Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Government is Good -- Challenge

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 11:21:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Government is Good or: How I Learned to Stop Thinking and Love the Initiation of Violence

For any blossoming libertarians out there this is a great opportunity to develop your critical reasoning skills. Choose one argument made in this video and deconstruct it. It should be quite easy for you to do so. Then post it here for all to see!
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 11:21:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
He doesn't allow comments on his video that don't agree with him (typical statist-mentality of censorship).
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 11:35:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
For the epa he says 30 dollars a year buys us clean everything, when in reality the cost of environmental protection isn't that of running the agency, it comes from the rules and regulations imposed by that agency.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 11:38:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Can't listen. My browsers aren't currently getting audio.

Someone describe in explicit detail every argument he makes.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2013 11:55:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 11:35:29 PM, lewis20 wrote:
For the epa he says 30 dollars a year buys us clean everything, when in reality the cost of environmental protection isn't that of running the agency, it comes from the rules and regulations imposed by that agency.

On the bright side, though - no more rivers catching on fire.

So, there's that.

Nixon established the EPA - we all know this, right?

Why would Nixon, of all presidents, establish such an agency? Because he had to.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 12:01:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 11:55:26 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/6/2013 11:35:29 PM, lewis20 wrote:
For the epa he says 30 dollars a year buys us clean everything, when in reality the cost of environmental protection isn't that of running the agency, it comes from the rules and regulations imposed by that agency.

On the bright side, though - no more rivers catching on fire.

So, there's that.

Nixon established the EPA - we all know this, right?

Why would Nixon, of all presidents, establish such an agency? Because he had to.

I simply said he was wrong to say clean everything only costs us each 30 dollars a month. The costs of clean everything are hidden.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 12:05:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/6/2013 11:35:29 PM, lewis20 wrote:
For the epa he says 30 dollars a year buys us clean everything, when in reality the cost of environmental protection isn't that of running the agency, it comes from the rules and regulations imposed by that agency.

Perhaps you could elaborate on what exactly is it that these rules and regulations cost us which outweighs clean air and water.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 12:09:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Without government, we wouldn't waste money on cancer research, because health insurance companies would put a contract out on anyone diagnosed with the disease.

Why? It's infinitely more efficient and it is the decision which maximizes profit.

Screw all the industries we have because of the space program, right? Well, you'd have to because space exploration has no quantifiable or predictable income stream before it is undertaken or after it is complete.

I understand Libertarians believe there are too many laws, but some basic laws that punish people for infringing upon your property or safety are nice, no?

And, what about negligence? How do you apportion negligence without a legal system and how do you have a legal system with at least the appearance of propriety without a government?

Libertarians suffer from chronic myopathy.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 12:09:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 12:05:39 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 2/6/2013 11:35:29 PM, lewis20 wrote:
For the epa he says 30 dollars a year buys us clean everything, when in reality the cost of environmental protection isn't that of running the agency, it comes from the rules and regulations imposed by that agency.

Perhaps you could elaborate on what exactly is it that these rules and regulations cost us which outweighs clean air and water.

You didn't read correctly, he claimed that clean air and such only costs us 30 dollars, the price of a nice meal
in reality the bureaucracy that is the EPA is what costs us 30 dollars a year, the cost of clean things is much greater.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 12:12:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 12:01:11 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/6/2013 11:55:26 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/6/2013 11:35:29 PM, lewis20 wrote:
For the epa he says 30 dollars a year buys us clean everything, when in reality the cost of environmental protection isn't that of running the agency, it comes from the rules and regulations imposed by that agency.

On the bright side, though - no more rivers catching on fire.

So, there's that.

Nixon established the EPA - we all know this, right?

Why would Nixon, of all presidents, establish such an agency? Because he had to.

I simply said he was wrong to say clean everything only costs us each 30 dollars a month. The costs of clean everything are hidden.

I disagree. These costs always existed, but no one was paying them, and when no one pays them as they are incurred, rivers catch on fire (that's no bullsh!t...it actually happened).

This is the concept of total economic costs. TNSTAAFL - for realz.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 12:18:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 12:12:16 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/7/2013 12:01:11 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/6/2013 11:55:26 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/6/2013 11:35:29 PM, lewis20 wrote:
For the epa he says 30 dollars a year buys us clean everything, when in reality the cost of environmental protection isn't that of running the agency, it comes from the rules and regulations imposed by that agency.

On the bright side, though - no more rivers catching on fire.

So, there's that.

Nixon established the EPA - we all know this, right?

Why would Nixon, of all presidents, establish such an agency? Because he had to.

I simply said he was wrong to say clean everything only costs us each 30 dollars a month. The costs of clean everything are hidden.

I disagree. These costs always existed, but no one was paying them, and when no one pays them as they are incurred, rivers catch on fire (that's no bullsh!t...it actually happened).

This is the concept of total economic costs. TNSTAAFL - for realz.

right, the costs exist, and they are more than the 30 dollars the epa costs.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 12:38:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 12:18:07 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/7/2013 12:12:16 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/7/2013 12:01:11 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/6/2013 11:55:26 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 2/6/2013 11:35:29 PM, lewis20 wrote:
For the epa he says 30 dollars a year buys us clean everything, when in reality the cost of environmental protection isn't that of running the agency, it comes from the rules and regulations imposed by that agency.

On the bright side, though - no more rivers catching on fire.

So, there's that.

Nixon established the EPA - we all know this, right?

Why would Nixon, of all presidents, establish such an agency? Because he had to.

I simply said he was wrong to say clean everything only costs us each 30 dollars a month. The costs of clean everything are hidden.

I disagree. These costs always existed, but no one was paying them, and when no one pays them as they are incurred, rivers catch on fire (that's no bullsh!t...it actually happened).

This is the concept of total economic costs. TNSTAAFL - for realz.

right, the costs exist, and they are more than the 30 dollars the epa costs.

No, the $30 is the marginal cost. All the other costs existed already, but since no one was payin' them, I get what you're saying - cleanliness is next to costliness.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ZakYoungTheLibertarian
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 4:00:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You can have law and a court system without government. For example, lots of companies go through arbitration instead of the government court system. As to your assertion that an insurance company would just put out a hit on it's customers instead of paying for their treatment... while of course murder would still be illegal in libertopia there is also an economic incentive here not to do this. Any insurance firm which chose to murder it's clients instead of paying would soon find itself bankrupt. Any firm which did not serve it's consumers would go bankrupt. So if you had private police, and they inflicted upon their paying customers the sort of abuses that are extremely prevalent towards citizens by the socialist monopoly on policing, well they would rapidly lose business to police who respected their customers and only went after violent criminals. When you have a government monopoly there is absolutely no check on any sorts of abuses. There's nothing you can do. But with market provision of services which are roughly the same, there is a mechanism in place to make sure there are no abuses. Market competition.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2013 4:36:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/7/2013 4:00:57 AM, ZakYoungTheLibertarian wrote:
You can have law and a court system without government. For example, lots of companies go through arbitration instead of the government court system. As to your assertion that an insurance company would just put out a hit on it's customers instead of paying for their treatment... while of course murder would still be illegal in libertopia there is also an economic incentive here not to do this. Any insurance firm which chose to murder it's clients instead of paying would soon find itself bankrupt.

Like Dow Chemical, PG&E, ENRON?

You're right...not insurance companies. But, I bet they wouldn't go bankrupt if no one knew about it.

Also, WHY do companies use arbitration (and, inter-company arbitration is almost exclusively insurance companies)?

BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER THAN THE LEGAL SYSTEM. If the legal system didn't exist, neither would the arbitration system. Thanks for playing, though. Rod Roddy, what consolation prize do we have for the your Libertarian...

Any firm which did not serve it's consumers would go bankrupt. So if you had private police, and they inflicted upon their paying customers the sort of abuses that are extremely prevalent towards citizens by the socialist monopoly on policing, well they would rapidly lose business to police who respected their customers and only went after violent criminals.

No, ya see, it's the paying customers and their want to have someone snuffed out, and they also happen to have more money than the person they want 'done' that concerns me. Of course the for pay police wouldn't look their gift horses in the mouths. Those people would be satisfied and then some. Others? Not so much.

This is what some call a mafia, but "private police force" sounds better, huh?

When you have a government monopoly there is absolutely no check on any sorts of abuses. There's nothing you can do. But with market provision of services which are roughly the same, there is a mechanism in place to make sure there are no abuses. Market competition.

Well, the courts, as well as the media and internal affairs are supposed to have the police in check. The media have stopped doing their jobs of late, though, because ENTERTAINMENT is more profitable than the news is, and in a for-profit society, one goes with what is more profitable, so instead of war coverage at the beginning of the Iraq war, CNN showed more coverage of Anna Nichole Smith than they did of the invasion of Iraq.

THAT is what the market gives you - f*cking drivel.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...