . . . the only way to compete is to come up with an original idea . . . doing what everyone else is doing is guaranteed failure . . . the same reason for the collapse of the stock market is the reason many small businesses fail . . . http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...


The government you're so fond of is the one's propping up the mega-corporations. Did you object?!?! Or does Daddy-Obama know best, even though he's tripled the national debt? These morons can't even manage their own books and you want them to wipe your @ss from cradle to grave.

Hmmm . . . who cares . . . it would be worse under Sarah Palin (we all know McCain would have died after elected) we would be at war with China . . .


The rich are going to re-gain control and then move us back in the direction of cancerous government growth. There's no way to stop them:

"The rich?" I'm sorry, I don't understand a world that dissuades you from achieving goals. I don't want to know a world like that.

Hmmm . . . http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.countriesquest.com...


they are able to manipulate us so efficiently it isn't even funny.:

Oh, but the government's your friend? Do you have to shop at Walmart under the threat of imprisonment? If you despise Walmart's business model, then boycott them. I only ask because if I don't bail out Washington's idiotic economic woes, I do go to prison. We don't have a choice in the matter. So please don't lecture me about freedom. You seem to want to trade freedom for the security of your Master... You deserve neither.

Government money is not entirely your money it is a collective of all tax paying citizens . . . tax pays for military and your rights get over it . . .


They don't drag us out in the street and beat us into martyrs anymore; they convince us that capitalism is the only way to be free and then let people like you fight their battles for them.:

And what do you propose to take it's place? Seriously. Do you think corporations who make the money go away under socialism? I guess Ikea isn't successful. I guess the CEO, who's Swedish, a notoriously socialist country, isn't one of the richest men on the planet. You think they want their cash cow gone? Not a chance.

Agree but look at Switzerland . . . http://en.wikipedia.org...


And what about communism? Should we work for the government to make goods and then distribute the wealth to everyone? Be my guest and move to North Korea. I implore you to do just that if your life here is just so unbearable.

Look at "other" forms of communism . . . http://en.wikipedia.org...


Because China is finally learning something... And my oh my, look what is happening as a result. Millions upon millions of people lifted out of poverty, and a thriving country. But you'd like to turn back the clock and have everyone equal... equally miserable, that is.

http://en.wikipedia.org...


Get rid of government, by getting rid ofthe entrepreneurs who build them.:

I'm not an anarchist. I have no desire to destroy the government, only to scale it down to what it's designed to do. Military, infrastructure, courts, etc.

Agree yet disagree, I only want the removal of certain restrictions . . .


But do tell. I'm sure every one of these departments are worth the ghastly economic woes we're in.

Meh . . .


The nation will clearly implode without the National Endowment of the Arts. God knows we need the government to fund art! We're over $14 TRILLION dollars in debt, and you want an even bigger government. Brilliant. It's mathematically impossible to pay it off, and yet government is the answer to your problems. Un-f*cking-real.

Why should government fund art . ? . I agree . . .


http://www.usa.gov...

http://www.academon.com...
http://muslihoon.wordpress.com...
http://wiki.answers.com...
http://www.megaessays.com...
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 7:04:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/7/2011 2:43:20 PM, Caramel wrote:
As nice as the welfare state sounds, said money is taken from people by force.

That video's logic was so bad it was insulting. They talk down "agents of the state" but say nothing about actually getting rid of them. I'm sure as soon as all those liberal redistributive programs disappear then those minions will turn into smiling peace officers helping old ladies cross the street, right? The police are soulless agents straight out of Oddworld when we're talking about liberal policies, but when they are protecting property rights they are pleasantly plump and cheery men with a mustache and a flashlight.

Essentially. If you're a doctor who rapes people and collects stamps you're a rapist, stamp collecting doctor. But if you stop that a you're a stamp collecting doctor. So yeah, stopping certain actions can change how a person is viewed. Definitely.


And what of why their friend is broke in the first place? They didn't show all the entrepreneurs (who make more money than anyone else [i.e., the people who actually produce in society] because we're playing by their rules) on the side burning hundred dollar bills for fun while that guy's kids don't have an opportunity for an education? It's a bad idea to make education available to our citizens because we need to reserve it for the children of the entrepreneurs who deserve it more than us.

Tragic that child won't have an education, truly, but you justify violence against peaceful people so they receive one?
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 9:50:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/7/2011 4:53:28 PM, Sieben wrote:
You should also consider that a telecom monopoly makes it excessively difficult to enter the market of "internet". We think our current internet is awesome because its all we have, but it might be inferior to what we'd have without state control of information mediums.

Its also kind of funny because the market clearly invented telephones, and yet the internet is supposed to be inconceivable without the state when its really just telephones for computers. To be sure, there are technical problems that have to be worked out, but there aren't any fundamental reasons why the market wouldn't have done it.

There are a myriad of reasons why the government did it first, chief among them probably telecom cartels and opportunity cost. So what if they can develop the theory early? ARPANET was started in the 60's, but didn't become widely used till the mid 80's. The opportunity cost is particularly high if everyone knows the government is going to do it anyway - not much point reinventing the wheel.

Hope google can get this off though http://www.zdnet.com...

It should also be noted that Xerox played a large role in the beginnings of the internet, something I just learned about today.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2011 11:05:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/7/2011 4:40:14 PM, Sieben wrote:
The government confiscates upwards of 30% of our wealth. It should be responsible for at least 30% of investments and inventions. Probably more if you assume that people consume first, and then invest if there's anything left over.

I would estimate that another 30% is consumed by the owners of the means of production.
no comment
wamba
Posts: 688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2011 12:31:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Laissez Faire is similar to socialism. Great in theory, stupid in practice.

Keynesianism. Because Austrian economics makes sense only to a reasonable degree.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2011 1:07:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/8/2011 12:31:15 AM, wamba wrote:
Laissez Faire is similar to socialism. Great in theory, stupid in practice.

False. Socialism is terrible in practice because it is terrible in theory. Debate me on praxeology vs. empiricism?

Keynesianism. Because Austrian economics makes sense only to a reasonable degree.

You're not even a Keynesian; you're more of a Chicagoite...
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2011 1:26:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/8/2011 1:07:19 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
You're not even a Keynesian; you're more of a Chicagoite...

That's what he said - a Keynesian.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2011 1:29:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/8/2011 1:26:37 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 1/8/2011 1:07:19 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
You're not even a Keynesian; you're more of a Chicagoite...

That's what he said - a Keynesian.

Well played, sir ;)
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2011 1:43:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/7/2011 4:39:59 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 1/7/2011 4:29:55 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 1/7/2011 4:18:59 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:

Now!

http://blog.heritage.org...

Another reason why biased sources should not be trusted...

When Bush left office, the national debt was actually at 10.5 trillion -- almost double from when he entered office. Likewise, Bush also had gotten the budget deficit up to 1.2 trillion. However, some of those expenditures didn't manifest until Obama was already in office, thus making them look like a part of Obama's budget. So in reality, Obama has upped the national debt from 10.5 trillion to 14.3 trillion -- and counting -- or something like that. Obama also increased the 1.2 trillion deficit to 1.4 trillion in 2009, and 1.3 trillion in 2010.

Often, Bush's spending policies are cut off in June/July of 2008, which took place before the TARP and stock market crash. This arbitrarily places more blame on Obama than what is granted.
wamba
Posts: 688
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2011 1:47:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/8/2011 1:07:19 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
False. Socialism is terrible in practice because it is terrible in theory. Debate me on praxeology vs. empiricism?

Socialism is terrible in nature because of human nature.

Austrian economics are terrible in nature because they are impractical, partcularly the user fee system for policing, national defense, enforcement of negative externalities, etc.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2011 1:49:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yeah PL, the heritage foundation is just a right wing propaganda organization created during the Cold War to publish a bunch of Pro Ally statistics
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2011 1:58:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/8/2011 1:47:07 PM, wamba wrote:
At 1/8/2011 1:07:19 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
False. Socialism is terrible in practice because it is terrible in theory. Debate me on praxeology vs. empiricism?


Socialism is terrible in nature because of human nature.

Yes, which is why a praxeological critique is particularly devastating.

Austrian economics are terrible in nature because they are impractical, partcularly the user fee system for policing, national defense, enforcement of negative externalities, etc.

That's not an argument; you're just asserting 'that wouldn't work.' Let me know if you want to debate it.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2011 11:43:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/7/2011 7:04:01 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 1/7/2011 2:43:20 PM, Caramel wrote:
As nice as the welfare state sounds, said money is taken from people by force.

That video's logic was so bad it was insulting. They talk down "agents of the state" but say nothing about actually getting rid of them. I'm sure as soon as all those liberal redistributive programs disappear then those minions will turn into smiling peace officers helping old ladies cross the street, right? The police are soulless agents straight out of Oddworld when we're talking about liberal policies, but when they are protecting property rights they are pleasantly plump and cheery men with a mustache and a flashlight.

Essentially. If you're a doctor who rapes people and collects stamps you're a rapist, stamp collecting doctor. But if you stop that a you're a stamp collecting doctor. So yeah, stopping certain actions can change how a person is viewed. Definitely.

So cops who enforce liberal policies are akin to rapists, but when they are enforcing property rights they are freed of their unjust acts? Furthermore, how does one police officer avoid the 'rape?' By choosing which laws to enforce?


And what of why their friend is broke in the first place? They didn't show all the entrepreneurs (who make more money than anyone else [i.e., the people who actually produce in society] because we're playing by their rules) on the side burning hundred dollar bills for fun while that guy's kids don't have an opportunity for an education? It's a bad idea to make education available to our citizens because we need to reserve it for the children of the entrepreneurs who deserve it more than us.

Tragic that child won't have an education, truly, but you justify violence against peaceful people so they receive one?

That's an easy position to take, living in a wealthy country and being financially secure. If there are two people in a room and one has food and the other is starving, which one is going to have a rosier view of property rights and 'stopping the violence?'
no comment
juvanya
Posts: 613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2011 3:00:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/7/2011 8:52:01 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Clearly, though, human civilisations developed through co-operation

Who said the free market was anti-cooperative?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2011 8:16:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/7/2011 2:43:20 PM, Caramel wrote:
As nice as the welfare state sounds, said money is taken from people by force.

That video's logic was so bad it was insulting. They talk down "agents of the state" but say nothing about actually getting rid of them. I'm sure as soon as all those liberal redistributive programs disappear then those minions will turn into smiling peace officers helping old ladies cross the street, right?
No, that is not how they get customers. They turn into frowning police officers who point their guns at people who are initiate force against their customers--- they take away, not George, but Jack the Ripper, or Enron executives stealing from shareholders

Incidentally, the video was made by an anarcho-capitalist, so it has an even shorter defense against your statement, though it has other problems.

So cops who enforce liberal policies are akin to rapists, but when they are enforcing property rights they are freed of their unjust acts?
Property rights are what render the act just.

Do you feel uncomfortable threatening violence against someone who takes the bike you just spent quite a while building?

I don't.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.