Quote from: DumbFruit on October 31, 2014, 12:21:55 AM

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.

I answered this twice.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9370403#msg9370403
This is a "Straw Man argument" because you're arguing a position that I didn't take. I never said that if we got rid of government all the sudden every single orphan would get adopted.

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.

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.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245
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-earth

You did.

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.

Quote from: Cameltoemcgee on October 28, 2014, 11:44:39 PM
He's saying that the same people who are doing it now will continue to do it but instead of putting tenders to government for funding, they will be directly funded by people. The argument could be made that in the absence of a violent (and inefficient) monopoly claiming responsibility for remediation of a VERY important issue, the quality of care that underprivileged get will be significantly better without them.

Yes.

You also argued that: My position is that anarcho-capitalism can better handle charity than the government can.

This of course brings up the question - based on what actually, other than blind supposition? Has corporations made measurable charitable initiatives today that exceeds the government in terms of reach and effectiveness? Are we supposed to believe that corporations that routinely exploit communities will metamorphosize into entities with social conscience once we stop taxing them?

Further, your examples of the Banning is misleading because they certainly exist within a governmental framework. Where did you get the idea that they have "no government". The are semi-nomadic, but they are not cut off from society. Some of them even go to churches and mosques! Further, their adoption habit is based on a unique sexual taboo. It has nothing to do with anarcho capitalism.

Quote from: DumbFruit on October 31, 2014, 12:21:55 AM

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.

Answered this here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245
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.
Expanded point:
If I wasnt being clear, Im saying that people cant make decisions about charitable donations based on the whims of politicians that change from year to year, and they especially dont go out of their way to help people that should be being helped by the federal programs that they are funding with their taxes.
People in general dont have the idea that they are going to spend their money on either taxes or charity. There is what is called in economics a diminishing marginal utility, which when applied in this instance means that people certainly might not immediately put their money into charity as soon as discretionary spending comes up, because people value charity at different levels subjectively.
For some people, they might put all the money they save in taxes directly into charity. For other people, they might value their own childrens education, or paying down their debts before they start putting money into charity.
The point is we can hardly make any kind of prediction about precisely whats going to happen during a temporary tax credit in such a government dominated industry (Welfare).
http://mises.org/austecon/chap4.asp

No, you did not answer it earlier. You answered it now though, in your last sentence.
"The point is we can hardly make any kind of prediction about precisely whats going to happen during a temporary tax credit in such a government dominated industry (Welfare)."

But you can somehow predict their behavior post tax-abolishment? $6.6 trillion in liquidity and no discernible difference in charitable contributions, but we're supposed to accept there will be a difference if we stop taxing them entirely? Speaking of marginal utility, shouldn't private charitable contributions increase in light of the ever decreasing federal welfare funding relative to GDP? Or does that only work in favor of aggrieved taxpayers?

And just so we're clear, I don't have any "aristocratic overlords". You may imagine you do, but I don't. I don't consider government officials or politicians "aristocratic overlords. I've even yelled at a couple of your "aristocratic overlords".

Quote from: DumbFruit on October 31, 2014, 12:21:55 AM

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.

I answered that here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245
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.

Expanded: Im not interested in measuring how altruistic people are. It doesnt concern me whether or not Bill Gates is a better guy any more than I care which of them had the bigger penis.
Im concerned about which philosophy guides people closer to actually alleviating the suffering of the poor. Under anarcho-capitalism Bill Gates could still exist, in society today there could not exist people like Rockefeller, because they simply could not compete like they did in the 1800s under low taxation and low regulation.
I am of course against anti-trust. I dont see it as a benefit that it destroyed Standard Oil.

Once again, you didn't answer that. Using your argument, altruistic people like Bill Gates shouldn't exists at all now. Remember your argument of diminishing marginal utility one paragraph above? Further, you seem unaware that Rockefeller and Standard Oil actually paid enormous amount of taxes in the form of import tariffs for their equipment and concession fees - not to mention systematic kickbacks to local, state and federal officials.

Quote from: DumbFruit on October 31, 2014, 12:21:55 AM

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

I answered that here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245
Every time you do something without permission from any authority but your own, you are acting under Anarchy. System D would be the second largest economy in the world if it were measured as one.
Also, complete anarchy, when tried, tends to do better than the governments prior.
A good rule of thumb is the closer you get to 0% as GDP of taxation, the closer you get to anarchy and the more prosperous the underlying society given its previous condition.

http://mises.org/daily/5418/anarchy-in-somalia
Expanded:
You hemmed and hawed about Somalia, but the bottom line is that Somalia has done much better without a government than with one. Its not a paradise by any stretch of the imagination, but again, thats not my position.
Unfortunately I dont think its still without a State.
http://mises.org/daily/2066
http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

Your definition of anarchy is, I'm sorry, just plain silly. Exercising my free will within the constraints of the law is not anarchy.
Your rule of thumb is also, I'm sorry again, just plain silly. You're just restating your opinion that abolishment of taxes will magically lead to prosperity for all, ignoring historical, social and economic precedents. Your rule of thumb is just another rephrasing of the Reagan's trickle down economic (Laffer Curve, anyone?), which has been proven to be false.

I wasn't hemming or hawing about Somalia. I told you I was laughing - I even spilled cigarette ash on my keyboard.
Most paleolibertarians steer clear of Somalia - not you though. Sorry, I'm laughing again. Grin

Somalia pre-anarchy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drW5cmd-GQk
Somalia post-anarchy: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ac7_1321327107

Sigh. Sometimes I wonder...

Quote from: DumbFruit on October 31, 2014, 12:21:55 AM

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?

Answered here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245
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

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

Private charities do exist right now. We do not exist in a free market economy right now. Our economy is heavily controlled by both houses of congress, ill-concieved free trade agreements, as well as a central bank that manipulates interest rates (which are arguably the bedrock of business decisions).

Not answered, again. You didn't mention the agents or intermediary in your initial answer. But I knew you were going to say businesses/corporations. Sadly, corporatocracy has always acted in its own self interest, not society's. Do I really need to expand on this?

Private charities exists, yes, I have mentioned that myself. But the total number is practically insignificant.

Also, you are laboring under the impression that free market equals complete deregulation - something that the United States nor any other nation have ever tried nor experienced.

Quote from: DumbFruit on October 31, 2014, 12:21:55 AM

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.

Anarcho-Libertarians like myself dont believe old white men should have the authority to vote on whether or not we can keep our individual freedom, no matter how many votes they have, or how many mistresses.
On top of that, no one in Congress represents me, nor does any majority in in any state in the United States. I represent me, and in a just society, that would be enough.
Anyway; Hitler was elected, elections can be easily gamed, and the mob cant be trusted. So your point is moot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wIq2xeyal8

You are not an anarcho-libertarian. Anarcho libertarians does not exist. Its philosphy is a half baked mutation of paleolibertarianism, which is a half-baked neo-confederate racist ideology, designed to justify social and economic extremism. It is just a label.

The beauty of democracy is, if there are enough people who share your beliefs, you can change the sociopolitical and socioeconomic system of this country.

You are resorting to Godwin's law once again. Yes, Hitler was elected. But you are intentionally ignoring the years of unchecked abuse he inflicted on the government culminating with him holding the entire Reichstag hostage while forcing the passing of Ermächtigungsgesetz, which elevated his powers to near monarchy.

Elections cannot be easily gamed - gaming it requires resource, patience and most importantly, depends on the apathy of the citizens. Case in point, you - you refuse to do anything about Citizens United, but have no problem complaining endlessly about the government. You just want the whole thing abolished in favor of some half baked theories.

Quote from: DumbFruit on October 31, 2014, 12:21:55 AM

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.

Ugh. No. Im not going to respond to this appeal to emotion again.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

Why not? Didn't you say you were sympathetic? How do you reconcile your sympathy with your insistence on bringing welfare spending to zero?
Do you think people won't die when you do that? Do you think people won't suffer when you remove social safety nets?
Do you realize how many people who are just one paycheck away from poverty?
Is this truth too inconvenient for you?

Quote from: DumbFruit on October 31, 2014, 12:21:55 AM

Answer to "There is absolute no justification at all to stop aiding people in need." here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=827010.msg9382245#msg9382245
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.

You've asked me this earlier, and I've answered you.

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

8. 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 {url=http://www.alec.org/]ALEC [/url] 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.

ps: You do realize that most of the links you posted, especially the Mises ones, are merely opinions, not substantive facts?