Total Posts:94|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Republicrats

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 3:39:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The political process is often dismissed by Libertarians and anarchists because Democrats and Republicans are both the same. They are equally bad. They are both "authoritarian scum". Not that I want to defend pure authoritarianism, but I feel like people toss around the term on DDO with such implicit negativity that it never occurs to them that they need to explain why its an intrinsically bad thing.

So lets do this. How about you explain on what basis your anti-authoritarian ideology is right? If you want to put forth an objective justification, then I'd love to controvert that. If you want to put forth a subjective justification, then what gives you the right to speak of and consider your ideology in such universal terms?...and by that I don't mean the fact that you defend your ideology and would encourage its spread (because I do that too for Liberalism)...I mean that you need to justify why you think that others are stupid, wrong, or have scummy beliefs, because they don't agree with you. What sanctions that indignance you feel whenever an election comes around?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 3:46:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
An ideology that stands for high taxation, weaker business prosperity, continous government involvement in the market is an authoritarian ideology. It is authoritarian if it restricts personal freedom where it is not necessary nor moral. E.g., freedom to exercise your religion, have control over your body, not being told how to live your life, etc.

Did I just describe your ideology? Indeed.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 4:54:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
From Ron Pauls farewell address:

Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties? (Republicans)

Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren"t they the same? (Democrats)

Why don't more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty? (Libertarians)

-- Ron Paul

The Democrats are Authoritarians in one aspect and Republicans are Authoritarian in another aspect, and combined creates complete CommunoFascism. Especially since Democrats fail at civil liberties and Republicans fail at economic freedom.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:04:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ron Paul's farewell address:

Authoritarianism vs. Liberty
"If authoritarianism leads to poverty and war and less freedom for all individuals and is controlled by rich special interests, the people should be begging for liberty. There certainly was a strong enough sentiment for more freedom at the time of our founding that motivated those who were willing to fight in the revolution against the powerful British government.
...
What a wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a suggestion is always: it"s too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, na"ve, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal.

The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty, was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace and prosperity.

What could be more utopian than that myth"considering the results especially looking at the state sponsored killing, by nearly every government during the 20th Century, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions. It"s time to reconsider this grant of authority to the state.

No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior. Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny. This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results are in: reality dictates we try liberty. "
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:04:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 4:54:47 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
From Ron Pauls farewell address:

Why do some members defend free markets, but not civil liberties? (Republicans)

Why do some members defend civil liberties but not free markets? Aren"t they the same? (Democrats)

Why don't more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty? (Libertarians)

-- Ron Paul

The Democrats are Authoritarians in one aspect and Republicans are Authoritarian in another aspect, and combined creates complete CommunoFascism. Especially since Democrats fail at civil liberties and Republicans fail at economic freedom.

but why is authoritarianism intrinsically bad?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:11:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 5:04:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/20/2012 4:54:47 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
but why is authoritarianism intrinsically bad?

See my post above, last 3 paragraphs.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:13:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 3:39:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
The political process is often dismissed by Libertarians and anarchists because Democrats and Republicans are both the same. They are equally bad. They are both "authoritarian scum". Not that I want to defend pure authoritarianism, but I feel like people toss around the term on DDO with such implicit negativity that it never occurs to them that they need to explain why its an intrinsically bad thing.

So lets do this. How about you explain on what basis your anti-authoritarian ideology is right? If you want to put forth an objective justification, then I'd love to controvert that. If you want to put forth a subjective justification, then what gives you the right to speak of and consider your ideology in such universal terms?...and by that I don't mean the fact that you defend your ideology and would encourage its spread (because I do that too for Liberalism)...I mean that you need to justify why you think that others are stupid, wrong, or have scummy beliefs, because they don't agree with you. What sanctions that indignance you feel whenever an election comes around?

Authoritarianism isn't necessarily a bad thing, fundamentally, but there are two things at play, here. There is the reality of how authoritarianism manifests in contemporary society, and there's the ideologies that exist on DDO.

In terms of the ideologies on DDO, some of the most outspoken people are libertarians. Therefore, they're going to admonish authoritarianism as a matter of course. However, so is every other reasonable person who understands what authoritarianism is.

In terms of its manifestation in contemporary society, authoritarianism is essentially a way to describe the ideology that underlies governments like dictatorships and mon/minarchies. Characteristics include the elimination of opposition by force and social oppression through political mechanisms. It is literally the best rationale one could possibly have for being something like an Anarcho-Capitalist.

So, yes, of course people are going to regard authoritarianism with disdain and roll their eyes whenever they encounter someone who supports it in politics.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:16:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
-Individuals are more likely to know their own preferences and desires better then an arbitrary authority
-Even If we assume individuals are bad decision makers and the government consist of good decision makers, it is incredibly difficult to enforce "good decisions" through force. There are negative costs associated with enforcing "good decisions" like prison population, the damage that is caused when one is arrested, the creation of black markets which creates gangs, cost of police officers, the distrust between police officers and individuals through too many laws.
-Individuals prefer choice and freedom.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:23:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Liberty:
America (pre-1913)
Hong Kong
Somalia
Sweden

Authoritarianism:
North Korea
Nazi Germany
Soviet Russia
Communist China

Take your pick.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:25:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 5:13:01 PM, Ren wrote:
At 11/20/2012 3:39:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
The political process is often dismissed by Libertarians and anarchists because Democrats and Republicans are both the same. They are equally bad. They are both "authoritarian scum". Not that I want to defend pure authoritarianism, but I feel like people toss around the term on DDO with such implicit negativity that it never occurs to them that they need to explain why its an intrinsically bad thing.

So lets do this. How about you explain on what basis your anti-authoritarian ideology is right? If you want to put forth an objective justification, then I'd love to controvert that. If you want to put forth a subjective justification, then what gives you the right to speak of and consider your ideology in such universal terms?...and by that I don't mean the fact that you defend your ideology and would encourage its spread (because I do that too for Liberalism)...I mean that you need to justify why you think that others are stupid, wrong, or have scummy beliefs, because they don't agree with you. What sanctions that indignance you feel whenever an election comes around?

Authoritarianism isn't necessarily a bad thing, fundamentally, but there are two things at play, here. There is the reality of how authoritarianism manifests in contemporary society, and there's the ideologies that exist on DDO.

In terms of the ideologies on DDO, some of the most outspoken people are libertarians. Therefore, they're going to admonish authoritarianism as a matter of course. However, so is every other reasonable person who understands what authoritarianism is.

In terms of its manifestation in contemporary society, authoritarianism is essentially a way to describe the ideology that underlies governments like dictatorships and mon/minarchies. Characteristics include the elimination of opposition by force and social oppression through political mechanisms. It is literally the best rationale one could possibly have for being something like an Anarcho-Capitalist.

So, yes, of course people are going to regard authoritarianism with disdain and roll their eyes whenever they encounter someone who supports it in politics.

That doesn't really answer my question, especially regarding the authoritarianism of modern Conservatives and Liberals which doesn't involve mass murder and subjugation. Why is it so heinous that we relinquish some modest freedom in exchange for order and fairness? Whatever moral reasoning you have, why is that reasoning objectively correct? (I don't think any moral claim is objectively correct) ...or if you have a subjective reasoning, why then can you speak of your ideology in such universal terms? As in, why do you(as in people in general) treat another person's ideology as wrong, even though you've just assented to the fact that your ideology is not "true" on any universal basis with which you can use to appeal your case over others'?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:26:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 5:23:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Liberty:
America (pre-1913)
Hong Kong
Somalia
Sweden

Authoritarianism:
North Korea
Nazi Germany
Soviet Russia
Communist China

Take your pick.

Are you fcking kidding me? Did you mean Singapore?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:31:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 5:16:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:
-Individuals are more likely to know their own preferences and desires better then an arbitrary authority
-Even If we assume individuals are bad decision makers and the government consist of good decision makers, it is incredibly difficult to enforce "good decisions" through force. There are negative costs associated with enforcing "good decisions" like prison population, the damage that is caused when one is arrested, the creation of black markets which creates gangs, cost of police officers, the distrust between police officers and individuals through too many laws.
-Individuals prefer choice and freedom.

Except that there is a balance, and freedom is not that the perch of anyone's ethical hierarchy. Most people also value fairness and justice...part of which is the reason why we can rob criminals of their freedom. So why can't this healthy majority of people who are not at the highest peak of the socioeconomic ladder and who work very hard, espouse some modestly economically authoritarian policies which ameliorate their conditions without being told that they're objectively wrong and deserve no help?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:36:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 5:31:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/20/2012 5:16:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:
-Individuals are more likely to know their own preferences and desires better then an arbitrary authority
-Even If we assume individuals are bad decision makers and the government consist of good decision makers, it is incredibly difficult to enforce "good decisions" through force. There are negative costs associated with enforcing "good decisions" like prison population, the damage that is caused when one is arrested, the creation of black markets which creates gangs, cost of police officers, the distrust between police officers and individuals through too many laws.
-Individuals prefer choice and freedom.

Except that there is a balance, and freedom is not that the perch of anyone's ethical hierarchy. Most people also value fairness and justice...part of which is the reason why we can rob criminals of their freedom. So why can't this healthy majority of people who are not at the highest peak of the socioeconomic ladder and who work very hard, espouse some modestly economically authoritarian policies which ameliorate their conditions without being told that they're objectively wrong and deserve no help?

Why is that just or fair?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:37:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 5:31:12 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/20/2012 5:16:13 PM, darkkermit wrote:
-Individuals are more likely to know their own preferences and desires better then an arbitrary authority
-Even If we assume individuals are bad decision makers and the government consist of good decision makers, it is incredibly difficult to enforce "good decisions" through force. There are negative costs associated with enforcing "good decisions" like prison population, the damage that is caused when one is arrested, the creation of black markets which creates gangs, cost of police officers, the distrust between police officers and individuals through too many laws.
-Individuals prefer choice and freedom.

Except that there is a balance, and freedom is not that the perch of anyone's ethical hierarchy. Most people also value fairness and justice...part of which is the reason why we can rob criminals of their freedom. So why can't this healthy majority of people who are not at the highest peak of the socioeconomic ladder and who work very hard, espouse some modestly economically authoritarian policies which ameliorate their conditions without being told that they're objectively wrong and deserve no help?

actually, this might come to a shock to you, but I'm actually pro-welfare and favor a progressive tax. I don't believe that egalitarianism is desirable because it creates economic inefficiencies. There's somewhat of a trade-off between economic development and economic equality.

I used to be more anti-welfare, because I thought the trade-off was more severe then what it really is.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:41:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 5:26:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/20/2012 5:23:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Liberty:
Somalia

Are you fcking kidding me? Did you mean Singapore?

"Somalia is undeniably experiencing progress according to several criteria, despite (or, some would say, because of) its lack of a strong central government.

Economists familiar with the Rothbardian tradition have taken the analysis even further, persuasively arguing that Somalia is much better without a state than it was with one.""

-- http://mises.org...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:48:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 5:41:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/20/2012 5:26:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/20/2012 5:23:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Liberty:
Somalia

Are you fcking kidding me? Did you mean Singapore?

"Somalia is undeniably experiencing progress according to several criteria, despite (or, some would say, because of) its lack of a strong central government.

Economists familiar with the Rothbardian tradition have taken the analysis even further, persuasively arguing that Somalia is much better without a state than it was with one.""

-- http://mises.org...

So your anarchist right now? You know its incredibly easy to immigrate to Somalia, but I doubt you'd want to live there. Somalia fails on almost all records of human rights, quality of life index, economic development, economic freedom index and so forth. It either ranks as the worst nation or up there are the top 5 for these lists.

Royalpaladin and chaleslb have made some arguments that demonstrated that Soviet Union saw improvements in quality of life. Of course, all nations were improving in quality of life over time, so the analysis is worthless. Plus based on the neoclassical growth model and empirical evidence, its expected that developing nations will grow faster then developed nation, so long as they have the right institutions in place. So stating that Somalia went from a gdp per capita of $200 a to $600 over a 20 year period isn't saying much, even if its growth tripled.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:49:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You can't prove that anything is "objectively" bad but you can prove that some specific ideologies/policies have inherently negative consequences on society i.e. hyperinflation, concentration camps, Marxism. It's a matter of recognizing what these negative consequences are and trying to combat them, and what they are is rather axiomatic. Most people want freedom, so it's viewed as a positive. Most people want trade, so it's viewed as a positive. Most people don't want hyperinflation, so it's viewed as a negative. Most people don't want the government killing civilians, so it's viewed as a negative. However, if society thinks that modern industrialization is bad, then that's wrong via any lens you look at it through.

Authoritarianism is bad because a) it undermines social freedoms which have led to the prospering of society and b) because people don't want it.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:49:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 5:41:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/20/2012 5:26:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/20/2012 5:23:13 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Liberty:
Somalia

Are you fcking kidding me? Did you mean Singapore?

"Somalia is undeniably experiencing progress according to several criteria, despite (or, some would say, because of) its lack of a strong central government.

Economists familiar with the Rothbardian tradition have taken the analysis even further, persuasively arguing that Somalia is much better without a state than it was with one.""

-- http://mises.org...

My Uncle lives in Egypt. He says that N. Somalia has some wealth, and some power, but S. Somalia is basically a hell hole.

I think that for the most part both parties appeal to special interests. For the GOP it is big oil, big pharma, and the military industrial complex. For the Democrats it is the health insurance industry (BIG TIME), as well as the military industrial complex, and various industries. Regulations are very attractive policies sought by businesses.

They both support entitlement programs. I understand it would be politically devastating to not do so, but one side could at least offer (GOP) some sort of privatization proposals. That's why I think Paul Ryan's Medicare plan is a great first step, as his plan to incorporate personal accounts with social security, you put 1/3rd of your FICA taxes into your own account. Paul Ryan offers a real contrast, though he still isn't far enough for me (a top tax of 25%?)

Democrats support policies that are handouts. Obamaphone program, food stamps, low income energy assistance (bizarre idea), Medicaid, etc. Republicans vow against it but usually don't cut it, although Reagan did.

So basically, the GOP is better with free markets and Democrats are sometimes better on civil liberties, but both are similar.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:50:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Welfare is Satan manifested as a parasitic life-sucking leach. How can you support that darkkermit?

Welfare cultivate dependency, destruction of independence, creativity, and production. Yes we need safety nets like unemployment benefits, but there needs to be a difference distinguished between a long term program that creates dependency and leeching and a short term safety net to prevent people from perishing after a tragic event.

Lose your job, get laid off, etc. not your fault. Mooching off taxpayer money for a living and not having a job, unacceptable.

Depency is also a great unfreedom. When you live with your parents and depend on their providing for you, you have to live by their rules, their curfews. But when you move out, earn your own living, have your own place, that's freedom.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:52:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 3:39:50 PM, 000ike wrote:
The political process is often dismissed by Libertarians and anarchists because Democrats and Republicans are both the same. They are equally bad. They are both "authoritarian scum". Not that I want to defend pure authoritarianism, but I feel like people toss around the term on DDO with such implicit negativity that it never occurs to them that they need to explain why its an intrinsically bad thing.

Even if it's not objectively a bad thing, most people share similar enough moral sentiments that even by simply accepting that both parties are (a) more or less the same and (b) promote policies and actions that hurt the poor, mess up the economy, kill unarmed civilians in other countries, etc. etc. will in most instances warrant a change in belief. If you still like the parties after learning about that then that's your hangup. Dialogue has lost it's purpose.

So lets do this. How about you explain on what basis your anti-authoritarian ideology is right? If you want to put forth an objective justification, then I'd love to controvert that. If you want to put forth a subjective justification, then what gives you the right to speak of and consider your ideology in such universal terms?...

I like things like prosperity, liberty, equality, etc. States have shown themselves time and time again to be incompatible with (and are in fact conceptually at odds with) those things. Therefore I don't like States.

and by that I don't mean the fact that you defend your ideology and would encourage its spread (because I do that too for Liberalism)...I mean that you need to justify why you think that others are stupid, wrong, or have scummy beliefs, because they don't agree with you. What sanctions that indignance you feel whenever an election comes around?

The situation isn't of the type where liberals and conservatives see the facts straight but just have different beliefs surrounding their preferrability. It's that they get the entire narrative fvcked up. Liberals seem to think things like regulation, redistribution of wealth, etc. etc. will help the poor. They're wrong about that. Meanwhile conservatives seem to think things like drone bombing unarmed civilians in other countries, wiretapping citizens, etc. etc. will bring security. They're also wrong. There's obviously overlap in these beliefs i.e., Romney said regulation was necessary for a free market and Obama's main foreign policy tool has been utilizing drone warfare.

If you accept that you're wrong in the liberal narrative but still cling to liberalism, you're a hack and there's no use in arguing with you. But if you actually hold to the values that you claim to hold then pointing the inconsistencies of the liberal narrative should warrant a change in belief.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:55:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 5:48:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
So your anarchist right now? You know its incredibly easy to immigrate to Somalia, but I doubt you'd want to live there. Somalia fails on almost all records of human rights, quality of life index, economic development, economic freedom index and so forth. It either ranks as the worst nation or up there are the top 5 for these lists.

Royalpaladin and chaleslb have made some arguments that demonstrated that Soviet Union saw improvements in quality of life. Of course, all nations were improving in quality of life over time, so the analysis is worthless. Plus based on the neoclassical growth model and empirical evidence, its expected that developing nations will grow faster then developed nation, so long as they have the right institutions in place. So stating that Somalia went from a gdp per capita of $200 a to $600 over a 20 year period isn't saying much, even if its growth tripled.

1. No, I'm not Anarchist. Still a Libertarian.

2. I'm not saying that Somalia is great, in fact, on the contrary. I'm showing that even Liberty at it's worst like Somalia is better than North Korea. Hey, you might be safer in N. Korea, but you will get blasted by mortar to pieces by Kim Jong Un for not crying long enough for Kim Jung Il's death. Yes that really happened.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:55:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 5:49:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
You can't prove that anything is "objectively" bad but you can prove that some specific ideologies/policies have inherently negative consequences on society i.e. hyperinflation, concentration camps, Marxism. It's a matter of recognizing what these negative consequences are and trying to combat them, and what they are is rather axiomatic. Most people want freedom, so it's viewed as a positive. Most people want trade, so it's viewed as a positive. Most people don't want hyperinflation, so it's viewed as a negative. Most people don't want the government killing civilians, so it's viewed as a negative. However, if society thinks that modern industrialization is bad, then that's wrong via any lens you look at it through.

Authoritarianism is bad because a) it undermines social freedoms which have led to the prospering of society and b) because people don't want it.

See my reply to Ren. that doesn't really answer my question. I'm asking for you to justify anti-authoritarianism in the modern Liberal/Conservative sense where the government regulates the economy to offset unfair labor practices and socioeconomic disparities or where the government occasionally intervenes in international conflicts. And since your answer was based on what most people want....I'm asking you how you can tell the healthy majority of human beings that support such policies, that they are wrong?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 5:58:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 5:50:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Welfare is Satan manifested as a parasitic life-sucking leach. How can you support that darkkermit?

Welfare cultivate dependency, destruction of independence, creativity, and production. Yes we need safety nets like unemployment benefits, but there needs to be a difference distinguished between a long term program that creates dependency and leeching and a short term safety net to prevent people from perishing after a tragic event.

Lose your job, get laid off, etc. not your fault. Mooching off taxpayer money for a living and not having a job, unacceptable.

Depency is also a great unfreedom. When you live with your parents and depend on their providing for you, you have to live by their rules, their curfews. But when you move out, earn your own living, have your own place, that's freedom.


.
.
.
.
I suppose by welfare, I meant the safety nets. However, all welfare is doing is giving people more opportunities, since one can acquire more resources. The person on welfare still has a choice whether or not he/she can work or not. If that's the case, then their own personal freedoms haven't been enroached. One can say that they are making a bad choice, and it feels better to work for a living rather then mooch. Which is fine. But that's contradicting the premise of libertarianism, that individuals are better at making choices then government is.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 6:03:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 5:58:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/20/2012 5:50:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Welfare is Satan manifested as a parasitic life-sucking leach. How can you support that darkkermit?

Welfare cultivate dependency, destruction of independence, creativity, and production. Yes we need safety nets like unemployment benefits, but there needs to be a difference distinguished between a long term program that creates dependency and leeching and a short term safety net to prevent people from perishing after a tragic event.

Lose your job, get laid off, etc. not your fault. Mooching off taxpayer money for a living and not having a job, unacceptable.

Depency is also a great unfreedom. When you live with your parents and depend on their providing for you, you have to live by their rules, their curfews. But when you move out, earn your own living, have your own place, that's freedom.


.
.
.
.
I suppose by welfare, I meant the safety nets. However, all welfare is doing is giving people more opportunities, since one can acquire more resources. The person on welfare still has a choice whether or not he/she can work or not. If that's the case, then their own personal freedoms haven't been enroached. One can say that they are making a bad choice, and it feels better to work for a living rather then mooch. Which is fine. But that's contradicting the premise of libertarianism, that individuals are better at making choices then government is.

Couldn't you accept a compromise, and support safety nets at the state level instead? Because here they can be readily reformed when needed without a large bureaucracy getting into the way?

I don't see how welfare creates opportunity. A guy might use it to invest in their labor, but it's unlikely. Job training programs ran by the gov't are at least better, although not the most optimal solution.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 6:03:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 5:55:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 11/20/2012 5:48:50 PM, darkkermit wrote:
So your anarchist right now? You know its incredibly easy to immigrate to Somalia, but I doubt you'd want to live there. Somalia fails on almost all records of human rights, quality of life index, economic development, economic freedom index and so forth. It either ranks as the worst nation or up there are the top 5 for these lists.

Royalpaladin and chaleslb have made some arguments that demonstrated that Soviet Union saw improvements in quality of life. Of course, all nations were improving in quality of life over time, so the analysis is worthless. Plus based on the neoclassical growth model and empirical evidence, its expected that developing nations will grow faster then developed nation, so long as they have the right institutions in place. So stating that Somalia went from a gdp per capita of $200 a to $600 over a 20 year period isn't saying much, even if its growth tripled.

1. No, I'm not Anarchist. Still a Libertarian.

2. I'm not saying that Somalia is great, in fact, on the contrary. I'm showing that even Liberty at it's worst like Somalia is better than North Korea. Hey, you might be safer in N. Korea, but you will get blasted by mortar to pieces by Kim Jong Un for not crying long enough for Kim Jung Il's death. Yes that really happened.

1. Only anarchist seem to try to defend Somalia. I think Somalia is an example of why government is needed, and authoritarian regimes are examples of why limited government is needed.

In some ways Somalia is worse then North Korea. Honestly, If I was forced to decide between living in Somalia and N. Korea, I'd have a very hard time trying to figure out which is worse. Also, if Somalia isn't great, why would you put it on the list? There are so many nations that are higher on freedom indexes that you could've chosen. That's why I said if you meant Singapore.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 6:06:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 5:52:39 PM, socialpinko wrote:

The situation isn't of the type where liberals and conservatives see the facts straight but just have different beliefs surrounding their preferrability. It's that they get the entire narrative fvcked up. Liberals seem to think things like regulation, redistribution of wealth, etc. etc. will help the poor. They're wrong about that. Meanwhile conservatives seem to think things like drone bombing unarmed civilians in other countries, wiretapping citizens, etc. etc. will bring security. They're also wrong. There's obviously overlap in these beliefs i.e., Romney said regulation was necessary for a free market and Obama's main foreign policy tool has been utilizing drone warfare.

So your problem isn't with the objectives in themselves, but the inefficiency of their methods of achieving them? Or if you do have problems with the objectives in themselves such as some semblance of social equity and accountability....how would you be able to tell these people that they're wrong? since you just admitted that there's no objective truth to any values
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 6:08:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 6:03:18 PM, Contra wrote:
At 11/20/2012 5:58:26 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 11/20/2012 5:50:36 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Welfare is Satan manifested as a parasitic life-sucking leach. How can you support that darkkermit?

Welfare cultivate dependency, destruction of independence, creativity, and production. Yes we need safety nets like unemployment benefits, but there needs to be a difference distinguished between a long term program that creates dependency and leeching and a short term safety net to prevent people from perishing after a tragic event.

Lose your job, get laid off, etc. not your fault. Mooching off taxpayer money for a living and not having a job, unacceptable.

Depency is also a great unfreedom. When you live with your parents and depend on their providing for you, you have to live by their rules, their curfews. But when you move out, earn your own living, have your own place, that's freedom.


.
.
.
.
I suppose by welfare, I meant the safety nets. However, all welfare is doing is giving people more opportunities, since one can acquire more resources. The person on welfare still has a choice whether or not he/she can work or not. If that's the case, then their own personal freedoms haven't been enroached. One can say that they are making a bad choice, and it feels better to work for a living rather then mooch. Which is fine. But that's contradicting the premise of libertarianism, that individuals are better at making choices then government is.

Couldn't you accept a compromise, and support safety nets at the state level instead? Because here they can be readily reformed when needed without a large bureaucracy getting into the way?

I don't see how welfare creates opportunity. A guy might use it to invest in their labor, but it's unlikely.

Because by definition, the more money you have, the more opportunity you have. For example, you probably don't have the opportunity to go travel the world right now, probably because you don't have enough money. It doesn't have to be opportunity that is socially constructive, but libertarians argue in favor of many social ills should be allowed.

Job training programs ran by the gov't are at least better, although not the most optimal solution.

I don't see why the gov't has to run the job training programs. If government programs are usually inefficient, why not just have a voucher program or subsidy. (which is actually what the government does already with financing higher education).
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 6:09:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 5:55:37 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/20/2012 5:49:33 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
You can't prove that anything is "objectively" bad but you can prove that some specific ideologies/policies have inherently negative consequences on society i.e. hyperinflation, concentration camps, Marxism. It's a matter of recognizing what these negative consequences are and trying to combat them, and what they are is rather axiomatic. Most people want freedom, so it's viewed as a positive. Most people want trade, so it's viewed as a positive. Most people don't want hyperinflation, so it's viewed as a negative. Most people don't want the government killing civilians, so it's viewed as a negative. However, if society thinks that modern industrialization is bad, then that's wrong via any lens you look at it through.

Authoritarianism is bad because a) it undermines social freedoms which have led to the prospering of society and b) because people don't want it.

See my reply to Ren. that doesn't really answer my question. I'm asking for you to justify anti-authoritarianism in the modern Liberal/Conservative sense where the government regulates the economy to offset unfair labor practices and socioeconomic disparities or where the government occasionally intervenes in international conflicts. And since your answer was based on what most people want....I'm asking you how you can tell the healthy majority of human beings that support such policies, that they are wrong?

What people want doesn't really dictate the best course of action. If individuals want hyperinflation, it doesn't mean that that's the best course of action for the economy. Anti-authoritarianism is easily justified by an objective looking at the facts of authoritarian and anti-authoritarian regimes. The authoritarian regimes lasted for much shorter intervals and had severe economy problems. Out of the anti-authoritarian regimes, those that are the most authoritarian are suffering severe economic consequences from their disastrous liberal policy (Europe). Those that aren't implementing these policies (Hong Kong, Singapore) are becoming much more economically prosperous.

This is operating under the axiom that growth, progress, and health are good, which we can pretty much all agree on.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2012 6:12:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/20/2012 6:06:57 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/20/2012 5:52:39 PM, socialpinko wrote:

The situation isn't of the type where liberals and conservatives see the facts straight but just have different beliefs surrounding their preferrability. It's that they get the entire narrative fvcked up. Liberals seem to think things like regulation, redistribution of wealth, etc. etc. will help the poor. They're wrong about that. Meanwhile conservatives seem to think things like drone bombing unarmed civilians in other countries, wiretapping citizens, etc. etc. will bring security. They're also wrong. There's obviously overlap in these beliefs i.e., Romney said regulation was necessary for a free market and Obama's main foreign policy tool has been utilizing drone warfare.

So your problem isn't with the objectives in themselves, but the inefficiency of their methods of achieving them? Or if you do have problems with the objectives in themselves such as some semblance of social equity and accountability....how would you be able to tell these people that they're wrong? since you just admitted that there's no objective truth to any values

Because I'm not saying their values are wrong, I'm saying they're getting the facts wrong. I'm counting on us having similar values since I don't think they hod objective weight in the first place. I oppose government because it's opposed (in practice, not in flattering language) to social equity, accountability, freedom, prosperity, etc. If you don't value those things, there's no point in arguing since we don't have a common starting point.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.