Total Posts:132|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Q Libertarians Just Can't Answer

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 4:01:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Why are there no libertarian countries? If libertarians are correct in claiming that they understand how best to organize a modern society, how is it that not a single country in the world in the early 21st century is organized along libertarian lines?

It"s not as though there were a shortage of countries to experiment with libertarianism. There are 193 sovereign state members of the United Nations. Wouldn"t there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?
Source: http://www.salon.com...
------------------------------------------------------------

Before you libertards get butthurt over the question. Please just produce a one-paragraph, coherent reply to the question/s and the article.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 4:21:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At least they aren't in the same boat as Communists, who've HAD their shots...
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 4:32:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 4:21:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At least they aren't in the same boat as Communists, who've HAD their shots...

That'd be like saying libertarianism has had its shot and won, because of the success of its bigger brother liberalism.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 4:42:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
America isn't a success? Last I checked we're one of the most successful countries in the world.

+ 1 for Libertarianism.
"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
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 4:50:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 4:21:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At least they aren't in the same boat as Communists, who've HAD their shots...

Ah, another anti-communist genius parroting the twaddle that "communism" has been tried and has evinced itself to be unworkable. Well, my friend, Stalinism (and this goes for all of its instantiations in every society that followed the Soviet model) quite simply wasn't Marxism and the North Korean system is inspired more by the fascist system of WWII-era Japan than by any paradigm of communism. But hey, if you're fond of dishonest twaddle by all means keep claiming that communism has had its shot ...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Kumquatodor
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 4:51:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 4:42:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
America isn't a success? Last I checked we're one of the most successful countries in the world.

+ 1 for Libertarianism.

Well, to be fair, we aren't really a Libettarian country anymore, and the US is taking a nosedive.

We were designed as a Minarchy, but got worst and worst until we became this.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 4:56:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Interesting article although I think it got a little off track in the second half. Either that or it's point didn't land home because the last part seemed like a bunch of info that didn't really help much.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 5:00:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 4:50:37 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 4:21:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At least they aren't in the same boat as Communists, who've HAD their shots...

Ah, another anti-communist genius parroting the twaddle that "communism" has been tried and has evinced itself to be unworkable. Well, my friend, Stalinism (and this goes for all of its instantiations in every society that followed the Soviet model) quite simply wasn't Marxism and the North Korean system is inspired more by the fascist system of WWII-era Japan than by any paradigm of communism. But hey, if you're fond of dishonest twaddle by all means keep claiming that communism has had its shot ...

The irony is probably that Marxism is almost antithetical to the Russian Sovietism.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 5:05:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 4:42:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
America isn't a success? Last I checked we're one of the most successful countries in the world.

+ 1 for Libertarianism.

A rich country full of people coping with stagnant wages and credit card debt that they've been forced into by said stagnant wages; a society in which people have resigned themselves to chronically struggling for economic survival, in which a great many of us are a single paycheck away from homelessness, in which it's not uncommon for the uninsured working poor to do without medical and dental care; and a country in which the material and spiritual poverty generated by capitalism manifests in epidemic drug dependency and trafficking is definitely not a success.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 5:11:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 5:05:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 4:42:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
America isn't a success? Last I checked we're one of the most successful countries in the world.

+ 1 for Libertarianism.

A rich country full of people coping with stagnant wages and credit card debt that they've been forced into by said stagnant wages; a society in which people have resigned themselves to chronically struggling for economic survival, in which a great many of us are a single paycheck away from homelessness, in which it's not uncommon for the uninsured working poor to do without medical and dental care; and a country in which the material and spiritual poverty generated by capitalism manifests in epidemic drug dependency and trafficking is definitely not a success.

Charles, you should really visit a country like Bulgaria, Nigeria, Senegal or Mongolia. Then, tell me how bad the United States (even in its worst parts) is.
Tsar of DDO
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 5:33:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 4:01:17 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Why are there no libertarian countries?

Because real-world capitalists will never play the game of private enterprise according to Hoyle, or Hayek, or von Mises, or Friedman. They will never, sans regulation, respect the lofty doctrines of libertarianism. Quite simply, capitalists, driven by the energies of a capitalist economy (by socially unenlightened self-interest and by the irresistible law of accumulation) will always betray and scuttle the principles of free-marketarian ideology. Mm-hmm, 'tis market fundamentalism and libertarianism, not communism, that's fatally incompatible with a realistic view of economics and human nature. And most people have enough sense to realize this, that's why no society will ever undertake the doomed experiment of implementing libertarian theory.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 5:38:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 5:11:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:05:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 4:42:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
America isn't a success? Last I checked we're one of the most successful countries in the world.

+ 1 for Libertarianism.

A rich country full of people coping with stagnant wages and credit card debt that they've been forced into by said stagnant wages; a society in which people have resigned themselves to chronically struggling for economic survival, in which a great many of us are a single paycheck away from homelessness, in which it's not uncommon for the uninsured working poor to do without medical and dental care; and a country in which the material and spiritual poverty generated by capitalism manifests in epidemic drug dependency and trafficking is definitely not a success.

Charles, you should really visit a country like Bulgaria, Nigeria, Senegal or Mongolia. Then, tell me how bad the United States (even in its worst parts) is.

That our lot is better than that of people in various Third-World countries that are victims of the regnant capitalist world order is somehow supposed to redeem capitalism?
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 5:39:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 4:50:37 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 4:21:52 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At least they aren't in the same boat as Communists, who've HAD their shots...

Ah, another anti-communist genius parroting the twaddle that "communism" has been tried and has evinced itself to be unworkable. Well, my friend, Stalinism (and this goes for all of its instantiations in every society that followed the Soviet model) quite simply wasn't Marxism and the North Korean system is inspired more by the fascist system of WWII-era Japan than by any paradigm of communism. But hey, if you're fond of dishonest twaddle by all means keep claiming that communism has had its shot ...

Well, 1, it was intended as a cheap shot. A Joke, if you will, some humorous repartee. Perhaps you've heard of the concept. Further, your assumption that I'm "anti-communist" is rather without warrant. But thanks for the dishonest twaddle regarding what you assume my political beliefs are based on a single line.

On a side note, when you talk about "communism" in one breath, and then immediately transition to the more specific term, "marxism", which applies to a specific ideology of communism, in order to claim that communism has never been attempted, you're being disingenuous. I didn't say "Like the Marxists", now, did I? I can certainly agree that Stalinism wasn't Marxism. That's essentially trivial. But it's you've responded to a crack about Utilitarianism being responded to by saying "Well, you're way off base because Mill wouldn't have agreed!"

As much fun as it is to complain of "dishonest twaddle", I'd probably recommend that, perhaps, you cease allowing your reflexes to be stimulated to the extent that you jerk your knee QUITE as much, and note that Stalinism is still, nonetheless, considered Communism in its ideology.

Further, that the initial attempts towards Marxism were turned into Stalinism might rightly be noted as a failure of the system, just as a failure of the system of "true" democracy is that it is so easily given problems by demagogues (in addition to the practical problems of literally having everyone vote for everything).

That no state seems to have transitioned from "lower-phase communism" towards its goal of effective "higher-phase communism", despite ample time in which to do so, might quite rightly be considered to be a failure. Perhaps, not an insurmountable one, but nonetheless a circumstance when something was attempted, which failed to reach its goal. Which was kind of the point of my criticism, and which criticism was, in my opinion, relatively mild, all things considered.

It was a single line, which indicated that communism had more negative evidence than libertarianism, which is simply true. I note the lack of mention of Cuba in your response...

Whether one decides to ignore the evidence that indicates there have been serious attempts to undertake Communism, I suppose, is their own choice. But the OP was to ask in a sort of leading-question way why there are no countries who've attempted to implement the system of libertarianism--if they're to be asked a similar question, a communist is forced to answer "why have none of the countries which tried to be communist managed to have done so effectively and successfully?"
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 5:46:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 5:38:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:11:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:05:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 4:42:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
America isn't a success? Last I checked we're one of the most successful countries in the world.

+ 1 for Libertarianism.

A rich country full of people coping with stagnant wages and credit card debt that they've been forced into by said stagnant wages; a society in which people have resigned themselves to chronically struggling for economic survival, in which a great many of us are a single paycheck away from homelessness, in which it's not uncommon for the uninsured working poor to do without medical and dental care; and a country in which the material and spiritual poverty generated by capitalism manifests in epidemic drug dependency and trafficking is definitely not a success.

Charles, you should really visit a country like Bulgaria, Nigeria, Senegal or Mongolia. Then, tell me how bad the United States (even in its worst parts) is.

That our lot is better than that of people in various Third-World countries that are victims of the regnant capitalist world order is somehow supposed to redeem capitalism?

That's beside the point. The comparison is between the standard of living you assailed in the United States, and between other nations not as wealthy as the United States -not an analysis of the implications of commerce. Relative to others, the United States is far better off than other places -especially those places which have been closed off to much international trade for many years (like Myanmar, who no one could argue was a "victim" to capitalism -even if one bought into the idea that capitalism victimizes people).
Tsar of DDO
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 5:50:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
* But it's like you've responded to a crack about Utilitarianism by saying "Well, you're way off base because Mill wouldn't have agreed!"
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 6:02:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 5:46:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:38:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:11:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:05:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 4:42:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
America isn't a success? Last I checked we're one of the most successful countries in the world.

+ 1 for Libertarianism.

A rich country full of people coping with stagnant wages and credit card debt that they've been forced into by said stagnant wages; a society in which people have resigned themselves to chronically struggling for economic survival, in which a great many of us are a single paycheck away from homelessness, in which it's not uncommon for the uninsured working poor to do without medical and dental care; and a country in which the material and spiritual poverty generated by capitalism manifests in epidemic drug dependency and trafficking is definitely not a success.

Charles, you should really visit a country like Bulgaria, Nigeria, Senegal or Mongolia. Then, tell me how bad the United States (even in its worst parts) is.

That our lot is better than that of people in various Third-World countries that are victims of the regnant capitalist world order is somehow supposed to redeem capitalism?

That's beside the point. The comparison is between the standard of living you assailed in the United States, and between other nations not as wealthy as the United States -not an analysis of the implications of commerce. Relative to others, the United States is far better off than other places -especially those places which have been closed off to much international trade for many years (like Myanmar, who no one could argue was a "victim" to capitalism -even if one bought into the idea that capitalism victimizes people).

I'd put forth the claim "Countries that have no infrastructural history, despots in power, arbitrary borders which breed conflict, and have been victims of exploitative imperialism, are worse than Western developed countries". Which includes Burma.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 6:04:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 5:38:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:11:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:05:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 4:42:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
America isn't a success? Last I checked we're one of the most successful countries in the world.

+ 1 for Libertarianism.

A rich country full of people coping with stagnant wages and credit card debt that they've been forced into by said stagnant wages; a society in which people have resigned themselves to chronically struggling for economic survival, in which a great many of us are a single paycheck away from homelessness, in which it's not uncommon for the uninsured working poor to do without medical and dental care; and a country in which the material and spiritual poverty generated by capitalism manifests in epidemic drug dependency and trafficking is definitely not a success.

Charles, you should really visit a country like Bulgaria, Nigeria, Senegal or Mongolia. Then, tell me how bad the United States (even in its worst parts) is.

That our lot is better than that of people in various Third-World countries that are victims of the regnant capitalist world order is somehow supposed to redeem capitalism?

Capitalism benefits countries that are booming, with a ripe population to work, and a lack of features such as minimum wage and welfarism to benefit the (forgive my Marxist jargon) proletariat. When the bourgeoisie gets bloated, then there lacks a class to work, which hurts the bourgeois class, in a microcosm of the predator/prey cycle.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 6:09:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 4:42:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
America isn't a success? Last I checked we're one of the most successful countries in the world.

+ 1 for Libertarianism.

Your opinion on America changes so much that:

1) the German U-Boats have the nickname 'the GeoLaureates'.
2) The Tory Party learn how to go back on themselves from watching you.
3) Roundabouts envy your skills.

Decide how to finish the sentence, (1) (2) or (3)?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 6:10:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 6:02:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:46:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:38:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:11:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:05:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 4:42:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
America isn't a success? Last I checked we're one of the most successful countries in the world.

+ 1 for Libertarianism.

A rich country full of people coping with stagnant wages and credit card debt that they've been forced into by said stagnant wages; a society in which people have resigned themselves to chronically struggling for economic survival, in which a great many of us are a single paycheck away from homelessness, in which it's not uncommon for the uninsured working poor to do without medical and dental care; and a country in which the material and spiritual poverty generated by capitalism manifests in epidemic drug dependency and trafficking is definitely not a success.

Charles, you should really visit a country like Bulgaria, Nigeria, Senegal or Mongolia. Then, tell me how bad the United States (even in its worst parts) is.

That our lot is better than that of people in various Third-World countries that are victims of the regnant capitalist world order is somehow supposed to redeem capitalism?

That's beside the point. The comparison is between the standard of living you assailed in the United States, and between other nations not as wealthy as the United States -not an analysis of the implications of commerce. Relative to others, the United States is far better off than other places -especially those places which have been closed off to much international trade for many years (like Myanmar, who no one could argue was a "victim" to capitalism -even if one bought into the idea that capitalism victimizes people).

I'd put forth the claim "Countries that have no infrastructural history, despots in power, arbitrary borders which breed conflict, and have been victims of exploitative imperialism, are worse than Western developed countries". Which includes Burma.

I'd also add that correlation =/= causation, and that the lack of international trade in these "victim" countries may have little to do with a failure of capitalism in these countries and more of the political exigencies inherent in their situation, as SH describes.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 6:10:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 6:02:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:46:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:38:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:11:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:05:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 4:42:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
America isn't a success? Last I checked we're one of the most successful countries in the world.

+ 1 for Libertarianism.

A rich country full of people coping with stagnant wages and credit card debt that they've been forced into by said stagnant wages; a society in which people have resigned themselves to chronically struggling for economic survival, in which a great many of us are a single paycheck away from homelessness, in which it's not uncommon for the uninsured working poor to do without medical and dental care; and a country in which the material and spiritual poverty generated by capitalism manifests in epidemic drug dependency and trafficking is definitely not a success.

Charles, you should really visit a country like Bulgaria, Nigeria, Senegal or Mongolia. Then, tell me how bad the United States (even in its worst parts) is.

That our lot is better than that of people in various Third-World countries that are victims of the regnant capitalist world order is somehow supposed to redeem capitalism?

That's beside the point. The comparison is between the standard of living you assailed in the United States, and between other nations not as wealthy as the United States -not an analysis of the implications of commerce. Relative to others, the United States is far better off than other places -especially those places which have been closed off to much international trade for many years (like Myanmar, who no one could argue was a "victim" to capitalism -even if one bought into the idea that capitalism victimizes people).

I'd put forth the claim "Countries that have no infrastructural history, despots in power, arbitrary borders which breed conflict, and have been victims of exploitative imperialism, are worse than Western developed countries". Which includes Burma.

Imperialism does not make victims. Bad imperialism makes victims.
Tsar of DDO
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 6:12:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 6:10:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 6:02:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:46:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:38:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:11:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:05:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 4:42:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
America isn't a success? Last I checked we're one of the most successful countries in the world.

+ 1 for Libertarianism.

A rich country full of people coping with stagnant wages and credit card debt that they've been forced into by said stagnant wages; a society in which people have resigned themselves to chronically struggling for economic survival, in which a great many of us are a single paycheck away from homelessness, in which it's not uncommon for the uninsured working poor to do without medical and dental care; and a country in which the material and spiritual poverty generated by capitalism manifests in epidemic drug dependency and trafficking is definitely not a success.

Charles, you should really visit a country like Bulgaria, Nigeria, Senegal or Mongolia. Then, tell me how bad the United States (even in its worst parts) is.

That our lot is better than that of people in various Third-World countries that are victims of the regnant capitalist world order is somehow supposed to redeem capitalism?

That's beside the point. The comparison is between the standard of living you assailed in the United States, and between other nations not as wealthy as the United States -not an analysis of the implications of commerce. Relative to others, the United States is far better off than other places -especially those places which have been closed off to much international trade for many years (like Myanmar, who no one could argue was a "victim" to capitalism -even if one bought into the idea that capitalism victimizes people).

I'd put forth the claim "Countries that have no infrastructural history, despots in power, arbitrary borders which breed conflict, and have been victims of exploitative imperialism, are worse than Western developed countries". Which includes Burma.

Imperialism does not make victims. Bad imperialism makes victims.

So past imperialism creates victims. I wasn't talking about some magical hypothetical imperialism, I was talking about the actual imperialism that happened. Why would I fleet to the imaginary?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 6:15:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 6:10:14 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/5/2013 6:02:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:46:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:38:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:11:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:05:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 4:42:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
America isn't a success? Last I checked we're one of the most successful countries in the world.

+ 1 for Libertarianism.

A rich country full of people coping with stagnant wages and credit card debt that they've been forced into by said stagnant wages; a society in which people have resigned themselves to chronically struggling for economic survival, in which a great many of us are a single paycheck away from homelessness, in which it's not uncommon for the uninsured working poor to do without medical and dental care; and a country in which the material and spiritual poverty generated by capitalism manifests in epidemic drug dependency and trafficking is definitely not a success.

Charles, you should really visit a country like Bulgaria, Nigeria, Senegal or Mongolia. Then, tell me how bad the United States (even in its worst parts) is.

That our lot is better than that of people in various Third-World countries that are victims of the regnant capitalist world order is somehow supposed to redeem capitalism?

That's beside the point. The comparison is between the standard of living you assailed in the United States, and between other nations not as wealthy as the United States -not an analysis of the implications of commerce. Relative to others, the United States is far better off than other places -especially those places which have been closed off to much international trade for many years (like Myanmar, who no one could argue was a "victim" to capitalism -even if one bought into the idea that capitalism victimizes people).

I'd put forth the claim "Countries that have no infrastructural history, despots in power, arbitrary borders which breed conflict, and have been victims of exploitative imperialism, are worse than Western developed countries". Which includes Burma.

I'd also add that correlation =/= causation, and that the lack of international trade in these "victim" countries may have little to do with a failure of capitalism in these countries and more of the political exigencies inherent in their situation, as SH describes.

Strong correlation allows us to induce causation, especially when accompanied by reasoned explanation to why this would take place (or an intuitive obviousness of an event). After all, if a specific gun control policy didn't accompany a reduction gun crime 39/40 times, or abortion bans didn't accompany a reduction in abortions 39/40 times, we'd say that there is no causal link (and if it were the reverse, we'd say there was one). Which forms the basis of most of how our politics ought to work - doing what works. And Free Markets simply seem to bust.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 6:18:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 6:12:08 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/5/2013 6:10:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 6:02:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:46:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:38:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:11:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:05:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 4:42:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
America isn't a success? Last I checked we're one of the most successful countries in the world.

+ 1 for Libertarianism.

A rich country full of people coping with stagnant wages and credit card debt that they've been forced into by said stagnant wages; a society in which people have resigned themselves to chronically struggling for economic survival, in which a great many of us are a single paycheck away from homelessness, in which it's not uncommon for the uninsured working poor to do without medical and dental care; and a country in which the material and spiritual poverty generated by capitalism manifests in epidemic drug dependency and trafficking is definitely not a success.

Charles, you should really visit a country like Bulgaria, Nigeria, Senegal or Mongolia. Then, tell me how bad the United States (even in its worst parts) is.

That our lot is better than that of people in various Third-World countries that are victims of the regnant capitalist world order is somehow supposed to redeem capitalism?

That's beside the point. The comparison is between the standard of living you assailed in the United States, and between other nations not as wealthy as the United States -not an analysis of the implications of commerce. Relative to others, the United States is far better off than other places -especially those places which have been closed off to much international trade for many years (like Myanmar, who no one could argue was a "victim" to capitalism -even if one bought into the idea that capitalism victimizes people).

I'd put forth the claim "Countries that have no infrastructural history, despots in power, arbitrary borders which breed conflict, and have been victims of exploitative imperialism, are worse than Western developed countries". Which includes Burma.

Imperialism does not make victims. Bad imperialism makes victims.

Yes, and so past imperialism creates victims. (fix'd)
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 6:20:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 5:38:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:11:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:05:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 4:42:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
America isn't a success? Last I checked we're one of the most successful countries in the world.

+ 1 for Libertarianism.

A rich country full of people coping with stagnant wages and credit card debt that they've been forced into by said stagnant wages; a society in which people have resigned themselves to chronically struggling for economic survival, in which a great many of us are a single paycheck away from homelessness, in which it's not uncommon for the uninsured working poor to do without medical and dental care; and a country in which the material and spiritual poverty generated by capitalism manifests in epidemic drug dependency and trafficking is definitely not a success.

Charles, you should really visit a country like Bulgaria, Nigeria, Senegal or Mongolia. Then, tell me how bad the United States (even in its worst parts) is.

That our lot is better than that of people in various Third-World countries that are victims of the regnant capitalist world order is somehow supposed to redeem capitalism?

Lol zing!
yang.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 6:21:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 6:12:08 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/5/2013 6:10:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 6:02:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:46:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:38:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:11:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:05:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 4:42:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
America isn't a success? Last I checked we're one of the most successful countries in the world.

+ 1 for Libertarianism.

A rich country full of people coping with stagnant wages and credit card debt that they've been forced into by said stagnant wages; a society in which people have resigned themselves to chronically struggling for economic survival, in which a great many of us are a single paycheck away from homelessness, in which it's not uncommon for the uninsured working poor to do without medical and dental care; and a country in which the material and spiritual poverty generated by capitalism manifests in epidemic drug dependency and trafficking is definitely not a success.

Charles, you should really visit a country like Bulgaria, Nigeria, Senegal or Mongolia. Then, tell me how bad the United States (even in its worst parts) is.

That our lot is better than that of people in various Third-World countries that are victims of the regnant capitalist world order is somehow supposed to redeem capitalism?

That's beside the point. The comparison is between the standard of living you assailed in the United States, and between other nations not as wealthy as the United States -not an analysis of the implications of commerce. Relative to others, the United States is far better off than other places -especially those places which have been closed off to much international trade for many years (like Myanmar, who no one could argue was a "victim" to capitalism -even if one bought into the idea that capitalism victimizes people).

I'd put forth the claim "Countries that have no infrastructural history, despots in power, arbitrary borders which breed conflict, and have been victims of exploitative imperialism, are worse than Western developed countries". Which includes Burma.

Imperialism does not make victims. Bad imperialism makes victims.

So past imperialism creates victims. I wasn't talking about some magical hypothetical imperialism, I was talking about the actual imperialism that happened. Why would I fleet to the imaginary?

British Imperialism is the reason that India is as successful today as it is. But for the institutional memory of western leadership (which is sort of a necessary prerequisite for foreign investment), India would be no better than... Sri Lanka.

French, and above all Belgian imperialism hasn't produced the same positive effects that British imperialism has. The French tend not to be able to administer colonies well... and the Belgians just ruin everything they get their hands on.
Tsar of DDO
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 6:29:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 6:21:17 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 6:12:08 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/5/2013 6:10:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 6:02:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:46:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:38:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:11:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:05:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 4:42:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
America isn't a success? Last I checked we're one of the most successful countries in the world.

+ 1 for Libertarianism.

A rich country full of people coping with stagnant wages and credit card debt that they've been forced into by said stagnant wages; a society in which people have resigned themselves to chronically struggling for economic survival, in which a great many of us are a single paycheck away from homelessness, in which it's not uncommon for the uninsured working poor to do without medical and dental care; and a country in which the material and spiritual poverty generated by capitalism manifests in epidemic drug dependency and trafficking is definitely not a success.

Charles, you should really visit a country like Bulgaria, Nigeria, Senegal or Mongolia. Then, tell me how bad the United States (even in its worst parts) is.

That our lot is better than that of people in various Third-World countries that are victims of the regnant capitalist world order is somehow supposed to redeem capitalism?

That's beside the point. The comparison is between the standard of living you assailed in the United States, and between other nations not as wealthy as the United States -not an analysis of the implications of commerce. Relative to others, the United States is far better off than other places -especially those places which have been closed off to much international trade for many years (like Myanmar, who no one could argue was a "victim" to capitalism -even if one bought into the idea that capitalism victimizes people).

I'd put forth the claim "Countries that have no infrastructural history, despots in power, arbitrary borders which breed conflict, and have been victims of exploitative imperialism, are worse than Western developed countries". Which includes Burma.

Imperialism does not make victims. Bad imperialism makes victims.

So past imperialism creates victims. I wasn't talking about some magical hypothetical imperialism, I was talking about the actual imperialism that happened. Why would I fleet to the imaginary?

British Imperialism is the reason that India is as successful today as it is.

That's some dodgy history you have there, when you've just stated how Burma is a sh!thole, then claimed British Imperialism made countries great.

India was made great because, other than naturally being a decentralised lucky colony due to the amount of resources in the nation, but most importantly how much effort went into making the country workable in the fifties before it was released as a colony under Nehru. Without Gandhi and Nehru, the nation would have collapsed. Ali Jinnah and Pakistan is testament to what could have happened, being so close to India. Same goes for Sri Lanka.

And even then, India now is horribly corrupt, with mass poverty and an inability to enforce legislation. It is "successful" because it has over a billion people in the country. Any calculation per capita makes the country at best mid-table. It's Blackburn Rover at its best day.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 6:37:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 6:29:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/5/2013 6:21:17 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 6:12:08 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/5/2013 6:10:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 6:02:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:46:53 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:38:31 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:11:12 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 5:05:28 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 7/5/2013 4:42:43 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
America isn't a success? Last I checked we're one of the most successful countries in the world.

+ 1 for Libertarianism.

A rich country full of people coping with stagnant wages and credit card debt that they've been forced into by said stagnant wages; a society in which people have resigned themselves to chronically struggling for economic survival, in which a great many of us are a single paycheck away from homelessness, in which it's not uncommon for the uninsured working poor to do without medical and dental care; and a country in which the material and spiritual poverty generated by capitalism manifests in epidemic drug dependency and trafficking is definitely not a success.

Charles, you should really visit a country like Bulgaria, Nigeria, Senegal or Mongolia. Then, tell me how bad the United States (even in its worst parts) is.

That our lot is better than that of people in various Third-World countries that are victims of the regnant capitalist world order is somehow supposed to redeem capitalism?

That's beside the point. The comparison is between the standard of living you assailed in the United States, and between other nations not as wealthy as the United States -not an analysis of the implications of commerce. Relative to others, the United States is far better off than other places -especially those places which have been closed off to much international trade for many years (like Myanmar, who no one could argue was a "victim" to capitalism -even if one bought into the idea that capitalism victimizes people).

I'd put forth the claim "Countries that have no infrastructural history, despots in power, arbitrary borders which breed conflict, and have been victims of exploitative imperialism, are worse than Western developed countries". Which includes Burma.

Imperialism does not make victims. Bad imperialism makes victims.

So past imperialism creates victims. I wasn't talking about some magical hypothetical imperialism, I was talking about the actual imperialism that happened. Why would I fleet to the imaginary?

British Imperialism is the reason that India is as successful today as it is.

That's some dodgy history you have there, when you've just stated how Burma is a sh!thole, then claimed British Imperialism made countries great.

There was a difference in the entrenchment of control. Burma was less useful than India, for the reasons you state below.

India was made great because, other than naturally being a decentralised lucky colony due to the amount of resources in the nation, but most importantly how much effort went into making the country workable in the fifties before it was released as a colony under Nehru. Without Gandhi and Nehru, the nation would have collapsed. Ali Jinnah and Pakistan is testament to what could have happened, being so close to India. Same goes for Sri Lanka.

And even then, India now is horribly corrupt, with mass poverty and an inability to enforce legislation. It is "successful" because it has over a billion people in the country. Any calculation per capita makes the country at best mid-table. It's Blackburn Rover at its best day.
Tsar of DDO
tulle
Posts: 4,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 6:40:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Being a world superpower doesnt make a country a great place in which to live. I would never want to live in russia or china. Comparing the US to some of the most fvcked up countries in the world is not something to be proud of.
yang.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 6:44:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 6:37:58 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 6:29:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
That's some dodgy history you have there, when you've just stated how Burma is a sh!thole, then claimed British Imperialism made countries great.

There was a difference in the entrenchment of control. Burma was less useful than India, for the reasons you state below.

So your understanding of Imperialism, then, is that it is good for countries which are big and rich enough so that their exploitation is so large that it is essential for an empire to function?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 7:01:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 6:44:44 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 7/5/2013 6:37:58 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/5/2013 6:29:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
That's some dodgy history you have there, when you've just stated how Burma is a sh!thole, then claimed British Imperialism made countries great.

There was a difference in the entrenchment of control. Burma was less useful than India, for the reasons you state below.

So your understanding of Imperialism, then, is that it is good for countries which are big and rich enough so that their exploitation is so large that it is essential for an empire to function?

To be clear, I am not saying that imperialism is in and of itself beneficial any more than it is harmful -or that British imperialism was always good/beneficial. I'm saying that there are clear examples of where tangible good can be found from the results of imperial expansion, one example of which is India. The utility of a particular region (like india, which was plentifully resourceful) to its colonizer has the salutary impact of indicating the extent to which foreign investment in a particular country (like India) is in the colonizer's best interest. Burma just didn't offer what India did. Does that mean that British colonialism was on its face wrong/bad/immoral/unethical/any of the other bullsh!t that revisionists invent to rewrite history to shame the west? No. What it means is that while there were very bad things that happened, the good outweighs the bad in those countries which proved useful.
Tsar of DDO