Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why Libertarians Will Always Defeat Commies

Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 10:28:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Its not because we have better arguments. Its not because we're smarter. Its not because we're more experienced...

Its because they can't express themselves in anything short of novel format. See charles blogs here http://www.thetotalrevolutionproject.com... http://www.spiritualsolutionsnow.com... (that's right, he needs two blogs).

Why does this cause them to lose arguments? Because libertarians can address entire chunks of texts with one-liners and brief explanations, each of which breeds a multiplying number of paragraphs in response from commies.

To croquet dear Charles, To croquet....
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 10:33:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/14/2011 10:28:30 AM, Sieben wrote:

To croquet dear Charles, To croquet....

You're gonna play that game with the little hammer and balls with him?
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 2:33:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Its a play on http://en.wikipedia.org... which charles used at the end of his last thingy. I'm implying that he's bourgeois because he plays croquet (which is supposed to be an insult).
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2011 5:15:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/14/2011 10:28:30 AM, Sieben wrote:
Its not because we have better arguments. Its not because we're smarter. Its not because we're more experienced...

Its because they can't express themselves in anything short of novel format. See charles blogs here http://www.thetotalrevolutionproject.com... http://www.spiritualsolutionsnow.com... (that's right, he needs two blogs).

Why does this cause them to lose arguments? Because libertarians can address entire chunks of texts with one-liners and brief explanations, each of which breeds a multiplying number of paragraphs in response from commies.

To croquet dear Charles, To croquet....

This is comical.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 9:12:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
This is an amusing post. I do tend to notice that though, that commies must refer to their theoretical stuff and then give entire essays as answers. Just check out websites such as revleft. Most of the respected members there give entire essays as answers.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 9:18:57 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 9:12:08 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
This is an amusing post. I do tend to notice that though, that commies must refer to their theoretical stuff and then give entire essays as answers. Just check out websites such as revleft. Most of the respected members there give entire essays as answers.

Punctuated by emotional pleas for the poor and exploited.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 9:19:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 9:18:57 AM, innomen wrote:
At 2/15/2011 9:12:08 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
This is an amusing post. I do tend to notice that though, that commies must refer to their theoretical stuff and then give entire essays as answers. Just check out websites such as revleft. Most of the respected members there give entire essays as answers.

Punctuated by emotional pleas for the poor and exploited.

Their entire arguments usually are just a massive appeal to emotion. Having been on both the right and left, I know this very well.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 9:35:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 9:19:52 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 2/15/2011 9:18:57 AM, innomen wrote:
At 2/15/2011 9:12:08 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
This is an amusing post. I do tend to notice that though, that commies must refer to their theoretical stuff and then give entire essays as answers. Just check out websites such as revleft. Most of the respected members there give entire essays as answers.

Punctuated by emotional pleas for the poor and exploited.

Their entire arguments usually are just a massive appeal to emotion. Having been on both the right and left, I know this very well.

That's why they lack substance and in practical application fail. I think the entire goal of the left is to just make EVERYONE poor. In my experience the greatest reasons for the very poor countries is an institutionalized and legalized pervading value of corruption. It is so much a part of their culture, such a systemic way of living, and operating, i really see little hope for these third world countries.

I'm in Nicaragua at the moment, and their leader isn't supposed to run again due to their constitution and it's term limits restriction, and yet he's running! I asked someone about this, and they said that their constitution was essentially toilet paper. Oh, and she's not even going to bother to vote because they all know it's fixed. Their leader has denied the world community from observing the elections, and everyone knows it will be fixed. Yeah, their leader, Daniel Ortega is Sandinista - commie (puppet of Hugo Chavez).
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 9:54:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/14/2011 10:28:30 AM, Sieben wrote:
http://www.thetotalrevolutionproject.com...
http://www.spiritualsolutionsnow.com...

I understand The Total Revolution Project. That makes sense. But what the hell does Spiritual Solution Snow mean?
"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
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 9:55:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 9:54:19 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/14/2011 10:28:30 AM, Sieben wrote:
http://www.thetotalrevolutionproject.com...
http://www.spiritualsolutionsnow.com...

I understand The Total Revolution Project. That makes sense. But what the hell does Spiritual Solution Snow mean?

I think its a metaphor for baby gravy
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 9:56:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
OK there is a point in conciseness but it's not a totally fair comparison. Those who supported the Ptolemaic universe probably had more concise arguments than the believers in heliocentricity simply because it was the status quo. Defending the status quo is easy because you are living the experiment and it's easy to cite what is all around you. It's easy to roll with the norm because the logical infrastructure is already in place all around you. It's an uphill battle trying to introduce new theoretical evidence and uproot lifetimes of social conditioning.

If simplicity is your standard, then take a glance at the Economics forum. What a load of garbage! Interest rates, complex economic calculations... it's just like Ptolemy's complex model of the solar system. I drop in the eco forum all the time and say "you're all full of sh*t and making this more complex than it needs to be" but am (not surprisingly) largely ignored. My ideas are much, much, much simpler than capitalism's. There are no insurance companies, banks, administrative institutions at all. There are no stock markets, market forces, sales, PR... No executive agencies, no legislatures, no courts and lawyers... No laws, no taxes, no police... Despite the fact that my system is far simpler, in the same way that heliocentricity is simpler than the Ptolemaic model, I can't explain it to you concisely because you are unwilling or unable to imagine anything different than what you see around you now.

If we lived in a simply set up society and you were the radical, how concise would you be? Would you have fun explaining the science of economics? It takes many years of study to get a grasp of this field. Would you be able to concisely explain the stock market? Could you easily expalin how our health care would be taken care of? How insurance should be set up? How tort law is set up? Would you want to talk about the sociological implications of individualism and greed? Would you care to delve into regulatory schemes for managing competition? Managing pollution? Would you want to discuss how unions work? Maybe you'd go into globalism, international trade, tariffs, talk about NAFTA a little bit. Maybe you'll describe to us how our military would be involved in securing resources for us overseas and how private military companies are used (and controlled). Maybe our banking system could be explained. Perhaps a wee bit of accounting could be incorporated in. Business strategies would be another good point to address. Social programs would need to be described as well - welfare, medicaid, medicare, social security...

Any one of these fields could take a person their whole life to master. Capitalism demands this complexity, despite the flat-earth libertarian view that we never needed them in the first place and that the past 200 years of our country's economic development were all really unnecessary because Laissez-Faire was never realized. As if we wouldn't have gravitated to it if it worked (every industry has needed regs added, not deleted), or as if one tiny regulation throws off the perfect harmony and ruins it, creating this mess (you see it never was Laissez-Faire!). If you're going to have competition then you need politics to control competing interests.
no comment
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 10:01:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Oh wait... I'm supposed to be concise to make my point. OK... my system is simpler than yours. There you go, nice and concise.
no comment
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 10:05:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 10:01:06 AM, Caramel wrote:
Oh wait... I'm supposed to be concise to make my point. OK... my system is simpler than yours. There you go, nice and concise.

Yours doesn't work, has never worked, and never will work.

More concise.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 10:08:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 9:56:44 AM, Caramel wrote:
Despite the fact that my system is far simpler, in the same way that heliocentricity is simpler than the Ptolemaic model, I can't explain it to you concisely because you are unwilling or unable to imagine anything different than what you see around you now.

This is the most BS argument. The anarcho-capitalist system is nothing like what we see around us now. I'll agree that people cannot often fathom something so foreign to their own experience... which is why people ask ancaps about how the police, military, courts and other things like that would work in their system. Their answer is always the same and the most obvious and simple explanation. The question is whether or not such a system is moral/ practical/ functional. Similarly it's not that they don't understand what you're proposing -- they're just questioning the validity of it. Are you so arrogant that you think people disagree because they don't understand and not simply the fact that they find it flawed?
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 10:11:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 10:05:25 AM, innomen wrote:
At 2/15/2011 10:01:06 AM, Caramel wrote:
Oh wait... I'm supposed to be concise to make my point. OK... my system is simpler than yours. There you go, nice and concise.

Yours doesn't work, has never worked, and never will work.

More concise.

First, he can say that his system has never been totally implemented. Second, there actually are examples of successful communities like he advocates - but that's neither here nor there. Plus, you could easily make the argument that all kinds of systems get changed or overthrown (see: why there isn't pure capitalism as you advocate now).
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 10:39:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 10:05:25 AM, innomen wrote:
At 2/15/2011 10:01:06 AM, Caramel wrote:
Oh wait... I'm supposed to be concise to make my point. OK... my system is simpler than yours. There you go, nice and concise.

Yours doesn't work, has never worked, and never will work.

More concise.

Ants and Bees
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 10:52:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 10:39:29 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/15/2011 10:05:25 AM, innomen wrote:
At 2/15/2011 10:01:06 AM, Caramel wrote:
Oh wait... I'm supposed to be concise to make my point. OK... my system is simpler than yours. There you go, nice and concise.

Yours doesn't work, has never worked, and never will work.

More concise.

Ants and Bees

Precisely. Ants do everything perfectly, and in the end, we will resemble them to the T. Ants do not use capitalism, they use AnCom. In fact, the most savvy understanding of our technological progress is that we are no longer trying to defeat and out-improvise nature, but that we are trying to mimic it and use existing biological systems to our advantage.

Capitalism really isn't different than religion when you come down to it - based off of a supernatural sense that humans are superior to other organisms and their environment and that a rich man is the epitome of biological evolution. They strive to be that rich man (the pitiful thing is that they never will even get that far) and throw away morality on their way to destroying their own lives. Why else would they condone such wanton destruction of their natural environment?
no comment
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 11:03:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 10:11:00 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/15/2011 10:05:25 AM, innomen wrote:
At 2/15/2011 10:01:06 AM, Caramel wrote:
Oh wait... I'm supposed to be concise to make my point. OK... my system is simpler than yours. There you go, nice and concise.

Yours doesn't work, has never worked, and never will work.

More concise.

First, he can say that his system has never been totally implemented. Second, there actually are examples of successful communities like he advocates - but that's neither here nor there. Plus, you could easily make the argument that all kinds of systems get changed or overthrown (see: why there isn't pure capitalism as you advocate now).

I have heard Rob's ideas before, and on communism, in every instance where it has been attempted in a pure form (with a few minor exceptions among religious communities) at a large scale level, drastic modifications had to be made in order to stem the inherent failures of the system. If you look at collective farms and their yield versus privately managed farms you will find what those who attempted such changes found- they just don't work, at least not if you are looking to feed your people. Show me a solution at a macro level; even most at a micro level don't work either. Generally speaking, we will never find utopia, and typically all attempts at it have been disastrous. You have to figure on the best of the worst, and work from there.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 11:10:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 10:08:50 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/15/2011 9:56:44 AM, Caramel wrote:
Despite the fact that my system is far simpler, in the same way that heliocentricity is simpler than the Ptolemaic model, I can't explain it to you concisely because you are unwilling or unable to imagine anything different than what you see around you now.

This is the most BS argument.

Pause for typical Lwerd etiquette.

The anarcho-capitalist system is nothing like what we see around us now.

I would imagine so... A bunch of competing entities and no one to check them. Kind of like the NFL with no referee staff.

I'll agree that people cannot often fathom something so foreign to their own experience... which is why people ask ancaps about how the police, military, courts and other things like that would work in their system. Their answer is always the same and the most obvious and simple explanation.

They will be privately owned. Private police forces could be imagined to be greatest evil mankind has ever imagined.

The question is whether or not such a system is moral/ practical/ functional. Similarly it's not that they don't understand what you're proposing -- they're just questioning the validity of it. Are you so arrogant that you think people disagree because they don't understand and not simply the fact that they find it flawed?

Yes I am. Do you open an ant farm and start identifying flaws in their ability to work together? Do you think each ant should work individually and that the strongest one should command other ants instead of working herself? Should the other ants be sub-contracted to cleaning up the superior ants and feeding them so they can spend more time making the big choices?

My baby is crying. Wait a minute... my household is an AnCom structure so it must not be feasible. I should be writing down all the time and money I'm spending on my daughter so that I can bill her later on, because after all, greed is the way we operate and we are unable to work without it. When I make a meal I better not offer the leftovers to my roommate, I better find a price he will pay or else tack it onto his rent. If he wants to eat he will pay.
no comment
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 11:20:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 11:10:40 AM, Caramel wrote:
At 2/15/2011 10:08:50 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/15/2011 9:56:44 AM, Caramel wrote:
Despite the fact that my system is far simpler, in the same way that heliocentricity is simpler than the Ptolemaic model, I can't explain it to you concisely because you are unwilling or unable to imagine anything different than what you see around you now.

This is the most BS argument.

Pause for typical Lwerd etiquette.

The anarcho-capitalist system is nothing like what we see around us now.

I would imagine so... A bunch of competing entities and no one to check them. Kind of like the NFL with no referee staff.

I'll agree that people cannot often fathom something so foreign to their own experience... which is why people ask ancaps about how the police, military, courts and other things like that would work in their system. Their answer is always the same and the most obvious and simple explanation.

They will be privately owned. Private police forces could be imagined to be greatest evil mankind has ever imagined.

The question is whether or not such a system is moral/ practical/ functional. Similarly it's not that they don't understand what you're proposing -- they're just questioning the validity of it. Are you so arrogant that you think people disagree because they don't understand and not simply the fact that they find it flawed?

Yes I am. Do you open an ant farm and start identifying flaws in their ability to work together? Do you think each ant should work individually and that the strongest one should command other ants instead of working herself? Should the other ants be sub-contracted to cleaning up the superior ants and feeding them so they can spend more time making the big choices?

My baby is crying. Wait a minute... my household is an AnCom structure so it must not be feasible. I should be writing down all the time and money I'm spending on my daughter so that I can bill her later on, because after all, greed is the way we operate and we are unable to work without it. When I make a meal I better not offer the leftovers to my roommate, I better find a price he will pay or else tack it onto his rent. If he wants to eat he will pay.

Rob, you really need to quit the ant and bee analogy, if you can't see how humans are different in a societal construct to bugs, then you're in trouble. Furthermore, i don't think you have an accurate understanding of what greed is.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 11:29:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 11:03:16 AM, innomen wrote:
At 2/15/2011 10:11:00 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/15/2011 10:05:25 AM, innomen wrote:
At 2/15/2011 10:01:06 AM, Caramel wrote:
Oh wait... I'm supposed to be concise to make my point. OK... my system is simpler than yours. There you go, nice and concise.

Yours doesn't work, has never worked, and never will work.

More concise.

First, he can say that his system has never been totally implemented. Second, there actually are examples of successful communities like he advocates - but that's neither here nor there. Plus, you could easily make the argument that all kinds of systems get changed or overthrown (see: why there isn't pure capitalism as you advocate now).

I have heard Rob's ideas before, and on communism, in every instance where it has been attempted in a pure form (with a few minor exceptions among religious communities) at a large scale level, drastic modifications had to be made in order to stem the inherent failures of the system. If you look at collective farms and their yield versus privately managed farms you will find what those who attempted such changes found- they just don't work, at least not if you are looking to feed your people. Show me a solution at a macro level; even most at a micro level don't work either. Generally speaking, we will never find utopia, and typically all attempts at it have been disastrous. You have to figure on the best of the worst, and work from there.

just because something was tried and failed doesn't mean that it is inherently a failure. Since, in its purest form, communism does work, has worked and is working, in nature.

Claiming that a theory is inherently false, simply because the first few versions didn't work would lead you to believe the Earth is still the center of the universe. Namely because the first models of planets orbiting the sun did not accurately work (because they used circles rather then elipses). While you suggest simply throwing out the entire theory, I suggest that the theory be reworked and improved.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 11:30:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 11:03:16 AM, innomen wrote:
At 2/15/2011 10:11:00 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/15/2011 10:05:25 AM, innomen wrote:
At 2/15/2011 10:01:06 AM, Caramel wrote:
Oh wait... I'm supposed to be concise to make my point. OK... my system is simpler than yours. There you go, nice and concise.

Yours doesn't work, has never worked, and never will work.

More concise.

First, he can say that his system has never been totally implemented. Second, there actually are examples of successful communities like he advocates - but that's neither here nor there. Plus, you could easily make the argument that all kinds of systems get changed or overthrown (see: why there isn't pure capitalism as you advocate now).

I have heard Rob's ideas before, and ignored them successfully .

and on communism, in every instance where it has been attempted in a pure form (with a few minor exceptions among religious communities) at a large scale level, drastic modifications had to be made in order to stem the inherent failures of the system.

Drastic changes are irrelevant. Our system is broken so of course there are drastic changes. "Inherent failures?" HA! I'll compare my inherent failures to market externalities any day of the week.

If you look at collective farms and their yield versus privately managed farms you will find what those who attempted such changes found- they just don't work, at least not if you are looking to feed your people.

Of course they don't work. Try starting a cooperative NFL team and see if they go to the Super Bowl any time soon. Football is a game so we WANT only one winner and lots of losers; it wouldn't be fun if all 32 teams won every year. In a competitive society, coops are not just going to take hold as if they operated within a vacuum. As far as efficiency and effectiveness (crop yields) are concerned, then we have a very long discussion ahead of us. Should we use fertilizers/pesticides/herbicides on the field? They increase crop yields, but they also run off into the water supply. They also are ingested and are not necessarily safe. Should we use monocultures? They increase crop yields, but the crops are less resistant to plague and aren't going to mesh with the natural ecosystem as well. Should we use human labor or machines? Machines increase crop yeilds, but consume large amounts of oil and produce GHGs. They also require large investments in equipment.

My point is that you are thinking one-dimensionally. Just because an AnCom farm might not produce as much or be able to compete with capitalists, doesn't mean the discussion is over. Capitalists do not think about any of these factors because the money dictates that they use the dirtiest, most polluting and harmful methods possible. The true savings are not realized quickly enough for capitalism to adapt to (i.e., environmental and resource degradation). In my system farms will be everywhere; dispersed throughout neighborhoods as well as perhaps some limited monocultures when absolutely necessary. Farms will be labor-intensive, but they will also be completely at balance with the environment and will be so enjoyable to work in that you will want to adjust your workweek so that you get some time in them to help out. Monocultures are terrible to be around, but natural farms are teeming with life of all kinds. Going shopping will be less about shelves of shiny polyurethane and more about picking your own food off of a vine that you helped in cultivating.

Show me a solution at a macro level; even most at a micro level don't work either. Generally speaking, we will never find utopia, and typically all attempts at it have been disastrous. You have to figure on the best of the worst, and work from there.

Don't think of it as 'finding utopia;' think of it as not promoting hell.
no comment
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 11:33:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 11:20:26 AM, innomen wrote:
At 2/15/2011 11:10:40 AM, Caramel wrote:
At 2/15/2011 10:08:50 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/15/2011 9:56:44 AM, Caramel wrote:
Despite the fact that my system is far simpler, in the same way that heliocentricity is simpler than the Ptolemaic model, I can't explain it to you concisely because you are unwilling or unable to imagine anything different than what you see around you now.

This is the most BS argument.

Pause for typical Lwerd etiquette.

The anarcho-capitalist system is nothing like what we see around us now.

I would imagine so... A bunch of competing entities and no one to check them. Kind of like the NFL with no referee staff.

I'll agree that people cannot often fathom something so foreign to their own experience... which is why people ask ancaps about how the police, military, courts and other things like that would work in their system. Their answer is always the same and the most obvious and simple explanation.

They will be privately owned. Private police forces could be imagined to be greatest evil mankind has ever imagined.

The question is whether or not such a system is moral/ practical/ functional. Similarly it's not that they don't understand what you're proposing -- they're just questioning the validity of it. Are you so arrogant that you think people disagree because they don't understand and not simply the fact that they find it flawed?

Yes I am. Do you open an ant farm and start identifying flaws in their ability to work together? Do you think each ant should work individually and that the strongest one should command other ants instead of working herself? Should the other ants be sub-contracted to cleaning up the superior ants and feeding them so they can spend more time making the big choices?

My baby is crying. Wait a minute... my household is an AnCom structure so it must not be feasible. I should be writing down all the time and money I'm spending on my daughter so that I can bill her later on, because after all, greed is the way we operate and we are unable to work without it. When I make a meal I better not offer the leftovers to my roommate, I better find a price he will pay or else tack it onto his rent. If he wants to eat he will pay.

Rob, you really need to quit the ant and bee analogy, if you can't see how humans are different in a societal construct to bugs, then you're in trouble. Furthermore, i don't think you have an accurate understanding of what greed is.

Look up any of the primary dictionary references of 'greed' and I will submit to it.
no comment
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 11:50:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 11:10:40 AM, Caramel wrote:
Pause for typical Lwerd etiquette.

This is an obvious attempt to try and deflect from the fact that I was 100% correct in saying your argument was BS. And yes if an argument is BS I'm gonna say so.

I would imagine so... A bunch of competing entities and no one to check them. Kind of like the NFL with no referee staff.

Irrelevant and non-sensical analogy.

They will be privately owned. Private police forces could be imagined to be greatest evil mankind has ever imagined.

Pause for typical Caramel argument: nothing but fallacious.

Ants are communist.

Female spiders eat males after mating.

Stuff

I can't take you seriously.
President of DDO
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 11:56:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
To Caramel's original point, it isn't simplicity that makes libertarians win. Its their efficiency in articulation. It would take me a while to explain geomechanics to you, but I can probably do it without wasting more than a couple sentences.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 1:08:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 11:50:31 AM, theLwerd wrote:
At 2/15/2011 11:10:40 AM, Caramel wrote:
Pause for typical Lwerd etiquette.

This is an obvious attempt to try and deflect from the fact that I was 100% correct in saying your argument was BS. And yes if an argument is BS I'm gonna say so.

Now that's a point I'm not going to argue.

I would imagine so... A bunch of competing entities and no one to check them. Kind of like the NFL with no referee staff.

Irrelevant and non-sensical analogy.

How so? The foundations of my argument - which you aren't going to expend the effort to realize - are that when people compete there are few winners and many losers. That's the essence of competition. When people cooperate, it is possible for most everyone to win. Capitalists promise us that if we let the winners continue to win even more than they are now, that somehow we will hit a point where the poor will cease to be poor. There are too many ways to attack this logic for me to be concise about doing it.

They will be privately owned. Private police forces could be imagined to be greatest evil mankind has ever imagined.

Pause for typical Caramel argument: nothing but fallacious.

What could be more immoral than privately owned police? Pick anything in the universe to compare it to and we'll take a look.

Ants are communist.

Female spiders eat males after mating.

What does sex have to do with how organisms organize to achieve productivity? That's a very wild swing of the bat there. I don't think that you would have said that in an economics classroom setting, or you would have been pretty humiliated.

Stuff

I can't take you seriously.

Pause for predictable ad hominem.
no comment
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 1:10:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 11:56:48 AM, Sieben wrote:
To Caramel's original point, it isn't simplicity that makes libertarians win. Its their efficiency in articulation. It would take me a while to explain geomechanics to you, but I can probably do it without wasting more than a couple sentences.

Fair enough... but when did you become a libertarian? Was it months of insistance by me that anarchy and capitalism cannot be reconciled?
no comment
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 1:43:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 1:36:35 PM, Sieben wrote:
Anarcho capitalism is the purest expression of libertarianism - i.e. don't screw with innocent people
Excuse me?
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2011 1:46:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/15/2011 1:43:41 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 2/15/2011 1:36:35 PM, Sieben wrote:
Anarcho capitalism is the purest expression of libertarianism - i.e. don't screw with innocent people
Excuse me?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...