Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 1,002 results by AyeYo
Or under socialism you steal money from someone and give it to the school.
No, no. What you actually do is tax someone that's benefiting by living in a society with public education. You have to pay for that benefit. There's a price for all benefits. You don't get to have all the indirect benefits of government programs without having to contribute to the government programs.
You're only demonstrating that you don't understand libertarianism. You don't need 100% agreement on a single issue much less all of the issues for it to be implemented.
That's because you're a raging hypocrite, something we established and moved past over twenty pages ago.
Yet a further demonstration of your ignorance. Self-defense is not aggression therefore it can't be a violation of the non-aggression principle.
That's because you're a raging hypocrite, something we established and moved past over twenty pages ago.
Self-defense isn't aggression, but once again you're playing a semantics game. What you're saying ("self-defense") and what you actually plan to do (force people to follow your beliefs) are worlds apart.
Why does it have to be an extreme form of socialism? Why not do what most of Europe has done and have socialism in some areas and capitalism in others? Granted some states have failed to do proper calculations and haven't balanced their income with the benefits they give their citizens, but most have done a fairly good job.
The fact that the banks also failed in their responsibilities and lent money to overspending states is a major concern right now, but that's not a failure of socialism, that's capitalism failing.
The fact that the banks also failed in their responsibilities and lent money to overspending states is a major concern right now, but that's not a failure of socialism, that's capitalism failing.
Because the world is black and white, thus I can't comprehend anything in between.
All problems in society are the government's fault.
All good things in society come from wealth and big business.
the fact that the system is flawed doesn't mean it needs to be totally cast out
You mean like your fantasy objections to libertarianism?
There's a difference between fixable flaws cropping up in implimentation (due to human nature) and inherent, systemic flaws in the idealogy itself.
You mean like concentrating power in the hands of a few people and hoping the bad guys won't make a grab for it and abuse it?
No, I mean like having a system based on a principle that doesn't allow you to impliment your system unless 100% of the population is 100% in agreement (thus an impossibility) otherwise making the system completely contradictory, hypocritical, and arbitrary.
I mean like having a system based on non-aggression and no coercion, even though aggression and coercion are facts of life simply because 100% of the people will not agree on 100% of the issues 100% of the time.
That's an inherently flawed system that CANNOT exist in the real world, not just because I don't want it to, but because it's a physical impossibility.
So we better get to work on improving what we have.
Anybody interested in responding to my question yet? It was first asked 30+ pages ago.
Haven't seen it. It was probably trolling anyway.
Must be blind, because I quoted it right on this page.
So let me get this straight, you're arguing that this noise-polluting, criminal-hiring, extortionist mega-conglomerate can survive for more than a quarter in the free market?
Without government bailouts this corporation won't last more than a month.
Without government bailouts this corporation won't last more than a month.
Why does that seem so far fetched? It happens all the time.
Look up a little history of Latin America and see what corporations had going on down there. They hired hit men to kill union bosses, sub-contracted for torture and kidnap of employees that disagreed with them, and many other such blatantly illegal/immoral activities.
How is the market going to punish them when 99.9995% of the people that comprise the market have no idea this stuff took place because they're scattered all over the world, but these events happened only in a specific area? I bet YOU don't know the history I'm speaking of. I bet YOU don't even know what company I'm referring to. I bet YOU can't even find it on Google without knowing EXACTLY what you're looking for. I'll give a hint, they're still around and thriving - without a single bailout.
the fact that the system is flawed doesn't mean it needs to be totally cast out
You mean like your fantasy objections to libertarianism?
There's a difference between fixable flaws cropping up in implimentation (due to human nature) and inherent, systemic flaws in the idealogy itself.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/world/middleeast/bahrain-court-hands-down-harsh-sentences-to-doctors-and-protesters.html?ref=middleeast&pagewanted=print
Exactly the same apart from the oppression, torture, disappearance of opposition activists, killing of peaceful demonstrators and imprisonment of medics for treating injured civilians.
Really, grow up. Where do you live that compares to that?
Exactly the same apart from the oppression, torture, disappearance of opposition activists, killing of peaceful demonstrators and imprisonment of medics for treating injured civilians.
Really, grow up. Where do you live that compares to that?
Oppression: check (how many US laws can make us criminals, as opposed to before?). Torture: check (Guantanamo). Disappearance of opposition activists: check (kept on the low-down). Killing of peaceful demonstrators: check (oops, it was just an accident, righhhht...). Imprisonment of medics: check (FDA going after alternative medicine doctors)
Now I know the above isn't as blatant as dictatorial regimes but pain is still pain, dead is still dead, despite the delivery method. It's always a means to an end. The only thing the US cares about is it's reputation, whereas other dictatorships only care about maintaining their position of power for as long as possible before the next coup d'etat.
If you ever open your eyes and we're able to move off of these ridiuclous topics like you handing out nukes to terrorists, you'll realize that most of us are very against the exact actions you've just described.
But in the world of color (not your black/white alternative universe), the fact that the system is flawed doesn't mean it needs to be totally cast out. The fact that current first-world government is mostly corrupt, doesn't mean that government in and of itself is an inherently bad concept.
Why didn't the target organizations of these regulations lobby the OSHA/State government to prevent this regulation. If it's that easy to get your way through lobbying I'd wager that your dentist, along with a few colleagues, could have stopped it.
They probably had no idea about it. If they did, they probably had fewer resources to throw at a single issue than would a large corporation that's going to make a lot of money from it.
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHA OMFG the irony is too much!
Don't you see it? You're pointing out blatant problems WITH YOUR OWN SYSTEM.
How so?
Are you really that stupid?
How about information disparity (can't protect/defend myself from things I don't know exist), highlighted in blue, and power/wealth disparity (biggest gun makes the rules), highlighted in red.
Can you see it now??
There is no invitation to join - you inherited the citizenship. You may not agree with where the money goes but its up to you to change the system. There isn't really a way to opt out/move away but that's the limit of the analogy rather than of the logic.
Isn't that the problem libertarians are trying to find a solution for? Is your agrument now "there are no libertarian places out there, you live in a Democratic government society, so just buck up and deal with it?"
No one said just deal with it. If you don't like it, change it. Currently, the vast majority of society has VOLUNTARILY decided that it does NOT want what you're selling, which brings us back to my question that no one wants to answer.
HOW do you plan on changing it without being a hypocrite at the same time?
Quote from: AyeYo
So which is it? Are you going to bring about change by forcing it on people via violence (just like the state that you hate!) or are you going to win over a majority through superior reasoning and arguments (which will still result in your forcing your opinion on the minority, thus concluding that libertarianism is hypocritical and contradictory no matter what way you slice it, as I've said in a million threads before, you can't make EVERYONE happy ALL the time, thus you will ALWAYS have to suppress at least some people via threat of violence)?
But it would shift our way of using money dramatically. Any money that you earn, you would benefit from spending as soon as possible. There would be no incentive to save money. Investment would be very difficult.
There would reach a point where people would drop the currency and use other means to trade. Then the cost of the IRS would be shifted to the cost of keeping people using our currency.
There would reach a point where people would drop the currency and use other means to trade. Then the cost of the IRS would be shifted to the cost of keeping people using our currency.
That would only be true if significant inflation occured.
No, what I get is social contract and backing by society.
He intentionally said YOU and not SOCIETY, because if it's ME setting the standards, that's easy to argue against. If it's SOCIETY setting the standards, that's much more difficult to argue against.
He intentionally said YOU and not SOCIETY, because if it's ME setting the standards, that's easy to argue against. If it's SOCIETY setting the standards, that's much more difficult to argue against.
If I hire hitmen to do my dirty work, am I not responsible for the death of my neighbor? I suppose technically speaking that'd be false, but still ugly (I didn't "pull the trigger" personally). If you use the voting mechanism to achieve legislation, you have a difficult time determining who the "hitmen" were. It's all well hidden and abstracted within the mechanism of statism.
My statement obviously went miles over your head, because nothing you said was even remotely relevant.
When you play the me and you game, it's easy to shoot down the regulation system because it looks more arbitrary.
You don't get extra rights just because you bring some friends to the party.
Life is not a party. If people band together for their own protection, you need more than talk about rights to remove the protections they have created.
Why?
Something about voluntary contracts and no coercion or force.
When you play the me and you game, it's easy to shoot down the regulation system because it looks more arbitrary.
You don't get extra rights just because you bring some friends to the party.
No, what I get is social contract and backing by society.
He intentionally said YOU and not SOCIETY, because if it's ME setting the standards, that's easy to argue against. If it's SOCIETY setting the standards, that's much more difficult to argue against.
Sure thing, you sound busy 
.
. Not at all, just don't want to type more than a sentence or two from my phone.
Sure, but where is the limit? Can you cause harm, based upon the belief that your neighbor intends to do harm to youself, your property, or your family; in order to prevent your neighbor from doing harm? Can you do the same, if your neighbor intends you no harm, but you believe that he is a threat to others? How can you make such a determination?
I'll give you a tip here... you need to stop saying "you" and start saying "society". Because it's not about ME and YOU, it's about US ALL. It's not whether I alone believe you to be a threat, it's whether society as a whole believes you to be a threat.
When you play the me and you game, it's easy to shoot down the regulation system because it looks more arbitrary.
Gotta give you an A for subtle, manipulative effort though!
Forgive me. Its a long thread.
Where have you said how people will be prevented from access to nuclear materials and centrifuges?
Where have you said how people will be prevented from access to nuclear materials and centrifuges?
You can't because it's already been done. It's impossible to be perfect. You can be induced and influenced to not want something. You can never prevent it, unless the laws of physics says it's not possible, and even then I wouldn't hold my breath.
But there are these things called probabilities, you see.
If we can REDUCE (not prevent) the possibility of a terrorist getting his hands on a nuke from 1:100 to 1:1,000,000,000... that's a worthwhile change.
The fact that something isn't PERFECT is not reason to discard it, because NOTHING is perfect.
Obviously this whole deal requires an ability to see in colors other than black and white, as well an ability to understand cost/benefit analysis - things most folks on this forum do not possess.
Do you agree with this type of government regulation? Do you believe that it's perfectly fine for regulation to progress to that level, if enough people believe there is a need for it? Why do you believe this regulation is justice, just because it was passed by the government with the people's consent?
I'd also like to ask some additional questions. If there is a line drawn where there is "too strict regulation", by what guiding principle is that line drawn? Also, where does that principle come from?
I'll even make it simplier. What principles are your politcal ideologies based upon, if any? Among that set of principles, which are in conflict with libertarian principles and how?
Off the top of my head, I'd have to say that one of the primary conflicts (especially in this thread) is that we (REDACTED INDIRECT INSULT) value the right to life over trivial, admittedly pull-from-ass rights like the right to own a nuke, the right to juggle small pox vials, the right to manufacture biological weapons in your basement, the right to store an armed bomb in your shed that's ten feet from my house, etc.
I think that's one of the main disagreements.