Total Posts:45|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Government Is Necessary To Do the Ineffecient

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2012 11:15:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I was in a meeting at work (I work in government) discussing projects, timelines, and revenue and as a sidenote my supervisor said to paraphrase:

"Government is not supposed to be efficient. Government is there to do what the private sector can't do efficiently for a profit."

That's something I've never heard before, but it makes sense. The government provides services, functions, and organization that no entrepreneur would ever get into because there's no profit. This is where the whole idea of pure Anarcho-Capitalism breaks down.

You can't privatize a fire station because firemen would get paid one day a year and the owner of the fire station couldn't do anything to create a profit. Same goes for the police, the courts, the infrastructure, the records and file keeping of sewer and street light networks, etc.
"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
12/1/2012 11:24:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Devil's advocate: If there is demand for a good/service then there will be supply of such a resource. The desire to pay for a good/service demonstrates the need. If government subsidizes unprofitable industries, then its taking economic resources from other areas that are more important.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2012 11:27:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The same could be said about stimulus policies. When no one is spending and the economy is depressed, it takes someone to encourage spending and reverse the process. While no private company wants to take the risk, the government can.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2012 11:33:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/1/2012 11:24:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Devil's advocate: If there is demand for a good/service then there will be supply of such a resource.

Do I think fireman should exist? Yes. Am I going to pay for their $120,000 salaries to be ensured that they will put out my fire? No.

Also, government =/= resources. That's why government services differentiate from the private sector. The private sector deals with goods and products and sometimes services that can be profitable.

The desire to pay for a good/service demonstrates the need.

Through taxes is superior to paying one lumpsum at the time of need.

If government subsidizes unprofitable industries, then its taking economic resources from other areas that are more important.

Red herring. I don't advocate government subsidizing unprofitable industries. The courts are not an industry and aren't meant to be profitable.
"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
12/1/2012 11:42:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/1/2012 11:33:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/1/2012 11:24:00 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Devil's advocate: If there is demand for a good/service then there will be supply of such a resource.

Do I think fireman should exist? Yes. Am I going to pay for their $120,000 salaries to be ensured that they will put out my fire? No.

Also, government =/= resources. That's why government services differentiate from the private sector. The private sector deals with goods and products and sometimes services that can be profitable.

Okay, now you've shifted the argument from that it would be too expensive, not that the private sector couldn't provide it. And why do you think that fireman would get $120,000 salary?

The desire to pay for a good/service demonstrates the need.

Through taxes is superior to paying one lumpsum at the time of need.

Why? If its a service that is expensive and you'd use it rarely, there's thing called insurance.

If government subsidizes unprofitable industries, then its taking economic resources from other areas that are more important.

Red herring. I don't advocate government subsidizing unprofitable industries. The courts are not an industry and aren't meant to be profitable.

If its propped up by government, its subsidized. The government providing it is just a complete subsidize.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/1/2012 11:53:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/1/2012 11:42:49 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Okay, now you've shifted the argument from that it would be too expensive, not that the private sector couldn't provide it. And why do you think that fireman would get $120,000 salary?

False. I'm not shifting it, it's the same thing. The private sector can't profit from it because they can't provide a reasonable price that people would be willing to pay.

Why? If its a service that is expensive and you'd use it rarely, there's thing called insurance.

Explain the police and the courts. What am I gonna have, crime insurance and justice insurance? Wtf.

If its propped up by government, its subsidized. The government providing it is just a complete subsidize.

False. Subsides are government assistance paid to the business or economic sectors.

Again, the courts aren't an industry and can't be subsidized. A government function being on the government payroll is not a subsidy.
"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
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 12:29:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/1/2012 11:15:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I was in a meeting at work (I work in government) discussing projects, timelines, and revenue and as a sidenote my supervisor said to paraphrase:

"Government is not supposed to be efficient. Government is there to do what the private sector can't do efficiently for a profit."

That's something I've never heard before, but it makes sense. The government provides services, functions, and organization that no entrepreneur would ever get into because there's no profit. This is where the whole idea of pure Anarcho-Capitalism breaks down.

You can't privatize a fire station because firemen would get paid one day a year and the owner of the fire station couldn't do anything to create a profit. Same goes for the police, the courts, the infrastructure, the records and file keeping of sewer and street light networks, etc.

This was a huge issue in the public admin sector of political science in the late 1990s. Btw, Geo, I agree with you.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,211
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 12:45:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Firefighting could be profitable if they were allowed proper compensation after doing the job.

If the owner of the house did not pay up, then they would reserve the right to burn the rest of the house down along with anyone inside it at the time.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 1:07:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think there's a solid way to make a profit off of anything that people have a need for.

However, whether it would easily occur in lack of central planning, is a different issue.

In my view, government will always exist in a non primitivist society, in some form or another. I would consider private defense agencies just another form of government. So the question is not whether we should have government or not but in what we want it structured. Particularly, in it's level of centralization. A system of private defense agencies is a highly decentralized government. A completely decentralized government would be one in which each and every person is heavily armed and acts as their own defense. A completely centralized government would leave it in the hand of one person over everyone else.

I think the "right" system completely depends on what your ends are. But, personally, I would opt for something in the middle.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
YYW
Posts: 36,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 1:11:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/2/2012 12:45:25 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
Firefighting could be profitable if they were allowed proper compensation after doing the job.

If the owner of the house did not pay up, then they would reserve the right to burn the rest of the house down along with anyone inside it at the time.

It was tried like an insurance policy, but then in Ohio there was a guy who refused protection, his house caught on fire, and caused another person's house -one who had the protection plan- to catch on fire also. It was quite a standoff actually; the fire department stood and watched the house of one person burn down, while trying to put out the fire of another person's house -whose house only caught on fire because the fire dept. refused to quell the first fire. The argument is that this nonsense could have been avoided had the fire department just put out the initial fire. The fire department argued that if they provided services to someone who didn't pay, what incentive would customers have to pay if they knew that they could get the service for free? This was, of course, a clusterfvck of epic proportion -but highlights the necessity of government doing some things. Personally, I regard fire protection service much in the same way that I regard health care, because the harm of communicable disease is hardly dissimilar, for example.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 1:13:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I could see a defacto Communist-Capitalism in which all transaction in the economy are based on insurance.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 8:04:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/1/2012 11:15:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I was in a meeting at work (I work in government) discussing projects, timelines, and revenue and as a sidenote my supervisor said to paraphrase:

And to think you couldn't hold more cognitive dissonance in your brain.

"Government is not supposed to be efficient. Government is there to do what the private sector can't do efficiently for a profit."

So an institution that steals money to operate performs more efficiently than a competitive institution that has to please customers? That's fantasy. The sole aim of government is to exercise authoritative rule over other human beings.

That's something I've never heard before, but it makes sense. The government provides services, functions, and organization that no entrepreneur would ever get into because there's no profit. This is where the whole idea of pure Anarcho-Capitalism breaks down.

So a society can't function with an anarchic market, because you and your cohorts think we have to use violence and extortion to do service X? Saying "there's no profit" is a laughable claim, not only in the light of a long history of United States subsumption of industry but as a logical statement; you are claiming to know the operations of a future marketplace, the totality of exchanges in that market place, and conclude your quixotic prognostication by boldly claiming, "There no profit, so my merry band of fascists and I have to perform X, Y, and Z." Derp.jpg

You can't privatize a fire station because firemen would get paid one day a year and the owner of the fire station couldn't do anything to create a profit. Same goes for the police, the courts, the infrastructure, the records and file keeping of sewer and street light networks, etc.

Except for the fact that all of those have been done privately, profitably, and with competition in the past. I'll let David Friedman take over from here.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 9:58:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/1/2012 11:15:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I was in a meeting at work (I work in government) discussing projects, timelines, and revenue and as a sidenote my supervisor said to paraphrase:

"Government is not supposed to be efficient. Government is there to do what the private sector can't do efficiently for a profit."

This makes sense because the Government is very very good at being inneficient, so it is only natural that they be in charge of inefficiency, you know, since its thier core competency.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 2:16:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/1/2012 11:15:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I was in a meeting at work (I work in government) discussing projects, timelines, and revenue and as a sidenote my supervisor said to paraphra

"Government is not supposed to be efficient. Government is there to do what the private sector can't do efficiently for a profit."

That's something I've never heard before, but it makes sense. The government provides services, functions, and organization that no entrepreneur would ever get into because there's no profit. This is where the whole idea of pure Anarcho-Capitalism breaks down.

You can't privatize a fire station because firemen would get paid one day a year and the owner of the fire station couldn't do anything to create a profit. Same goes for the police, the courts, the infrastructure, the records and file keeping of sewer and street light networks, etc.

1. You're cherry-picking particular "inefficiencies" that you think the government should address, but that's just a normative claim: "Government should just do good things that no one else will do." Duh. But, if you're going to argue that governments ought in principle to have the regulatory authority to conduct certain kinds of transactions, you must explain away all the other things it does, e.g., pouring a bunch of money into a brown-killing war machine. Even if I grant that government could do particular things more efficiently respective to cost, it's not particularly compelling. If I have to pay randos more to avert the risk of political domination, big deal--better that than embracing governmentality and hoping real hard that your administrators do only what you want them to do.

2. You're just retconning constraints on human activity, i.e., "Well OBVIOUSLY non-government individuals wouldn't do infrastructure correctly/well; why else would government do it?" The reason we need government is because X couldn't happen without it; the proof that X couldn't happen without government is that a) government exists, and b) government currently does X. It's just this self-justifying, self-propagating mythology--which eschews innovation or any serious counterfactual deliberation--according to which the government, administrating according to the dictates of some vague sovereign power (which apparently only wants good stuff), functions as a kind of messianic figure without which we could never achieve the "salvation" established by the mythologies and teleologies that inhere in the herpy political narratives taken to justify the existence of states in the first place.

3. "You can't privatize a fire station because firemen would get paid one day a year and the owner of the fire station couldn't do anything to create a profit."

Have you ever subscribed to anything ever? Utilities? Cable? Health insurance? You don't buy health insurance once you get sick, or when you feel a doozy of a cold coming on--you just have it in case the unexpected occurs. Given the classical critique of anarchism, i.e., "I'm scared about bad stuff happening", people are obviously pretty risk-averse on average. It therefore seems probable that people will pay some kind of fee or premium to avoid the risk of fire.

And, if they don't, so what? There isn't some optimal level of risk aversion according to which people must be measured and disciplined until they do what you demand of them. If I don't want to buy homeowner's insurance, and my house gets torn apart by a tornado, I might be displeased, but that's zero reason to respond with "Well, let's just make a law that says you can't do that again." The only way to derive that is to begin from a paradigm according to which it's justifiable to exercise power over people for refusing to conduct themselves in accordance with your pastoral commands. Given that I reject such a view, you don't have the luxury of taking it as an assumption.

Plus, people aren't just complete assholes: they help each other in times of crisis. People helped each other after Sandy and Katrina. The occupiers took care of each other out of a sense of good will and reciprocity. In my hometown, a family's house burned down, and a bunch of the residents immediately started pooling together funds and material necessities (e.g., toiletries, food) to help them out in their time of need; often, donors didn't even know the family personally. Maybe it's not in line with your vision of a government that only does good, market-correcting things, but tough shit, because it isn't up to you or any other member of the political class.

tl;dr No.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 2:37:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/2/2012 2:16:29 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 12/1/2012 11:15:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I was in a meeting at work (I work in government) discussing projects, timelines, and revenue and as a sidenote my supervisor said to paraphra

"Government is not supposed to be efficient. Government is there to do what the private sector can't do efficiently for a profit."

That's something I've never heard before, but it makes sense. The government provides services, functions, and organization that no entrepreneur would ever get into because there's no profit. This is where the whole idea of pure Anarcho-Capitalism breaks down.

You can't privatize a fire station because firemen would get paid one day a year and the owner of the fire station couldn't do anything to create a profit. Same goes for the police, the courts, the infrastructure, the records and file keeping of sewer and street light networks, etc.

1. You're cherry-picking particular "inefficiencies" that you think the government should address, but that's just a normative claim: "Government should just do good things that no one else will do." Duh. But, if you're going to argue that governments ought in principle to have the regulatory authority to conduct certain kinds of transactions, you must explain away all the other things it does, e.g., pouring a bunch of money into a brown-killing war machine. Even if I grant that government could do particular things more efficiently respective to cost, it's not particularly compelling. If I have to pay randos more to avert the risk of political domination, big deal--better that than embracing governmentality and hoping real hard that your administrators do only what you want them to do.

2. You're just retconning constraints on human activity, i.e., "Well OBVIOUSLY non-government individuals wouldn't do infrastructure correctly/well; why else would government do it?" The reason we need government is because X couldn't happen without it; the proof that X couldn't happen without government is that a) government exists, and b) government currently does X. It's just this self-justifying, self-propagating mythology--which eschews innovation or any serious counterfactual deliberation--according to which the government, administrating according to the dictates of some vague sovereign power (which apparently only wants good stuff), functions as a kind of messianic figure without which we could never achieve the "salvation" established by the mythologies and teleologies that inhere in the herpy political narratives taken to justify the existence of states in the first place.

3. "You can't privatize a fire station because firemen would get paid one day a year and the owner of the fire station couldn't do anything to create a profit."

Have you ever subscribed to anything ever? Utilities? Cable? Health insurance? You don't buy health insurance once you get sick, or when you feel a doozy of a cold coming on--you just have it in case the unexpected occurs. Given the classical critique of anarchism, i.e., "I'm scared about bad stuff happening", people are obviously pretty risk-averse on average. It therefore seems probable that people will pay some kind of fee or premium to avoid the risk of fire.

And, if they don't, so what? There isn't some optimal level of risk aversion according to which people must be measured and disciplined until they do what you demand of them. If I don't want to buy homeowner's insurance, and my house gets torn apart by a tornado, I might be displeased, but that's zero reason to respond with "Well, let's just make a law that says you can't do that again." The only way to derive that is to begin from a paradigm according to which it's justifiable to exercise power over people for refusing to conduct themselves in accordance with your pastoral commands. Given that I reject such a view, you don't have the luxury of taking it as an assumption.

Plus, people aren't just complete assholes: they help each other in times of crisis. People helped each other after Sandy and Katrina. The occupiers took care of each other out of a sense of good will and reciprocity. In my hometown, a family's house burned down, and a bunch of the residents immediately started pooling together funds and material necessities (e.g., toiletries, food) to help them out in their time of need; often, donors didn't even know the family personally. Maybe it's not in line with your vision of a government that only does good, market-correcting things, but tough shit, because it isn't up to you or any other member of the political class.

tl;dr No.

This is a masterpiece, one of the strongest philosophical bulldozers to the shoddy ideological underpinnings of government as we know it that I've seen on this website. Needless to say, Orson Welles is applauding you furiously in my head.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2012 8:08:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/2/2012 4:37:06 PM, Wnope wrote:
You work in government? Doesn't that make you an accomplice to Illuminati?

No. I don't work for the Federal government. Even still, I support Senators, Congressman, and the courts. It's just that there's very few honorable statesman like the Pauls, Justin Amash, Ted Cruz, Jim DeMint, etc.

I support local and state governments and the decentralization of power.
"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
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 2:38:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/2/2012 8:08:23 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 12/2/2012 4:37:06 PM, Wnope wrote:
You work in government? Doesn't that make you an accomplice to Illuminati?

No. I don't work for the Federal government. Even still, I support Senators, Congressman, and the courts. It's just that there's very few honorable statesman like the Pauls, Justin Amash, Ted Cruz, Jim DeMint, etc.

I support local and state governments and the decentralization of power.

"I don't support the federal government--just its agents and apparatuses."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 2:50:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You can't privatize a fire station because firemen would get paid one day a year and the owner of the fire station couldn't do anything to create a profit.
You didn't hear how that tennessee firefighter controversy played out? They had a system for providing fire services on a user fee basis to people in another county. The system worked, although lib'ruls were all whiny b****** cause the dude who didn't pay had his house burn down.

Same goes for the police, the courts, the infrastructure, the records and file keeping of sewer and street light networks, etc.
Same goes indeed, the Tennessee firefighters' user fee model can apply to all that crap.

Am I going to pay for their $120,000 salaries to be ensured that they will put out my fire? No.
You don't pay the full millions of dollars it takes to develop Microsoft Windows, and yet they don't need taxes for that, don't be f***ing stupid.

Through taxes is superior to paying one lumpsum at the time of need.
It is pure and deliberate idiocy to analyze as the alternative to taxes "paying one lumpsum at the time of need."

Explain the police and the courts. What am I gonna have, crime insurance and justice insurance? Wtf.
You're going to have your legal protection service. You pay a monthly fee for the right to display their logo that proves it is not a good idea to attack you (i.e. proves anyone attacking you will receive legal attention), the right to be able to dial 911 rather than having your call blocked...

It's going to be a pretty similar amount to the amount of your taxes that goes to it now, the difference is you get to choose to not pay if you'd prefer to go it alone. (and they might offer lower or higher service plans, i.e. someone might go for personal protection but not protection from burglary, or some rich bastard might pay extra to have his house constantly surveilled, or a neighborhood might write up a contract to pay a little extra for more frequent patrols than standard, and there would be a per-contract fee for having a contract be declared legally enforcable (payable only when you get it signed, not when it's violated)..
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.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2012 11:32:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/1/2012 11:15:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I was in a meeting at work (I work in government) discussing projects, timelines, and revenue and as a sidenote my supervisor said to paraphrase:

"Government is not supposed to be efficient. Government is there to do what the private sector can't do efficiently for a profit."

That's something I've never heard before, but it makes sense. The government provides services, functions, and organization that no entrepreneur would ever get into because there's no profit. This is where the whole idea of pure Anarcho-Capitalism breaks down.

You're assuming that these "services, functions, and organization" in aggregate are of positive utility. To an anarchist this is meaningless because these "functions" have been deemed to be overly negative. So even if my trash doesn't get picked up (assuming blindly for the moment that would indeed be the case), there are other factors which tip the scales in the opposite direction.

You can't privatize a fire station because firemen would get paid one day a year and the owner of the fire station couldn't do anything to create a profit. Same goes for the police, the courts, the infrastructure, the records and file keeping of sewer and street light networks, etc.

If the resources lost to fires are greater than the resources needed to prevent them, then fire service will exist. To assume we will all just watch our houses burn down around us because the United States government ceases to exist is illogical.

I live in Green Bay, which is surrounded by rural communities. You know what rural communities use for firefighters? Volunteers.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 1:16:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/2/2012 4:37:06 PM, Wnope wrote:
You work in government? Doesn't that make you an accomplice to Illuminati?

One of the greatest ironies I've ever seen.

Almost as good as, when I was an Anarchist, I discovered my biological father was a cop.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 11:51:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/1/2012 11:15:03 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
I was in a meeting at work (I work in government) discussing projects, timelines, and revenue and as a sidenote my supervisor said to paraphrase:

"Government is not supposed to be efficient. Government is there to do what the private sector can't do efficiently for a profit."

That's something I've never heard before, but it makes sense. The government provides services, functions, and organization that no entrepreneur would ever get into because there's no profit. This is where the whole idea of pure Anarcho-Capitalism breaks down.

You can't privatize a fire station because firemen would get paid one day a year and the owner of the fire station couldn't do anything to create a profit. Same goes for the police, the courts, the infrastructure, the records and file keeping of sewer and street light networks, etc.

Who says firemen and other services would get paid one day a year and that the owner can't make a profit?
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 8:18:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2012 2:50:07 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Explain the police and the courts. What am I gonna have, crime insurance and justice insurance? Wtf.
You're going to have your legal protection service. You pay a monthly fee for the right to display their logo that proves it is not a good idea to attack you (i.e. proves anyone attacking you will receive legal attention), the right to be able to dial 911 rather than having your call blocked...

So, you basically pay money to someone to use force on your behalf. Since you are the one paying the money, what's the other guys incentive to disregard your claim?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 8:22:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think Geo has mentioned that he actually likes the Illuminati. He's only complaining about it because he has not gotten his share of the pie yet. He even claims to have an Illuminati sex slave on speed dial (but of course it never crossed his mind to you, know, help her get out of it. That was beyond his mental capacities.)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2012 1:57:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2012 8:22:06 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I think Geo has mentioned that he actually likes the Illuminati.

Not quite.

He's only complaining about it because he has not gotten his share of the pie yet.

Believe me, I gets mines. But not from the Illuminati.

He even claims to have an Illuminati sex slave on speed dial (but of course it never crossed his mind to you, know, help her get out of it. That was beyond his mental capacities.)

Not sure that she really wants out. She seems complacent with her position. Plus, do you realize how dangerous of a task that would actually be? You've gotta be out of your mind.
"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