/sigh. This is standard debating process. To know the terms in which you debate, and debate over them is natural, and to not do that means you really are only a surface debater. So yeah, no tricks here.

Except IP isn't IP for Software companies, and that's where your argumentation breaks down-- agricultural subsidies are subsidies because they target an industry-- IP doesn't. It is generalized for the entirety of all businesses and individuals.

So your equation is subsidy = gift/favoritism -- tell me where in any IP law, there is specific, specific reference to Microsoft, any of their competitors, or any business sector as a whole.

Also, you know you're merely a talking head when you advocate for private police. But more to the point, the debate, which you're trying very cleverly to shift, is about subsidies, not about private police or gov. agencies.

Question for you-- do any other businesses, private entities, or others benefit from these IPs?

And lastly, it doesn't give them any more power than they ought to have. This is on the same basis of protecting one's body from a murderer-- police need to take care of that as a preventative measure, and this needs to be in place as a breach in IP would cause damage to these businesses that wouldn't be fixable.

But I digress. Please tell me why this is a subsidy, cause nothing in the wikipedia article said anything that would back you up, and I read it twice.

But isn't that the invisible hand of capitalism? If they were the "best (relatively) at satisfying consumers", that would make consumers want to come back and buy more-- so why isn't this a case of an incredibly successful business model?  And once again, you've taken that this is a benefit specific to MS as a given, which has yet to be proven, and perhaps has been disproven-- didn't we just talk about how many software companies would have logically gotten that "benefit" extended to them?


This isn't responsive to the debate of whether or not IP = subsidy. Quite frankly, you can bitch and moan about corporations all you want, I'm in agreement with you-- but for the purposes of this, I'm only interested in that question-- does IP = subsidy?


Not relevant, see previous response.

But wait, refer back to It is a dilemma, a double-bind in the best sense. I think you chose the option that people aren't rational agents, and thus will donate.

I'm ok with that decision on your part. What I'd like you to do is explain how a non-rational agents(one who does things to harm themselves economically, like donate to charity(a good feeding doesn't outweigh harming yourself through donations)) could function within lassez-faire capitalism. If I understand the premises of this system, the invisible hand of capitalism only really works if people are rationally self-interested. But as the charity example demonstrates, that isn't the case.


Oh, I expected you to say as much. But the problem with taking small tax = small harm is a principle in ethics which is significance-- the action under consideration has to be significant(and philosophers disagree on what it means), but most agree that a pinch or $1 tax isn't significant. For that reason, the ethical question of $1 taxation shouldn't be considered.

But to contest another point. If somebody has $100 million in the bank, do you honestly think that taxing them $1 million harms them that much? If I had $100 dollars, the $1 would be a pinch, and proportionately so to the millionaire-- 1 million isn't that much to him/her. What I'd like you to address is the possibility that a flat percentage tax(of total net-value, or income) as an ethical tax.

But my point concerning non-rational agents applies here too-- I'm willing to concede that they'd donate in the AnCap system, but the logical outcome of what them donating money means in an AnCap system is far more damning for the possibility of capitalistic regulation by the market.

Well, I admit it is pessimistic, but the simple fact of the matter is that as time goes along, similar to government agencies, the chances of corruption or stupidity occurring goes up-- the longer around it is, the more likely something will go wrong.

True on these points-- but to put it in computer terms, let's say the median income of a mcdonalds employee is equivalent to a 1st generation Sony Vaio, in today's times. Having 4 of those doesn't adequately compensate anybody... being king of a shitpile is awful, but being king of a shitpile 4 times as large as a mcdonald's employee isn't much comfort to the man who will likely die of lung related illnesses.

And this isn't even getting into the fact that 15,000 is pathetic. I challenge you to find a place, food, utilities, and the very basics for anywhere with a mcdonalds for that much. It is a pipe dream to pay them that little and expect them to survive. I expect the coal miner's job isn't that much better either.

And I know what you'll say, that the company isn't under an obligation to pay him anything more, but once again, looking at harm to the company versus benefit to the employee,  the proportions are completely off- a slight increase in pay would be less than thousandths of a percentile, but could make several percentile differences to him/her.
I don't know if even having a health economy -> shortage of workers. I don't know the unemployment stats for other countries, so I really can't comment. I'd just be surprised if there was ever a situation wherein there was a shortage of workers, as the population is growing at quite a rate...
It comes down to definitions. W/e-- should they actually argue this well, I suspect I'll resort to marxist analyses of production, and prove cap = bad that way. /sigh. I was hoping it wouldn't come down to that.

umadbro? It isn't pedantic. If you don't have a justification for your underlying definitions and ideas, nobody will follow you.

That's odd-- most people enjoy justification for actions

Apparently you do, cause your definition of violence isn't adequate.

You honestly don't know what I was saying, do you?


That positive peace = warmongering is, quite frankly, the funniest thing I've seen all day. It beat out lolcats daily updates.

You need to read, in this order, Kant, Derrida, Levinas, and Cuomo.

Your definition of violence is inadequate, and I think cuomo does the best job of showing why:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810390

Saying women = weak is either 19th century chauvinism, or Rand masquerading as such. I guess I thought of Rand because of many opinions here + chauvinism.

This is a caricature of what I'm saying-- taxes within reason aren't just non-harmful they are also necessary for the public interest. Your argument would assume several things, as an extention of this:
1) Charity harms yourself
2) Giving excess material goods/finances is also a harm
3) Taxing $1 means you will tax somebody into oblivion(Nobody's proposing that)
4) For the industry it taxes, I'd be much more in favor of slashing the subsidies that we give to big oil, for example. That being said, under your seemingly contradictory logic, we have a contradiction, yet again-- subsidies help industries by being profitable. But subsidies can only be paid for by taxes. What do?


It totally would. I'd argue that the reason they give money in the 1st place is because of western style liberalism, and the society that they grew up in which prizes helping other people-- if your argument about redistribution of wealth is to be believed, then people are giving money primarily due to the government's example of wealth-redistribution. Give it a few generations, and under your system, that impulse to donate will be gone.

We're in agreement, and it wasn't your point exclusively-- you'd assumed I was in favor of military spending. I'm not.

But once again, to say that all charities will always be corruption and poor management free is a pipe-dream. They will all be infected by it eventually, and as new ones come up, similar to new government agencies, there will be less incompetence and corruption, but it is a matter of time in both systems for it to fail.




That is literally nonsense. A coal miner's median income is $59,495, and it is well documented how bad their health can be.  Capitalists don't care if they harm employees, because there is a shortage of jobs-- the employers can be selective about their hirings.



See the debate going on up above. I don't think they have any definitional basis on which to challenge me.

Also, my alternative is utilitarian anarchism, based on Levinasian ethics.

Nice arrogance and douchbaggery! 3 points!

Anyways, if you look at what Atlas said, I responded it couldn't be a subsidy if it wasn't favorting microsoft. This is simple definitions.

Uh, you need to learn to read better. I'm not yet admitting that it got a IP subsidy(as I think the definition on that is schizophrenic, at best). I was saying that, and see my last paragraph of my last post for this, A) I don't  believe it constitutes a subsidy, and B) If it counts as a subsidy, you should have no trouble at all naming other examples of corporations/companies that came into existence exclusively because of this IP subsidy. That is, if you are unable to show how a company who had this subsidy that became a corporation exclusively because of this one subsidy, then the IP wasn't a subsidy at all to begin with. But once again, that's a hypothetical-- even if you prove B, I'll contest A and negate B by examining and finding other circumstances that led to it becoming a corporation.

My favorite part was when this sounded like something that objectivists would fap to. Women being submissive is precisely what Rand espoused, because, ya know, y'all are just weak.[/sarcasm to make a point]

Right, but that protection isn't unique to microsoft. It also applies to apple and other companies.  This isn't an offensive argument in any way, precisely because everybody could've had this.

Furthermore, this isn't targeted favoritism. Why are ideas any different from physical property, or patents? I'd say they weren't unfairly favoring anybody, but rather protecting property rights.

Finally, the alternative(unrelated to the debate if IP= subsidy) is much worse-- artists could have their masterpieces photocopied and sold if there were no copyright, IP rights.

But yeah, I don't think that Ip could be a subsidy in any meaningful way. And if it is true that this specific type of subsidy made microsoft into a corporation, then you'd have no problem citing other examples wherein copyright laws/IP gave a monopoly on an industry that was meaningful in some way(IE, direct casual relationship).

That's not true on any level, actually-- I don't think terribly many politicians or liberals view it as such, taxes are a way to benefit everybody, but I don't think any of them have used the words "wealth redistribution".

Also, for the 3rd sentence-- what's wrong with that? If it does more good for the majority of people than it harms, then what's the problem(this is what I meant that you'll probably have to retreat back to deontology)

Nobody's suggesting getting them to that point-- it would be a self-defeating system.

Taxation isn't a harm. In the same way that other, seemingly mandatory parts of existence in western civ isn't a harm. My not being able to murder somebody isn't a harm on me-- it is a reasonable expectation to give back and to not harm.

1) But a fundamental part of laissez-faire capitalism is that people act in their own rational self-interest. Donating to charities isn't in their self-interest. So either they aren't rationally self interested, destroying the possibility of AnCap, or they won't donate, and your system is viable, but you have to concede the point.
2) Agreed, but social contractualism will, time and time again, show how peoples' tax dollars go to things that they don't want. I don't want my money to bomb a 3rd world country. But by the same token, I don't support having a sustained army either, so I don't entirely see why I would ever have to defend military spending.
3) But there's no difference. If you go with option two, that people won't donate cause they're rational, then your claim surrounding alternative solvency through charities makes no sense. Alternatively, if you go with one, then people will donate to charities, but the problem of corruption and incompetence will remain-- no charity, like no government, will be perfect.



Helping society comes from techonological, sociological, intellectual, developments that people who work at McDonalds will not make or do. Alternatively, good for society and good for the individual aren't mutually exclusive-- the professor who could be working at McDonalds not only benefits himself by not working there, but also the society. And 2.50 isn't any better than 0. At the point in time wherein you have to choose between medicine, food, or housing, 2.50 isn't different from 0 in terms of actual utilitarian calculus. Both are unacceptable.
There are some jobs, which, logically speaking, will benefit people more than others. The people working on clean cars, are, for example, in a better job for both themselves and society than the people working at BK.

And also, there is a clear calculus of good versus harm in most jobs. A job mining asbestos is objectively worse than an office job.

See the post above yours-- if I win that AnCap = corporations, and corporations = bad shizzle(which I will, only need to look at Nigeria for that), then this debate is over. Alternatively, I don't need to prove negative impacts on your side, I just need a competitive, viable, and better alternative to AnCap.

Who cares if karma/vishnu/Ra/YHWH/Allah exist-- it is unprovable, bracket the question, move on.

The thing that we should dwell on, however, is the question of "Is religion a force for good?"

But as for silly religions:

I'll give you a hint, in the style of Glenn Beck: Don't you think it is funny, don't you think it is HILARIOUSLY coincidental... and I know you're gonna think I'm crazy, yeah, I'm crazy, totally bonkers. Well, guess what? Who else was called crazy before they were executed? The jews. So yeah, I guess I'm crazy. But you know the secret? Moron is one letter different from mormon, and that's not the only thing they share in common.

Unfortunately, I'm without a blackboard on this forum. Modeled on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kcnuvjh-S8E

Ugh, this is just poor argumentation for several reasons:
1) Intellectual property laws(along with corporations as being people(which isn't responsive either, cause it was a monopoly and corporation long before that court ruling)) aren't a subsidy for microsoft, as many different companies, corporations, and entities receive it.
2) Intellectual property laws aren't subsidies because it isn't a form of favoritism(see 1(this also decapitates your offense on the subject-- if it applied to all software companies equally, then why did microsoft pull ahead?)), but also because it isn't a form of financial assistance.
3) As for the
The government granted privilege makes no sense for the reasons above-- privilege implies favoritism, and unless the law was applied unequally, to microsoft's harm, then the issue is closed-- they weren't subsidized, and turned into a monopoly.
4) Last ditch defense-- just because there are no examples yet doesn't mean that there won't be any in the future. Scientific method ftw.

I'll dispute that either later in this post, or in another post. I'll go line by line at the moment.

Relevant to the thread, not to my interests. One poor person has the same value as a rich person, in terms of ethical calculus. The decision, then, should be, does taxing e'rebody benefit more people than it harms, or does it maximize the good?

Empirically denied(at least on the state level : http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/04/20/millionaire-tax-didnt-chase-the-rich-from-new-jersey-study-says/

Right, that's indisputable, but those are solvency limitations, not solvency deficits or negation-- in other words, good can still be affected by these programs, even if they are mismanaged.

Several points here:
1) The people who end up donating money to these charities do so out of the goodness of their heart. Under a libertarian system, there would be a fetishization of greed, and there would be no rational reason to donate to a charity.
2) Empirically denied-- most private charities have an agenda to pursue as well, and will execute social justice programs more effectively, but not evenly: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chibrknews-catholic-charities-suspends-foster-care-licensing-20110603,0,6555435.story
3) Private charities are plagued by the same ineffectiveness and corruption that gov. is plagued by: http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBZQ4B0ABE.html

Undeniable, but a rising tide does not raise all boats, economically speaking.

[quote
With a better economy, there are more jobs.[/quote]
Job growth does expand. But that's not really relevant, b/c we should be looking at good jobs(any idiot can work at McDonalds', but those aren't the ones that will bring somebody out of poverty, or do actual good for society.

I disagree with this-- just because a company can hire more doesn't mean they would. Rather, it would mean they would pocket the money they could spend on raising wages-- unless there is a necessity for more workers, I would doubt they'd hire more.

Also, even if your claim is nominally true(that is, if it does make more jobs), these aren't desirable jobs that begin to affect any sort of good for the position holder, or for society.

Getting back to the utilitarian calculus, and if libertarianism maximizes utility, I'd have to say no-- even if it causes the least harm(not what we're looking at, in abstraction(we need to look at the good it causes minus the bad it causes, and use that as a method to judge the systems)), I highly doubt it is the system that creates the greatest good. I think there are other systems to work towards that, even while potentially causing more harm, still winds out on top via all the good it produces.

Honestly, I've had many debates with anarcho-capitalists, libertarians, and objectivists. The only way I've seen the 1st two defend themselves effectively is on a deontological platform-- rights have primacy, and they can't be violated.

As for the objectivists, well, their ontology/values are laughable. I haven't seen one defend their ideas effectively yet.

Terrorism is a political ideology-- you can't genocide ideology.

/sigh
Codification is only one aspect.
You need enforcement and justification as well.

Several notes here
1) I said think-- I am fallible, but if the argumentation can be digested into several main points, I'd be happy to argue against them.
2) This isn't responsive, nor does it give your ideology any ground to stand on
3) Masturbating to your ideology is the exact same thing that you've done in your post here-- I just happened to have done it without mocking somebody else.
4) And finally, I'm willing to change my mind, but I know that it won't be changed by whatever your argument is. I've read more libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, and objectivist nonsense than I care to(and probably more than you have as well). None of it claims to be utilitarian, and none of it claims to maximize the good. They either do it because jerking off to the constitution is fun for them, or because they have a poorly constructed system of onotology and values, because they know capitalism will benefit them the most.

Fine, I misworded that. Buy should've been buy/read.

I'm not going to read ~650+ pages on a subject which I think I already know the answer to: free markets want efficiency, corporations aren't efficient, corporations will cease to exist.

Two good reasons why this is nonsense-- if government is totally inefficient, and only efficient systems will survive, why does government survive?
I'll answer my own question-- it is because humans aren't rational actors, and there are other competing, and sometimes winning factors besides efficiency.

Other reason: The entire argument is structured around corporations/monopolies ONLY existing if government subsidies them. So to win this argument, I only need one example to prove that a monopoly/corporation came into existence without a subsidy.

Microsoft.

Anything else?

We've killed a lot of brown people, but we've also killed a lot of asians and blacks-- I don't think that our irreducible other is non-whites(we're not genociding them to any great extent).

All these conditions that you've laid forth are necessary conditions, but not all-in-all sufficient for a fascist state-- there's something missing, because most governments/nations would be considered these, but we acknowledge very few states as fascist states.

The US isn't a fascist state, not yet. I think the second we single out an "other" that is irreducible, and we don't extend proper citizenship to is the second we become a fascist state-- irrational persecution of "other"(s) is probably what sets us apart from fascism.

I'd rather not buy the book of an anarcho-capitalist hack(redundant)? Just summarize the argument(s) here and I'll show why you're wrong.

Btw, if this is the same guy that is an anarcho-capitalist while simultaneously misusing the word capitalist, I will literally laugh out loud. Anarcho-capitalism is, at best, a misunderstanding.