You continue to harp on the election results for some reason..
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 understand for democracy to do what you want it to do 51% of people have be altruistic? Just because you can't see the link doesn't mean I'm arguing in a circle or diverting attention.
I corrected you.
You think you corrected me.
And went on to paint an utopian world that can be achieved via an anarchist regime.
I did not. There are real world examples of the effects anarcho-capitalism have on economies which are fantastic, but it is not a "utopia".
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
Do you understand that saying anarcho-capitalism helps the poor is not the same as saying that poor disappear under anarcho-capitalism?
Why do you keep saying I have some kind of logic gap by saying that the poor are helped, but not all poor are always helped?
Do you see that there is a spectrum of "helping the poor" where at one at there are no poor because it has been completely taken care of and on the other end of the spectrum everyone is poor?
You understand that I'm arguing that anarcho-capitalism places us in the spectrum closer to no poor than democracy?
This isn't a "logic gap". You are trying to paint me into some absolute position of "no poor utopia" that I didn't take.
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.
Rather than repeat my self, I'll just repost a few of my earlier posts which you chose to ignore.
I'm not ignoring anything that I think is relevant, if you think I missed something point it out specifically and I'll address it.
You ignored [my] point about Rockefeller,
What point? The point about Bill Gates? I did address it.
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.
Irrelevant. Stop trying to paint me into a utopian position. My position is not that *EVERY* orphan will be adopted. My position is that anarcho-capitalism can better handle charity than the government can.
"The Baining also derogate sexual intercourse, because it is natural, although they apparently engage in enough of it to keep their population going. They consider adoption to be the ideal form of parenting, because to raise someone elses child is less natural than to raise one's own. At the time that Fajans studied them, 36% of the children were adopted. In Baining tradition, if someone asks to adopt your child it is not polite to refuse their request. In many ways, the Baining are the ideal Puritans, even though they have no particular religious traditions and do not give religious reasons for their beliefs or behavior."
The Baining are totally free of orphans and even adopt more from neighboring villages, and have no government. Though again, this is actually not relevant to my position.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201207/all-work-and-no-play-make-the-baining-the-dullest-culture-earthNone? 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,
You mean "Fix it my way or move to a different country".
They didn't choose, because they didn't have a choice.
Why didn't they have a choice?
Stop sniping my post and cherry picking sentences to respond to. One more time.
Edit: Again, substantiate your position. Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't make your outrageous claims any more credible.