Quote from: DumbFruit on October 30, 2014, 02:19:22 PM

Quote from: rugrats on October 30, 2014, 07:48:04 AM

I'm confused.

We can agree on that.

Quote from: rugrats on October 30, 2014, 07:48:04 AM

Yet you're going back to the same argument - altruism is absent because " they expect the government to take care of it."

You dont understand what Im talking about when I say that altruistic people have conditions concerning altruism, and its mind blowing to me that this isnt self-evident
If someone is going to be altruistic there are MANY conditions;
1.)   The altruistic person actually has to have the means to be helpful to other people.
2.)   Other people need to exist that need help, AND arent currently getting help.
3.)   Other people that need help should be cooperative with getting help.
4.)   Those people that need help, are cooperative, actually need to be able to be helped.
Altruism exists in *reality* its not some kind of metaphysical state of mind that pre-exists any kind of rationality.
Taxation conflicts with 1. The welfare state conflicts with 2.

Quote from: rugrats on October 30, 2014, 07:48:04 AM

Despite being flushed with cash, there were no significant increase

in charitable contributions from individuals and corporations over the last decade.

Because the federal welfare state didnt go anywhere in the meantime and because people cant adjust their spending habits based on the perturbations of our aristocratic overlords.

Quote from: rugrats on October 30, 2014, 07:48:04 AM

You know where the money went? Stock market and monetary instruments speculations, including subprime mortgage bundles which ultimately led to the worst American economic crisis in 80 years.

And who was pushing Americans to put money into housing? What agencies made it affordable? Do you think that maybe there was a tie to government somewhere in there?

Quote from: rugrats on October 30, 2014, 07:48:04 AM

And yet, self-professed paleolibertarians keep on insisting that if we abolish taxes and cripple the government, people will magically start being altruistic. I've asked this question before, even to Justin Amash. No one has been able to give a proper answer beyond rhetorics and quoting Hayek, Rothbard, Rockwell, Mises or Bastiat.

YOU believe people are already altruistic. If democracy does ANYTHING its with a 51% majority. You already believe that most people in the United States are very altruistic people. Theyre willing to be raped up the ass by Uncle Sam just so the poor and helpless can be saved. I dont have to make that point, youve already accepted that its true. Again, you seem very confused about which side of the fence youre on with this issue.

Quote from: rugrats on October 30, 2014, 07:48:04 AM

I'm confused again. Are you for or against anti-trust laws? And how does it relate to Rockefeller's altruism? Let's make it more current though. Look at Bill Gates. As of now, he is the biggest philanthropist in the history world. In a few decades, his Foundation's continued activity will also elevate him above Rockefeller, after inflation adjustment. I doubt there have been many Americans, if at all, who have paid more taxes than Gates. But like Rockefeller, he plans to give out all of his wealth to charity. That's altruism. And fyi, he works alongside governments of various nations - now.

This reminds me very much of the concept of the seen and the unseen that Bastiat wrote about. We can all see that Bill Gates exists today. We cant see how many Rockefellers dont exist today. I cant rewind history and play it back like Id like, I can just appeal to logic by stating that people like Bill Gates could always exist, but other people that would only have succeeded absent government intervention would not exist by definition. Rockefellers rule was he would tithe 10% of his earnings, so the benefit that he had for the poor depended heavily on him succeeding in business, and not having his income taxed into oblivion. You might try to argue that hed have given more to the poor if it was taxed out of him, but thats a hard case to make considering, again, he gave more to the poor than you or any of your ancestors combined even if you and all of your ancestors ate nothing but dirt and gave everything else to the poor. His contributions were also designed to be more effective than government schemes, which was only possible by virtue of the fact that it was his own money.

Quote from: rugrats on October 30, 2014, 07:48:04 AM

You say this as if a significant form of anarchist government has ever existed

Every time you do something without permission from any authority but your own, you are acting under Anarchy. System D would be the largest economy in the world if it were measured as one.
Also, complete anarchy, when tried, tends to do better than the governments prior.
http://mises.org/daily/5418/anarchy-in-somalia

Quote from: rugrats on October 30, 2014, 07:48:04 AM

After trials and errors stretching several millennia, democracy, regardless of its form, has proven to be the most stable, productive and compassionate form of government. And we're supposed to throw all this away based on some theory and philosophy that has never been able to withstand scrutiny, never mind produce empirical evidence to substantiate its assertions?

Hitler was elected.

Quote from: rugrats on October 30, 2014, 07:48:04 AM

You're bringing capitalism into this now. Huh.

Ive been talking about anarcho-capitalism since the beginning. Try to keep up.

Quote from: rugrats on October 30, 2014, 07:48:04 AM

Regardless, whatever do you mean by "The beauty of capitalism is that it doesn't require people to be altruistic in order to do tremendous good for the poor."? Don't you still require your "altruistic people" to help the weaker members of society?

Charity is necessary even in an anarchist society, but the greatest contribution to the poor has always been businesses acting in their own self-interest.

Quote from: rugrats on October 30, 2014, 07:48:04 AM

And how do you know this? This is just speculation. Who will fund and managed these charities? More of your phantom altruistic people?
We exist in a free market economy right now. What's stopping the emergence of such charities right now?

If you havent noticed, private charities do exist.
Again, I dont have to prove that enormous amounts of altruistic people exist. Thats your position.

Quote from: rugrats on October 30, 2014, 07:48:04 AM

you have the temerity to ask me to read it?

Yes, I have the temerity to ask you to read relevant subject matter. I know, Im a bad person, but maybe one day I can get past these weaknesses of mine.

Quote from: rugrats on October 30, 2014, 07:48:04 AM

There is absolutely no justification at all to stop aiding people in need. None.

None? How about stopping theft? How about if the agencies responsible arent actually doing their job? What if there is a better way of providing for them?

What if the same entity that is suppose to be helping these people is simultaneously starving woman and children to death due to trade sanctions? What if that same entity is outright killing innocent people by the tens of thousands, calling it collateral damage?
I guess thats just altruism existing outside of reality again.

Quote from: rugrats on October 30, 2014, 07:48:04 AM

The government is you, me and other people like us.

Haha! Thats rich.

Quote from: rugrats on October 30, 2014, 07:48:04 AM

Don't mind me asking - what is your age?

Lets go with 225 years old.

It's really difficult to hold a discussion with you with your selective snips of my quote. Quote me in full, and respond to me in full instead of picking randoms bits of my post while ignoring portions you are unable to reconcile with your theory. For the record, I'm confused because you are going around in circles.

Let's do a quick recap.

On October 27, you responded to my post with the following

Quote from: DumbFruit on October 27, 2014, 05:35:00 PM

Quote from: rugrats on October 27, 2014, 05:15:32 AM

To those who insists that society can still function without taxes, I urge you to just consider why there are over 400,000 orphans in the United States and over 150,000,000 around the world that still depend on their respective government's foster systems to survive. Where are these altruistic individuals that we so often hear about in narratives of no-tax utopias?

So to be clear; 51% of people are altruistic enough to provide badly for 400,000 orphans, but those same 51% that voted for the bad support those children are getting today, would not exist absent the government?

I would suggest that maybe most people don't go out of their way to help people because they expect the government to take care of it. That's pretty reasonable considering the United States Government spent $3,450,000,000,000 in 2013, since that's about twice as much money as you would need to give each of those orphans $50,000 every year for 90 years (in a one year budget, I remind you.).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/tables.pdf

I corrected you.

Quote from: rugrats on October 28, 2014, 06:00:37 AM

As far as straw man arguments go, yours must be the weirdest I've encountered in a long while. Give it another try.

Also, your suggestion implies that altruism and altruistic people are holding back because someone else, i.e., the government, is doing it. That's not altruism.

Altruism exists regardless of any circumstances. Suggesting that altruism will suddenly emerge in the absence of a government is, forgive my language, breathtakingly delusional.

For the record, the welfare spending for the U.S. in 2014 will amount to $264.4 billion. That includes unemployment assistance, food programs, foster systems and many others. Walmart and Exxonmobil generate almost twice as much in revenue annually, and these two companies actually enjoy preferential tax rebates. As a percentage of GDP, the figure has been on a downward spiral for the past three decades.

You responded with

Quote from: DumbFruit on October 28, 2014, 02:44:55 PM

Quote from: rugrats on October 28, 2014, 06:00:37 AM

Also, your suggestion implies that altruism and altruistic people are holding back because someone else, i.e., the government, is doing it. That's not altruism.

Altruism exists regardless of any circumstances.

Altruism exists whether or not the unfortunate party is being helped? Whether or not the unfortunate party is actually unfortunate? Whether or not the person knows about any kind of unfortunate circumstance that happened?

What do you mean that "Altruism exists regardless of circumstances"?

Quote from: rugrats on October 28, 2014, 06:00:37 AM

Suggesting that altruism will suddenly emerge in the absence of a government is, forgive my language, breathtakingly delusional.

Did you miss my post about Rockefeller? That man gave, of his own free will, more than you or any of your ancestors made in their entire lifetimes put together (Adjusted for inflation). That's not even including the incalculable benefit to mankind that his company was; Standard Oil.

Also, the basis of Democracy is that 51% of voters ultimately know what's best for the rest of us. For anything altruistic to come out of it, you have to presuppose that at least 51% of voters are altruistic. So you've already said that altruistic people already exist in vast quantities! I am not quite as optimistic as you are, but clearly you're a bit confused about which side of the fence you're on.

You continue to harp on the election results for some reason, twisting my word ("So you've already said that altruistic people already exist in vast quantities!") and went on to introduce Rockefellar into the discussion. You went on to state that:

Quote from: DumbFruit on October 28, 2014, 02:44:55 PM

If only we could get that spending to fall to 0% of GDP.

I then address all of your points: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9362210#msg9362210

You returned with bits and pieces of my quote, and repeated the same, previously addressed position

Quote from: DumbFruit on October 29, 2014, 03:43:37 PM

The point isn't that it's going to appear, it's that it already exists, but many people don't do anything because their wealth is being pillaged, and they expect the government to take care of it.

You then even conceded that:

Quote from: DumbFruit on October 29, 2014, 03:43:37 PM

I'm not under the illusion that when people exist in anarchy that all problems disappear; The lame walk, the blind see, and healthy food is piled like mountains on every street corner.

And went on to paint an utopian world that can be achieved via an anarchist regime.

Quote from: DumbFruit on October 29, 2014, 03:43:37 PM

When people are free to do as they like and to be commensurately rewarded for their efforts, then people will work for the benefit of their neighbor even if they think they are acting in their own self interest. Wonderful prosperity occurs, but it's not magic.

You ignored by point about Rockefeller, and introduced Standard Oil's anti trust suits into the equation for some strange reason.

Then, you made fun of my statement about how society will crumble if we ignore our weakest, stating

Quote from: DumbFruit on October 29, 2014, 03:43:37 PM

The world is not going to end if government stops interfering in people's lives. The sun will still rise, crops will still grow, and people can still deal with eachother. There was absolutely astonishing improvement in the lives of the poor long before the "great society" projects of the 1900's.

You introduced quotes from Henry Hazlitt, a journalist and a disciple of von Mises to reinforce your point. Then you start talking about capitalism (which you've now changed to anarcho-capitalism) and Malthus in what can only be described as an attempt to divert the argument. You proceeded to make the following shocking statement, clearly failing to notice the gap in logic there.

Quote from: DumbFruit on October 29, 2014, 03:43:37 PM

The beauty of capitalism is that it doesn't require people to be altruistic in order to do tremendous good for the poor

The icing on the cake though, is when you made this huge leap of assumption that completely ignores the reality of corporations and private enterprises.

Quote from: DumbFruit on October 29, 2014, 03:43:37 PM

In the free market there may be less dollars dumped into programs to help the poor, but what is put into charities would be far more effective per dollar, and would certainly out-do our current ineffectual schemes by a wide margin.

You close that up with a rant about theft, government killing children, etc - the standard paleolibertarian talking points.

Today you returned, snipping my posts again, and merely repeating the same opinions and even resorted to Godwin's law.

Rather than repeat my self, I'll just repost a few of my earlier posts which you chose to ignore. Respond to this with empirical data instead of rhetorics. I know all of your talking points; I've heard it all before. I even have a copy of the talking points prepared by Americans for Prosperity three years ago for Tea Party and paleolibertarian operatives, where words like theft and murder were highlight in bold. What I haven't seen/heard/read is, evidence that support these talking points. I sometimes laugh when people tell me they want a smaller government, but don't even know the size of the government. The first thing they always zoom in is on welfare for the needy, despite the fact that it constitutes less than 0.1% of the budget. They are just so eager to start slashing off the evil gubmen, as if there is some magic pill, a single, cure-all panacea for a series of complex issues (fyi, bashing the inefficiencies of the federal government is not evidence that income taxes should be abolished.) Anyway, here they are.

Quote

Altruism should mean that all of the 400,000 orphans that society as a whole do not want would be adopted by families annually - now.

Since the dawn of time, has this ever happened before? Has societies, collectively, voluntarily decide to adopt every orphan, provide assistance to single mothers, and care for their old, sick and handicapped? No, it hasn't - other than a few truly altruistic individuals, society has largely turned a blind eye to the plight of others.

Quote

When exactly will these mythical altruistic people emerge? By your own words, they won't suddenly emerge if we abolish taxation. I've also clearly addressed that altruism and altruistic people do not set conditions before helping people. Yet you're going back to the same argument - altruism is absent because " they expect the government to take care of it."

Why? That's not altruism, which is the central core of your argument. Nevertheless, I'll bite, once again.

When former President Bush enacted his massive tax cuts in 2001 (effectively the largest since the Hoover days), the federal government lost about $6.6 trillion in revenue over an 11-year period. By your logic, shouldn't these extra income also resulted in an explosion of charitable contributions during the time? It didn't though. Despite being flushed with cash, there were no significant increase in charitable contributions from individuals and corporations over the last decade.

You know where the money went? Stock market and monetary instruments speculations, including subprime mortgage bundles which ultimately led to the worst American economic crisis in 80 years. And yet, self-professed paleolibertarians keep on insisting that if we abolish taxes and cripple the government, people will magically start being altruistic. I've asked this question before, even to Justin Amash. No one has been able to give a proper answer beyond rhetorics and quoting Hayek, Rothbard, Rockwell, Mises or Bastiat.

Quote

Are you for or against anti-trust laws? And how does it relate to Rockefeller's altruism? Let's make it more current though. Look at Bill Gates. As of now, he is the biggest philanthropist in the history world. In a few decades, his Foundation's continued activity will also elevate him above Rockefeller, after inflation adjustment. I doubt there have been many Americans, if at all, who have paid more taxes than Gates. But like Rockefeller, he plans to give out all of his wealth to charity. That's altruism. And fyi, he works alongside governments of various nations - now.

Quote

You say this as if a significant form of anarchist government has ever existed; as if there have been occasions in history where fully functional anarchist geo states or communities exist; as if humans are not communal, social creatures that will naturally create a form of government. From the dawn of time, some form of government have always existed. This is an undeniable fact. From patriarchy and other forms of social hierarchy-based leadership, to tribalism, feudalism, warlords, aristocracy, monarcy (hereditary and later, divinely inspired), theocracy, democracy, republicanism, oligarchy, sultanate, caliphate, parliamentary monarchy, communism, socialism, Maoism - I could go on.

After trials and errors stretching several millennia, democracy, regardless of its form, has proven to be the most stable, productive and compassionate form of government. And we're supposed to throw all this away based on some theory and philosophy that has never been able to withstand scrutiny, never mind produce empirical evidence to substantiate its assertions?

Quote

Regardless, whatever do you mean by "The beauty of capitalism is that it doesn't require people to be altruistic in order to do tremendous good for the poor."? Don't you still require your "altruistic people" to help the weaker members of society?

Quote

We exist in a free market economy right now. What's stopping the emergence of such charities right now?

Quote

The government is you, me and other people like us. They are not some alien beings or members Alex Jones' ruling 20 families. Fix the government, from outside or inside. Don't let organizations like ALEC write bills for your Congressmen. Pressure your Congressmen to repeal acts like Citizens United which allows companies to secretly fund political campaigns. Despise the war? Make it known, like the Flower Generation. They achieved results, despite the almost universal ridicule they received.

And, in response to your aim of cutting welfare spending to zero and possessing "tremendous sympathy",

Quote

If you have heard a grown man crying because he can't feed his hungry child, then you wouldn't be so cavalier about cutting off aid to them.
If you have spent time with orphans, you would be filled with fear at the thought of them left unprotected, uneducated and unfed, and you wouldn't be so eager to stop money going to orphanages.
If you have spent time with an old woman left on the streets by her children, then you wouldn't begrudge the money spent giving them shelter and feeding, and you wouldn't be callously insisting we should stop paying taxes.
There is absolutely no justification at all to stop aiding people in need. None.

Please, don't repeat your opinions or talking points again. Let's move this discussion forward instead of going round in circles.

ps: Read the Declaration of Independence again. This time, instead of focusing of specific words that you think supports your theories, focus on the message behind the entire declaration. Once you've done so, then you may once again condescendingly ask me to read the same document.

pps:

Quote from: DumbFruit on October 30, 2014, 02:19:22 PM

None? How about stopping theft? How about if the agencies responsible arent actually doing their job? What if there is a better way of providing for them? What if the same entity that is suppose to be helping these people is simultaneously starving woman and children to death due to trade sanctions? What if that same entity is outright killing innocent people by the tens of thousands, calling it collateral damage?

Then fix it, as I've said twice before, instead of trying to replace everything with a logic-defying theory that cannot even stand scrutiny. And I literally spill cigarette ash on my keyboard reading your Somalia example.