Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:31-46|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question for libertarians and anarchists

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 10:20:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/10/2013 10:10:21 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/10/2013 10:05:09 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 6:16:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/10/2013 4:13:38 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 2:58:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Any individual who gets his money stolen from him via taxes should intend to extort as much money as possible from the government to ensure that his stolen money is repaid.

Regardless of who they are extorting this money from, eh Robin Hood.

You derive benefit from the government, whether or not you directly use their services, and actually know it, or not.

Our economy would fall to its knees without our government, and as you begin to look at countries like China which, while not communist, has a strongly controlled economy through a central government, you see why having people who know what the f*ck they're doing guiding the economy is much better than this magical free market alternative.

The FED, a private cartel of banks, are the thieves, not the government (though, the government does need their bicentennial b!tch slapping that no one in this generation has the guts to start to give it...)

The only reason that China is prospering is because they have a huge population that is capable of working at low wages, not because of the free market.

Are you seriously saying that more countries should be like China?

With how they control their economy and have avoided the rolling blackouts that India faces because they weren't prudent enough to slow their economic growth until their infrastructure could handle it?

They aren't any better at controlling their economy. Or they wouldn't have massive ghost cities.


The ghost cities from two decade ago are thriving cities now. They're doing future planning.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 10:44:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/10/2013 2:17:57 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
Is it hypocritical to benefit from social programs, yet be against their existence.

No. If they exist already, it's stupid to put money into them and than refuse to reap the benefits when you qualify. Not participating in the programs does not eliminate them, and as long as they exist they will continue to cause problems.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 11:34:56 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/10/2013 10:10:21 PM, lewis20 wrote:

They aren't any better at controlling their economy. Or they wouldn't have massive ghost cities.


this just means that the economy evolved beyond the region's niche and so the people moved to where the economy was more thriving.

out with the old and obsolete, in with the new...this actually supports my point, as opposed to refuting it.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 11:50:54 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/10/2013 10:08:40 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/10/2013 10:05:09 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 6:16:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 3/10/2013 4:13:38 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 2:58:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Any individual who gets his money stolen from him via taxes should intend to extort as much money as possible from the government to ensure that his stolen money is repaid.

Regardless of who they are extorting this money from, eh Robin Hood.

You derive benefit from the government, whether or not you directly use their services, and actually know it, or not.

Our economy would fall to its knees without our government, and as you begin to look at countries like China which, while not communist, has a strongly controlled economy through a central government, you see why having people who know what the f*ck they're doing guiding the economy is much better than this magical free market alternative.

The FED, a private cartel of banks, are the thieves, not the government (though, the government does need their bicentennial b!tch slapping that no one in this generation has the guts to start to give it...)

The only reason that China is prospering is because they have a huge population that is capable of working at low wages, not because of the free market.

Are you seriously saying that more countries should be like China?

With how they control their economy and have avoided the rolling blackouts that India faces because they weren't prudent enough to slow their economic growth until their infrastructure could handle it?

Yeah. That's exactly what I'm saying.

There are a lot of poor countries with a lot of cheap labor. China's leading the way for a reason, and that reason isn't simply size. If it were, India is big enough to keep pace. Why haven't they?

https://www.google.com...

You're comparing statist to statist. India is very economically authoritarian and socialistic.

The Government of India, officially known as the Union Government, and also known as the Central Government, was established by the Constitution of India, and is the governing authority of the union of 28 states and seven union territories, collectively called the Republic of India. It is seated in New Delhi, the capital of India.

The government comprises three branches:

the executive,
the legislative and
the judiciary.

The head of the executive branch is the President,and exercises his or her power directly or through officers subordinate to him / her.[1]
The legislative branch or the Parliament consists of the lower house, the Lok Sabha, and the upper house, the Rajya Sabha, as well as the President.
The judicial branch has the Supreme Court at its apex, 21 High Courts, and numerous civil, criminal and family courts at the district level. India is the largest democracy in the world.


http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Fifth Plenum in October 2005 approved the 11th Five-Year Economic Program (2006"2010) aimed at building a "socialist harmonious society" through more balanced wealth distribution and improved education, medical care, and social security. On March 2006, the National People's Congress approved the 11th Five-Year Program. The plan called for a relatively conservative 45% increase in GDP and a 20% reduction in energy intensity (energy consumption per unit of GDP) by 2010.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Are you sure about that????????


Maybe you misread and thought I said The United States and India instead of China and India. It's an easy mistake to make.

Also, China has quite a few blackouts of its own:

http://www.forbes.com...

That was 2 years ago...how they doin' now (and, most of China's blackouts are government initiated to stop the blackouts from being widespread)?

Now, let's take a look at India as of December 2012, shall we? (...a little closer to the present day)

http://tech2.in.com...

That's not accounting for Hong Kong, either, which is the "free market zone" in China (though, yeah...growth is nuts there, and per capita GDP, in the same constant dollars is $35K/yr)

I hardly classify Hong Kong as being economically part of China- it's on a whole separate level.

Well, geez, you've been so accurate with everything else, maybe I should just accept your classification.

(seriously...do you just make this sh!t up as you go along so that it will support your ideas, despite the fact that everything is nearly the opposite of what you believe it to be?)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 2:13:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/10/2013 6:22:33 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

There are plenty of faults to be found with Rand, but this criticism is an inaccurate and intellectually dishonest one to cling to. Rand wasn't a hypocrite when she accepted SS, she was following exactly what she had preached on the subject.

Well, DDO Randroids; pardon me, I mean objectivists, and "libertarians", here's a bit of a zinger for you. If you're the former you really shouldn't also identify as the latter, and vice versa. Say what? Well, adherents of Rand's philosophy and "libertarians" really don't make very good philosophical or political bedfellows for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I might observe that although the objectivist's god-awful ideological guru, Ayn Rand, being of Jewish stock, wasn't quite eligible for membership in the Bund, she certainly had all of the humanity and loveliness of a Hitlerian. Although her followers would no doubt like to emphasize her anti-statism, the only thing on a moral level that genuinely sets her apart from Nazis was the fact that she wasn't into killing her fellow Jews or Gypsies - she wasn't too sweet for that, it just wasn't the particular bug up her behind. But her hatred of communism, based not of Stalin's crimes against humanity but rather on communist philosophy's advocacy of an egalitarianism that rubbed her social-Darwinian sensibilities the wrong way; and her distinctly herrenmoral outlook on life have quite the Nazi-like feel and flavor. This, her sheer hatefulness, by itself should be sufficient to put "libertarians", along with most at least semi-decent human beings, off of entertaining any affinity with her. However, if this isn't quite enough, well, there's also her quite explicitly expressed opinion of "libertarians", which wasn't at all flattering.

Here's a quote, in which she actually describes "libertarians" to a T, " 'libertarian' hippies, ... subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism." And for the "anarchism" advocated by libertarian hippie types she had this to say: "Anarchism (read the libertarian vision of absolute free-marketarianism) is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs." Ha! I'll bet that most libertarians didn't realize that they were the spawn of "the fringe of the collectivist movement". (And libertarians think that I'm harsh on them!) Yeah, you irrational collectivists of the libertarian camp, Ayn Rand had your number, and was not interested in being your ideological ally. So, the next time that one of you feels the inclination to leap to her defense merely because she's a fellow rightist, well, remember her contemptuous opinion of you and her unsavoriness and take a moment to analyze why in the world you would feel such an inclination, perhaps doing so just might lead to a bit of self-insight.
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.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 9:26:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
You might disagree with the way the world you're born into runs, but you can't just put your head into the sand. You should take any advantage you're given, if you want.

It may be a little hypocritical though, I guess...
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 11:03:33 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/10/2013 2:17:57 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
Is it hypocritical to benefit from social programs, yet be against their existence.

No, it's not hypocritical. I'll debate anyone on this.

It's called "playing the cards you are dealt." Socialists want a world in which the government manufactures everything. That world doesn't exist. It is not hypocritical for socialists to buy market goods while at the same time advocating for a different system.

Anarchists want no laws. Its not hypocritical to obey current laws while advocating change.

A few years ago, a journalist who advocated strict gun control shot a burglar. He was not a hypocrite, because he wanted all guns banned and believed he would be safer if they were. But the real world did not have his desired ban, so it was perfectly reasonable for him to deal realistically with the real world.

Citizens are forced to pay taxes to support entitlement programs. In a different world, they could have saved all that tax money, invested it to provide for themselves, and given some to charity. But that world doesn't exist.

You advocate change, but you play the cards you are dealt.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2013 11:16:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/10/2013 11:34:56 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 10:10:21 PM, lewis20 wrote:

They aren't any better at controlling their economy. Or they wouldn't have massive ghost cities.


this just means that the economy evolved beyond the region's niche and so the people moved to where the economy was more thriving.

out with the old and obsolete, in with the new...this actually supports my point, as opposed to refuting it.

You apparently didn't watch the clip, the central govt is building massive cities that there is no demand for in order to maintain high GDP growth. They arent abandoned, they are never occupied to begin with.
"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
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 1:28:30 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I am laughing at the people arguing that China shows how good the state is at planning the economy.

Here is what happened in China. They were really poor because they had a communist, state run economic system. Eventually, they adopted radical pro market reforms that led to rapid growth.

Regions of China that have had more pro market reforms have grown faster than ones that have not had as many pro market reforms.

Okay, so China has had dramatic free market reforms (a move towards capitalism) and that has led to dramatic economic growth. This shows the opposite. The state run system was awful and they started growing when they moved away from it.

Now, China is still not nearly as pro market as most western countries. The reason they are growing fast is because of conditional convergence. Poorer countries per capita GDP tends to converge with richer countries. China was really poor because of communism. They moved towards capitalism and started growing really fast. Their levels (GDP per capita) are still well below the USA. They will probably stabilize at around 60% of our GDP per capita.

There is no Chinese miracle. China is just an example of what we see everywhere: a country is poor because of communism and starts getting richer once they transition to capitalism. The lesson is simple: communism is really, really bad and capitalism is very good by comparison.

Those that argue that China somehow supports more state intervention in the economy are a new breed of economic illiterates. Economic theories that advocate more state intervention have all been thoroughly discredited by history, and China is just one more example of this.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 10:01:27 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/11/2013 11:16:02 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:34:56 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 10:10:21 PM, lewis20 wrote:

They aren't any better at controlling their economy. Or they wouldn't have massive ghost cities.


this just means that the economy evolved beyond the region's niche and so the people moved to where the economy was more thriving.

out with the old and obsolete, in with the new...this actually supports my point, as opposed to refuting it.

You apparently didn't watch the clip, the central govt is building massive cities that there is no demand for in order to maintain high GDP growth. They arent abandoned, they are never occupied to begin with.

No, I didn't watch your video. I looked it up on my own to avoid what I knew would be a bias toward your point of view.

HOWEVER,

I knew that video was wrong the moment you said that the towns were built to maintain high GDP growth.

Anyone who looked into China's GDP would easily detect the anomalies here, because GDP measures the market value of all goods and services produced in a country.

The value of those towns is effectively zero. Their construction, until they are occupied, has absolutely no bearing on GDP.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 10:03:41 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/12/2013 1:28:30 AM, BigRat wrote:
I am laughing at the people arguing that China shows how good the state is at planning the economy.

Here is what happened in China. They were really poor because they had a communist, state run economic system. Eventually, they adopted radical pro market reforms that led to rapid growth.

Regions of China that have had more pro market reforms have grown faster than ones that have not had as many pro market reforms.

Okay, so China has had dramatic free market reforms (a move towards capitalism) and that has led to dramatic economic growth. This shows the opposite. The state run system was awful and they started growing when they moved away from it.

Now, China is still not nearly as pro market as most western countries. The reason they are growing fast is because of conditional convergence. Poorer countries per capita GDP tends to converge with richer countries. China was really poor because of communism. They moved towards capitalism and started growing really fast. Their levels (GDP per capita) are still well below the USA. They will probably stabilize at around 60% of our GDP per capita.

There is no Chinese miracle. China is just an example of what we see everywhere: a country is poor because of communism and starts getting richer once they transition to capitalism. The lesson is simple: communism is really, really bad and capitalism is very good by comparison.

Those that argue that China somehow supports more state intervention in the economy are a new breed of economic illiterates. Economic theories that advocate more state intervention have all been thoroughly discredited by history, and China is just one more example of this.

Hey, look...more unsubstantiated bullsh!t from BigRat.

What a surprise, which happens with perfect predictability...as in every time he posts.
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
3/12/2013 11:04:02 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/12/2013 10:01:27 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/11/2013 11:16:02 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/10/2013 11:34:56 PM, malcolmxy wrote:
At 3/10/2013 10:10:21 PM, lewis20 wrote:

They aren't any better at controlling their economy. Or they wouldn't have massive ghost cities.


this just means that the economy evolved beyond the region's niche and so the people moved to where the economy was more thriving.

out with the old and obsolete, in with the new...this actually supports my point, as opposed to refuting it.

You apparently didn't watch the clip, the central govt is building massive cities that there is no demand for in order to maintain high GDP growth. They arent abandoned, they are never occupied to begin with.

No, I didn't watch your video. I looked it up on my own to avoid what I knew would be a bias toward your point of view.

HOWEVER,

I knew that video was wrong the moment you said that the towns were built to maintain high GDP growth.

Anyone who looked into China's GDP would easily detect the anomalies here, because GDP measures the market value of all goods and services produced in a country.

The value of those towns is effectively zero. Their construction, until they are occupied, has absolutely no bearing on GDP.

Oh, so construction doesn't boost GDP? Good one.
Please, show me your unbiased source that say building 64 million person cities there's no demand for is a good thing for the economy.
"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
3/12/2013 11:28:50 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/12/2013 11:04:02 AM, lewis20 wrote:

Oh, so construction doesn't boost GDP? Good one.

Construction of valueless assets (since GDP is the sum of the market value of goods and services produced)? No...no it doesn't.

Please, show me your unbiased source that say building 64 million person cities there's no demand for is a good thing for the economy.

They're trying to push people out of the rural countryside and into cities.

With oil running out, you're going to start to see the same thing happening in America, except unlike China, we won't be prepared for this shift in our economy.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com...

Until a substitute for oil is found concentrating the population so that food can be grown close to these cities (since a lot of American suburbs can be reclaimed as farmland) and doesn't need to be transported far.

It may seem anti-liberty, but it's the most humane solution, and no one cares about liberty until they first have life.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 2:04:07 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/10/2013 8:35:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I like a quote from Ragnar on this:

"I want to stop the train, not jump off it."

Or something like that.

At 7/30/2010 12:37:52 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
You have never taken advantage of a "free" service?
Why wouldn't I? I'll be taxed for it anyway. I want to stop the gravy train. Not jump off it before it stops when I was forced to pay the fare anyway.
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.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 2:07:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/11/2013 2:13:30 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 3/10/2013 6:22:33 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:

There are plenty of faults to be found with Rand, but this criticism is an inaccurate and intellectually dishonest one to cling to. Rand wasn't a hypocrite when she accepted SS, she was following exactly what she had preached on the subject.



Well, DDO Randroids; pardon me, I mean objectivists, and "libertarians", here's a bit of a zinger for you. If you're the former you really shouldn't also identify as the latter, and vice versa. Say what? Well, adherents of Rand's philosophy and "libertarians" really don't make very good philosophical or political bedfellows for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I might observe that although the objectivist's god-awful ideological guru, Ayn Rand, being of Jewish stock, wasn't quite eligible for membership in the Bund, she certainly had all of the humanity and loveliness of a Hitlerian. Although her followers would no doubt like to emphasize her anti-statism, the only thing on a moral level that genuinely sets her apart from Nazis was the fact that she wasn't into killing her fellow Jews or Gypsies
How about her lack of Socialism and uneasy relationship with all things National?

But her hatred of communism
Yes, because hatred of communism is totally the reason civilized people morally evaluate Hitler negatively.

based not of Stalin's crimes against humanity
Have you even read Rand?

and her distinctly herrenmoral outlook on life
I must confess I'm not familiar with the word.
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.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2013 2:07:25 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 3/11/2013 11:03:33 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

Anarchists want no laws. Its not hypocritical to obey current laws while advocating change.

Oh you.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.