If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Ron Paul narrowly misses his chance to RON PAUL the Republican National Convention (if it wasn't for those meddling Nebraskans...)   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 125
    More: Followup, Ron Paul, Nebraska, Republican Liberty Caucus, Joint Economic Committee, Sunnyvale, California, insurgents, political convention, Mitt Romney  
•       •       •

3136 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 Jul 2012 at 11:49 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



125 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-15 01:49:02 AM  
Once again, the United States has been screwed over by Nebraska. -_-
 
2012-07-15 08:40:21 AM  

Captain Steroid: Once again, the United States has been screwed over by Nebraska. -_-


If you mean not being able to see the amusing hijinx of the GOP convention being usurped by Ron Paul's minions.... I guess we have been screwed out of that sideshow.
 
2012-07-15 08:53:12 AM  
From a purely objective view, that article sucked for now having some key pieces of information, like how many he needed to win and what the threshhold was.
 
2012-07-15 08:54:02 AM  
RON PAUL was going to lose in Nebraska, no matter what.

Entrenched power doesn't like upstart challengers. Romney's coronation will go ahead, exactly as planned.
 
2012-07-15 09:02:22 AM  
Oh what a shame, the voters will get listened to and RON PAUL won't be able to finish usurping democracy.
 
2012-07-15 11:10:10 AM  
Republicans still remember 1992 and Ross Perot. They were never going to allow a repeat.

// Perot taunted Bush senior all through the election, stole many votes from him, which helped Clinton get elected.
 
2012-07-15 11:14:25 AM  
ron paul
 
2012-07-15 11:30:15 AM  
lh4.ggpht.com
 
2012-07-15 11:38:13 AM  

vygramul: From a purely objective view, that article sucked for now having some key pieces of information, like how many he needed to win and what the threshhold was.


It notes that he needed a plurality in Nebraska to get the 5th plurality state he needed, and that there were 35 delegates at stake. I'd hope you can handle the math, but perhaps you haven't sobered up enough to handle word problems.
 
2012-07-15 11:38:56 AM  

Captain Steroid: Once again, the United States has been screwed over by Nebraska. -_-


You sound Jayhawker.
 
2012-07-15 11:53:08 AM  

bloobeary: Entrenched power doesn't like upstart challengers. Romney's coronation will go ahead, exactly as planned.


img.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-15 12:07:06 PM  
Link Farked (on my phone)
 
2012-07-15 12:09:23 PM  

bloobeary: Entrenched power doesn't like upstart challengers. Romney's coronation will go ahead, exactly as planned.


Upstart?

The guy's been in Congress for 30+ years and ran for President in 1988, 2008 and now 2012.

Upstart doesn't mean what you think it means...
 
2012-07-15 12:16:18 PM  

Generation_D: Republicans still remember 1992 and Ross Perot. They were never going to allow a repeat.

// Perot taunted Bush senior all through the election, stole many votes from him, which helped Clinton get elected.


Oh, so much THIS
 
2012-07-15 12:19:16 PM  
Cant wait to hear all the RON PAUL conspiracies as to why he didnt make it. Or rather, the TRUTH about how many delegates are REALLY out there.

Link
 
2012-07-15 12:32:49 PM  
Dammit I was so looking forward to seeing this at the GOP convention:

img256.imageshack.us
 
2012-07-15 12:37:39 PM  
There could come a time when no matter how much money you and your friends can bring together to build your world they way you want, others can fire up the fake money presses and print up what ever it takes to buy their way.

Or is that fact ancient history?

photos.imageevent.com

Have you been bought and paid for or are you still searching for a truth?
 
2012-07-15 12:44:29 PM  

StokeyBob: There could come a time when no matter how much money you and your friends can bring together to build your world they way you want, others can fire up the fake money presses and print up what ever it takes to buy their way.

Or is that fact ancient history?

[photos.imageevent.com image 448x600]

Have you been bought and paid for or are you still searching for a truth?


lolwut?
 
2012-07-15 01:12:23 PM  
Hell, I even thought I was dead 'til I found out it was just that I was in Nebraska

/obscure?
 
2012-07-15 01:14:50 PM  

AnonAmbientLight: Cant wait to hear all the RON PAUL conspiracies as to why he didnt make it. Or rather, the TRUTH about how many delegates are REALLY out there.

Link


It's not really a conspiracy theory, the GOP leadership wants nothing to do with their favorite obstinate mule and so Ron Paul has been ignored or shoved to the side because if he were given the treatment every other candidate got the moronic public might fall for his nonsense the same way paultards do and because they just don'[t like him.
 
2012-07-15 01:26:04 PM  

DeltaPunch: Dammit I was so looking forward to seeing this at the GOP convention:

[img256.imageshack.us image 566x357]


You forgot to post a link:

Ron Paul Makes Campaign Stop In Whimsical Jalopy
 
2012-07-15 01:39:29 PM  

StokeyBob: There could come a time when no matter how much money you and your friends can bring together to build your world they way you want, others can fire up the fake money presses and print up what ever it takes to buy their way.

Or is that fact ancient history?

[photos.imageevent.com image 448x600]

Have you been bought and paid for or are you still searching for a truth?


encrypted-tbn0.google.com

Take your pick.
 
2012-07-15 01:49:56 PM  
Link is Ron Paul'd on my phone.
 
2012-07-15 01:55:13 PM  

gingerjet: Hell, I even thought I was dead 'til I found out it was just that I was in Nebraska

/obscure?


Not by a long shot. I was born there.
 
2012-07-15 01:55:31 PM  

StokeyBob: There could come a time when no matter how much money you and your friends can bring together to build your world they way you want, others can fire up the fake money presses and print up what ever it takes to buy their way.


It's amazing how Paultards keep trying to make such a big deal about "OMG, people climbed trees to see Ron Paul! That means he's America's president!"

To understand the desperation among Paultards to make tree climbing a big dea, a google for "ron paul" "climb trees" ucla yields 28,400 results.

encrypted-tbn2.google.com

encrypted-tbn1.google.com

OMG, this is a sign of a mass political movement!
 
2012-07-15 02:02:34 PM  
Psst Ron Paul. Leave the GOP and run third party. Watch Romney squirm.
 
2012-07-15 02:08:14 PM  
well. This sucks.

back to a douche and a turd sammich
 
2012-07-15 02:09:13 PM  

deadcrickets: Psst Ron Paul. Leave the GOP and run third party. Watch Romney squirm.

An issue with that is he'd get locked out of the debates.

They seem to only want republicans & democrats in debates. Remember Nader?

 
2012-07-15 02:17:53 PM  

vegasj: well. This sucks.

back to a douche and a turd sammich


RON PAUL was both so I don't see what we were missing anyway.
 
2012-07-15 02:22:49 PM  

GAT_00: Oh what a shame, the voters will get listened to and RON PAUL won't be able to finish usurping democracy.


Because democrazy has been working so well...
 
2012-07-15 02:29:56 PM  
At this point in the race now, Ron Paul supporters have a decision to make -

- Should they surrender to the two party system and support a retiring candidate that won't be on the ballot in November, even if they mess up Romney's fun (and if they do, I see it as a good thing regardless)

- Should they start bringing third parties to national prominence and support Gary Johnson, who WILL be on the national ballot.

I look at it this way: If Ron Paul prevents Romney from getting elected, good; however it's a hollow victory if it also prevents the Libertarians from getting out of the typical third party rut. It doesn't matter which we you lean politically - we need a choice beyond two people. DESPERATELY.
 
2012-07-15 02:39:29 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: StokeyBob: There could come a time when no matter how much money you and your friends can bring together to build your world they way you want, others can fire up the fake money presses and print up what ever it takes to buy their way.

Or is that fact ancient history?

[photos.imageevent.com image 448x600]

Have you been bought and paid for or are you still searching for a truth?

lolwut?


When I started looking into where the money was coming from to buy off the politicians and subvert the immigration laws of the world, I came across what may be the root of many of our problems. Fiat Money.

No matter how much real money people can put together to build their countries the way they want, there are those that can print up what ever it takes to dictate their way.


photos.imageevent.comClick to embiggen
 
2012-07-15 02:57:22 PM  
The REAL conspiracy is that Ron Paul worked with the Republican Party to be the "outsider" candidate, knowing full well he had no plans to run 3rd party. He would keep those votes from REALLY going third party, or even looking at an alternative candidate outside the Republican Party.

Ron Paul supporters fell for it. You've been bamboozled... hoodwinked...

There are several 3rd party candidates that could be invited to the presidential debates if Ron Paul supporters had backed them, instead of another lifelong Republican. We could actually have a national debate about alternative candidates. Ron Paul made sure that didn't happen.
 
2012-07-15 03:01:34 PM  

StokeyBob: No matter how much real money people can put together to build their countries the way they want, there are those that can print up what ever it takes to dictate their way.


Click to embiggen


United States GDP: 15 trillion
United States currency in circulation: 1.1 trillion.

So to put those numbers into your embiggened analogy we - the citizens, and them - the government both started with 1 super dollar. Then instead of the federal reserve going out and just printing eight more super dollars, the citizenry went out and produced 14.

Also, how is the government just saying "This is how much a dollar is worth" different from it saying "This is how much gold a dollar bill is worth"; or is RON PAULS plan to find enough gold to mint money for every person in the country, and everyone else on the planet that want to use US currency? Because those would be some damn small coins and I'd rather not lose a years pay in the cushions of my couch.
 
2012-07-15 03:03:31 PM  
Iowa Caucus: Ron Paul finishes third in votes.
Louisiana Primary: Ron Paul finishes third with less than 17% of the vote to Santorum's 42%.
Maine Caucus: Ron Paul finishes 2nd to Mitt Romney in votes.
Minnesota Caucus: Ron Paul finishes 2nd in votes, 17% behind Mitt Romney.

And yet his supporters hijacked the voters' will at all four of those states' conventions. What a messed up system that let him do even this well.
 
2012-07-15 03:05:10 PM  

Karac: Because those would be some damn small coins and I'd rather not lose a years pay in the cushions of my couch.


It's important we base our economy on a metal used primarily for jewelery.
 
2012-07-15 03:07:03 PM  

downpaymentblues: Karac: Because those would be some damn small coins and I'd rather not lose a years pay in the cushions of my couch.

It's important we base our economy on a metal used primarily for jewelery.


After all, gold has inherent value that is in no way exactly as arbitrary as any other currency! Shininess equals VALUE.
 
2012-07-15 03:07:15 PM  

kevinatilusa: Iowa Caucus: Ron Paul finishes third in votes.
Louisiana Primary: Ron Paul finishes third with less than 17% of the vote to Santorum's 42%.
Maine Caucus: Ron Paul finishes 2nd to Mitt Romney in votes.
Minnesota Caucus: Ron Paul finishes 2nd in votes, 17% behind Mitt Romney.

And yet his supporters hijacked the voters' will at all four of those states' conventions. What a messed up system that let him do even this well.


What can I say? We can spread democracy and free and fair elections to Iraq but not to the Republicans.
 
2012-07-15 03:15:21 PM  

kevinatilusa: And yet his supporters hijacked the voters' will at all four of those states' conventions. What a messed up system that let him do even this well.


Yeah, you know nothing about the delegate process.

Delegates are elected at local levels to be sent to the state conventions. It is delegates who make party rules, write the platform and choose a national nominee. The 'will of the people' in a straw poll is worthless when the rules are delegate-centered.
 
2012-07-15 03:19:32 PM  

LordJiro: downpaymentblues: Karac: Because those would be some damn small coins and I'd rather not lose a years pay in the cushions of my couch.

It's important we base our economy on a metal used primarily for jewelery.

After all, gold has inherent value that is in no way exactly as arbitrary as any other currency! Shininess equals VALUE.


I say we go back to using salt as currency. PLENTY of that.
 
2012-07-15 03:21:21 PM  

o5iiawah: Delegates are elected at local levels to be sent to the state conventions. It is delegates who make party rules, write the platform and choose a national nominee. The 'will of the people' in a straw poll is worthless when the rules are delegate-centered.


Um. That was his point. It is pretty horrible that the will of the people in those states was trumped by archaic "party rules". He understands it. He thinks it is wrong.
 
2012-07-15 03:23:34 PM  

Karac: So to put those numbers into your embiggened analogy we - the citizens, and them - the government both started with 1 super dollar. Then instead of the federal reserve going out and just printing eight more super dollars, the citizenry went out and produced 14.

Also, how is the government just saying "This is how much a dollar is worth" different from it saying "This is how much gold a dollar bill is worth"; or is RON PAULS plan to find enough gold to mint money for every person in the country, and everyone else on the planet that want to use US currency? Because those would be some damn small coins and I'd rather not lose a years pay in the cushions of my couch.



I was just using a hypothetical example. In reality they have given those that probably shouldn't of had any say with a dollar twenty six times the say as the people with the honest dollar.

photos.imageevent.com


Why couldn't an honest fiat maintain a stable value and expand with the amount of stuff we have? If you double your stuff and double the money supply it should remain stable and something people could once again save and bank on.

Once you grab the concept of the corrupt fiat Super Dollar some other concepts may come into view.

~No matter where you aunt Martha hid the sugar jar with here savings in it others are able to slither in like vampires in the night and suck the strength out of it. (Total understatement. They are also slithering in and sucking the value out of the jar, the shelf it is on, the property it is on, and everything else. Everything!)

~Sure if the double the money supply your Uncle Phil gets twice as much when he sells his stocks but he is getting twice as many of something worth half as much. Plus some of the very people that counterfeited the money supply have now cut themselves in on his stuff with capital gains taxes.

Are these the false profits we were warned about?
 
2012-07-15 03:28:58 PM  
Ron Paul wants to stop the wars.

If we don't help him, who will help us?

Ron Paul

If we find we need a military to do so, will we be able to borrow ours back?
 
2012-07-15 04:00:45 PM  

StokeyBob: Why couldn't an honest fiat maintain a stable value and expand with the amount of stuff we have? If you double your stuff and double the money supply it should remain stable and something people could once again save and bank on.


Currency is a medium of exchange. The purpose of currency is to encourage the flow of goods.

An inflationary currency encourages the flow of goods by punishing people who refuse to participate. Ergo, an inflationary medium of exchange is one that encourages exchanges. This is a feature.

~No matter where you aunt Martha hid the sugar jar with here savings in it others are able to slither in like vampires in the night and suck the strength out of it.

How does hiding money in a sugar jar help the economy? How does being kept in a sugar jar fulfill the purpose as a medium of exchange?

~Sure if the double the money supply your Uncle Phil gets twice as much when he sells his stocks but he is getting twice as many of something worth half as much. Plus some of the very people that counterfeited the money supply have now cut themselves in on his stuff with capital gains taxes.

According to the west egg inflation calculator, it takes about 25 years for inflation to double.

Which means that Uncle Phil's company stayed flat relative to inflation for 25 years. It didn't become more profitable. It didn't sell more product. It didn't attract more customers. It is exactly the same place it is now that it was when Phil started. In other words, Phil made a bad investment. And he is being punished accordingly. If bad investments aren't punished, then there is no risk. And if there is no risk, then why do we reward the winners?

But let's look at how much Phil actually lost. The capital gains tax is 15% of the profit, which is 50% of the final value. Which means that Phil lost 7.5% on a bad investment over the course of 25 years. Which amounts to basically a 0.3% loss per year.

Question: If Phil saw that his stock price wasn't changing at all relative to inflation for 25 years, why would he continue to hold onto it? Phil must be an idiot. If it went down and went back up, then Phil should have gotten out as soon as the stock returned to normal. If it went up and then went back down, then Phil should have sold the stock when it was up. It's the job of the investor to take inflation into account. If he can't do that, then he must be really bad at it, so why are we rewarding him?

So Phil made a bad investment, and lost a rather insignificant amount of money after 25 years. Rather than saying, "Gee, maybe Phil should have made a better investment that was capable of beating inflation," your solution is "Let's create a monetary policy where Phil doesn't lose any money." Because, you know, screw personal responsibility.
 
2012-07-15 04:07:34 PM  
Good. Like we need any more Nebraskans taking this nutcase's message seriously.
 
2012-07-15 04:17:58 PM  
nicedeb.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-15 04:38:36 PM  

vegasj: deadcrickets: Psst Ron Paul. Leave the GOP and run third party. Watch Romney squirm.
An issue with that is he'd get locked out of the debates.

They seem to only want republicans & democrats in debates. Remember Nader?


Remember big ears?
 
2012-07-15 04:42:35 PM  

downpaymentblues: LordJiro: downpaymentblues: Karac: Because those would be some damn small coins and I'd rather not lose a years pay in the cushions of my couch.

It's important we base our economy on a metal used primarily for jewelery.

After all, gold has inherent value that is in no way exactly as arbitrary as any other currency! Shininess equals VALUE.

I say we go back to using salt as currency. PLENTY of that.


Had a conversation with a Rontard a few months back who proposed, straight faced, competing currencies. They would each be independent and their value would be based on whatever the people behind it could come up with. Better still, the population would invest in those currencies, inflating the ones they felt were better. That's right, he was proposing a stock market monetary system.
 
2012-07-15 04:53:51 PM  

StokeyBob: Doktor_Zhivago: StokeyBob: There could come a time when no matter how much money you and your friends can bring together to build your world they way you want, others can fire up the fake money presses and print up what ever it takes to buy their way.

Or is that fact ancient history?

[photos.imageevent.com image 448x600]

That doesn't make any farking sense. So we go back to the gold standard? Or am i getting trolled....

Have you been bought and paid for or are you still searching for a truth?

lolwut?

When I started looking into where the money was coming from to buy off the politicians and subvert the immigration laws of the world, I came across what may be the root of many of our problems. Fiat Money.

No matter how much real money people can put together to build their countries the way they want, there are those that can print up what ever it takes to dictate their way.


[photos.imageevent.com image 130x155]Click to embiggen

 
2012-07-15 05:18:17 PM  

Flappyhead: downpaymentblues: LordJiro: downpaymentblues: Karac: Because those would be some damn small coins and I'd rather not lose a years pay in the cushions of my couch.

It's important we base our economy on a metal used primarily for jewelery.

After all, gold has inherent value that is in no way exactly as arbitrary as any other currency! Shininess equals VALUE.

I say we go back to using salt as currency. PLENTY of that.

Had a conversation with a Rontard a few months back who proposed, straight faced, competing currencies. They would each be independent and their value would be based on whatever the people behind it could come up with. Better still, the population would invest in those currencies, inflating the ones they felt were better. That's right, he was proposing a stock market monetary system.


And?

Out of all the Paul-tardiness in this thread, that's actually a reasonable idea.
 
2012-07-15 05:22:52 PM  

StokeyBob: When I started looking into where the money was coming from to buy off the politicians and subvert the immigration laws of the world, I came across what may be the root of many of our problems. Fiat Money.


Yeah, this is the type of promise we hear from scam artists and quacks all the damn time. "Oh, I have this bottle of snake oil. It will singlehandedly treat all the major health problems that Americans are experiencing, from diabetes to AIDS!"

They're convinced that they and they alone see the answers to the problems, and if anyone says otherwise, then it's because they're in on the conspiracy.

Also, they never go into any real detail on how the answers actually work. They create an incredibly simplified model that picks one or two scenarios completely out of context, but then when you ask them to address more complex issues, or even elaborate on the scenarios they already presented, they attempt to handwave it away.
 
2012-07-15 05:37:03 PM  

So can Gary Johnson have the Ron Paul supporters now?

Gary Johnson
 
2012-07-15 05:40:04 PM  

ZombieApocalypseKitten: So can Gary Johnson have the Ron Paul supporters now?

Gary Johnson


This Ron Paul supporter will be voting for Gary Johnson in November. You can count on that.
 
2012-07-15 05:40:38 PM  

iawai: Flappyhead: Had a conversation with a Rontard a few months back who proposed, straight faced, competing currencies. They would each be independent and their value would be based on whatever the people behind it could come up with. Better still, the population would invest in those currencies, inflating the ones they felt were better. That's right, he was proposing a stock market monetary system.

And?

Out of all the Paul-tardiness in this thread, that's actually a reasonable idea.


Yeah, because the stock market is completely stable and not open to manipulation at all. Wall Street can always be trusted to maintain our money openly, honestly, and fairly. Also, the market place is always 100% rational in determining winners and losers, and artificial bubbles that cause specific currencies to overvalue due to hype and marketing will never happen.

Money is supposed to be a medium of exchange. It is not supposed to be treated as an investment in itself. Yes, there are many people who make money off the currency exchange, but that does not mean that a currency exchange is the purpose of having money.

The problem with Ron Paul's competing currency proposal is that it doesn't actually mean anything, because it's never explained in detail. Ron Paul is simply taking an open ended phrase, so that people are free to describe it however they imagine it to be. The fact is, you are already free to create your own local currency, so long as 1) you peg it to the dollar for the sake of paying your taxes, and 2) you do not confuse people into thinking that it's US currency. Which means that most of the people calling for competing currency are looking to avoid paying taxes.

The idea of competing currency is, "Both parties are free to use an alternative currencies, as long as both parties agree." The thing is, they can do that right now. So why do we need competing currencies at all, to achieve this thing that can already be achieved?

The reason we need money isn't for situations where both parties agree. It's for situations where both parties don't. i.e., let's say that the grocery store demands you pay your bill in gold eagles. You are free to refuse that transaction, so there's no harm. And the thing is, a lot of businesses can do that right now. For instance, a stamp collector can refuse to sell you a rare stamp unless you give him something rare in return. Perfectly legitimate.

But what if it's a cop writing out a parking ticket? Obviously, you don't get to refuse that transaction. So if the cop demands you pay in gold eagles, then you're screwed. The purpose of legal tender laws is to make sure this doesn't happen. Ron Paul wants to repeal legal tender laws. How do you determine parking tickets in the absence of legal tender? How do you determine taxes?
 
2012-07-15 05:47:26 PM  

schrodinger: The problem with Ron Paul's competing currency proposal is that it doesn't actually mean anything, because it's never explained in detail.


Dude, it HAS been explained in detail - to YOU, many times. You just don't agree with it, because in your words, you hate libertarians "with a fiery passion," and you refuse to see their point of view.

After awhile, people get sick and tired of retreading the same points with you because you choose obtuse reasons to be enlightened on the subject (I remember recommending a book about a subject to you, and you refused to read it because it didn't have enough reviews on Amazon to your liking (there were over 40 reviews on Amazon, by the way)).

There is a reason why I call you trolldinger. You have no intention of seeing anyone's point of view but your own, and will make yourself look like a total internet fool doing it.
 
2012-07-15 05:58:43 PM  

schrodinger: Which means that Uncle Phil's company stayed flat relative to inflation for 25 years.


If you compare this chart showing the Dow Jones Industrial Average with the devaluation chart I posted earlier you can see that the average of all of the stock prices have remained stable to other commodities for over forty years. The thing that has been changing is the value of the dollar.

Stocks haven't went up the value of the dollar went down. And is going down hard.

photos.imageevent.comClick to embiggen


Here is the other one again. If your still not seeing it think of the DOW as being the average of a hundred stocks and knock off two zero's.


photos.imageevent.comClick to embiggen


See how real money and real commodities have been playing nice and running stable hidden in plain site all of the time we've had run-a-way inflation creating a grand illusion?

photos.imageevent.com
 
2012-07-15 06:06:28 PM  
 
2012-07-15 06:12:28 PM  

DeltaPunch: Dammit I was so looking forward to seeing this at the GOP convention:

photos.imageevent.com


Nice picture DeltaPunch. Ron Paul really does seem to have the ability to think beyond many peoples idea of reality.
 
2012-07-15 06:14:37 PM  

Deftoons: Dude, it HAS been explained in detail - to YOU, many times.


Saying that the free market will magically find a way is not an explanation.

Here, let me ask you three basic questions as a starting place:

1) What currency do people use to pay the government?
2) What currency does the government use to pay their employees?
3) What happens if people refuse to accept the currency of government employees, which they can do when you repeal legal tender?

You need to create a currency that is in high demand, and accepted everywhere. But that same currency also has to be in high supply, so people can pay their taxes with it. Please come up with a currency that is both in "high supply" and "high demand" without using fiat currency or legal tender laws, and without appealing to libertarian market.

After awhile, people get sick and tired of retreading the same points with you because you choose obtuse reasons to be enlightened on the subject (I remember recommending a book about a subject to you, and you refused to read it because it didn't have enough reviews on Amazon to your liking (there were over 40 reviews on Amazon, by the way)).

Wrong. The problem is that just saying "pay your own money to read this 300 page book" is not an answer. No matter what I point to and respond to, you will merely insist that I am focusing on the wrong chapters or on the wrong point. It's a dodge. If I tell you to read Paul Krugman's books and refute them line by line before arguing with you, is that a valid argument? Because if it is, then I dare you to do it.

If you have an argument to make, then make it in the thread. Don't demand that other people jump through hoops because you're too lazy or too stupid to state your own argument in your own words.
 
2012-07-15 06:21:51 PM  

schrodinger: Deftoons: Dude, it HAS been explained in detail - to YOU, many times.

Saying that the free market will magically find a way is not an explanation.


That wasn't the explanation that was given to you. This is what your internet pundit filter interpreted and continued to be obtuse to actual answers provided to you.

This includes the rest of your questions in your post. I could cut and paste previous answers if you want, but I know it will go through one eye and out the other.
 
2012-07-15 06:22:02 PM  

StokeyBob: The thing that has been changing is the value of the dollar.


Sure, because population growth, increased demand, and peak supply hasn't been occurring anywhere in the world at all. The only reason why Action Comics #1 is worth more today than it was when it was first printed (10 cents) is because of inflation. No other reason.

Stocks haven't went up the value of the dollar went down.

Oh, so you mean that the only reason why Apple and Google have shot up in price over the past decade is due to inflation? No other possible reason you can think of?

See how real money and real commodities have been playing nice and running stable hidden in plain site all of the time we've had run-a-way inflation creating a grand illusion?

Answer me this: What would your current salary be if we never left the gold standard, and if the US economy was 100% backed by gold (meaning that 100% of the population)?

Because if you can't tell me what your salary would be under this sort of economy, then pointing to a photo of the hypothetical price of gas in this imaginary economy is completely worthless.

Under deflation, your salary goes down every year, which means that the average income today would be far less than the average income from 100 years ago. So that means that gas might cost 20 cents a gallon, but it doesn't help you if your daily salary is 5 cents per day. Are you really better off?
 
2012-07-15 06:25:07 PM  

schrodinger: Wrong. The problem is that just saying "pay your own money to read this 300 page book" is not an answer. No matter what I point to and respond to, you will merely insist that I am focusing on the wrong chapters or on the wrong point. It's a dodge.


While not only is your answer a massive strawman, I would at least give you credit for actually reading the book.

But seeing you have not even actually contradicted my answer, you just proved what I said to be correct.

You're done here.
 
2012-07-15 06:26:02 PM  
Paultards don't like government, so they don't care if taxes are collected or not, or if government employees are paid or not. If government shrinks to the point where they can drown it in the bathtub; so much the better.
 
2012-07-15 06:26:49 PM  

Deftoons: That wasn't the explanation that was given to you. This is what your internet pundit filter interpreted and continued to be obtuse to actual answers provided to you.

This includes the rest of your questions in your post. I could cut and paste previous answers if you want, but I know it will go through one eye and out the other.


Oh, you may know that, but everyone else thinks you're full of shiat. So why not just copy and paste anyway, not for my sake, but for the sake of everyone else here?

Unless, of course, you're the one who's full of shiat, and you have absolutely nothing worth pasting. So instead of simply spending 20 seconds on google to find a page where these answers supposedly exist already, or spending 2 minutes typing out a response since you supposedly know the answer in your own head, you're instead going to waste an even greater amount of time throughout the day telling us how posting a simple response is a waste of time.
 
2012-07-15 06:30:35 PM  

Deftoons: schrodinger: Wrong. The problem is that just saying "pay your own money to read this 300 page book" is not an answer. No matter what I point to and respond to, you will merely insist that I am focusing on the wrong chapters or on the wrong point. It's a dodge.

While not only is your answer a massive strawman, I would at least give you credit for actually reading the book.

But seeing you have not even actually contradicted my answer, you just proved what I said to be correct.


Me telling you that you're wrong is not the same thing as contradicting you? Wow. You're really stupid.

So let me get this straight. You refuse to spend 20 seconds copying and pasting your previous responses to my questions, or 2 minutes re-typing them.

But you expect me to spend $20 to order a book on Amazon, wait several days for the book to arrive, read through several hundred pages, and write out a line by line response for every page in the hopes that I will address any possible argument that you hope to cite from that book, because you refuse to simply post the argument directly.

Seriously. If you can't even take the time to post the specific argument you want me to address from your book, then why should I bother taking the time and money to order it?
 
2012-07-15 06:44:37 PM  

StokeyBob: DeltaPunch: Dammit I was so looking forward to seeing this at the GOP convention:

[photos.imageevent.com image 566x357]

Nice picture DeltaPunch. Ron Paul really does seem to have the ability to think beyond many peoples idea of reality.


Just a screencap from the latest Onion video, which I highly recommend. ;)

img210.imageshack.us
 
2012-07-15 06:45:04 PM  
Once again, Deftoons, please answer the following questions, including one new one:

1) What currency do people use to pay the government under competing currencies?
2) What happens if people do not have access to the currency that government requires?
3) What currency does the government use to pay their employees?
4) What happens if people refuse to accept the currency of government employees, which they can do when you repeal legal tender?

If you seriously have any sensible answer to these questions, then it won't take you more than 20 seconds to type. For instance, you could type in "US dollars," or you can type in "gold," or you can type in "whatever you want."

The problem is, you know and I know that you have no answer for these questions. And these questions are really, really basic. If you answer "US dollars," then you have no explanation on what happens on question #4. If you answer "gold," then you have no explanation on what happens in question #2. In other words, you're screwed. You know it, and I know it.

The only way for you to answer this questions is to invent an entirely new form of currency, one that has never existed before on planet Earth (or else you would have simply typed it in), and one which you have no idea how it will work. You want to imagine that the free market will come up with a currency that will magically answer both #2 and #4. But you don't know how that will come to be. Also, the answer apparently doesn't exist anywhere on the internet, or else you could simply copy and paste a link. Which basically means that you have to come up with an answer that no other libertarian on the internet has ever come up with before. And I have to take you on your word that you have this answer, despite your inability to share it with us right now.

In other words, you're full of shiat.
 
2012-07-15 07:14:04 PM  

ZombieApocalypseKitten: So can Gary Johnson have the Ron Paul supporters now?

Gary Johnson


Yes. Of course. Uncle Gar will get my vote.

Doesn't make me any happier knowing how the Paulaneers got silenced at caucus and the GOP tried to spin it as a good thing.

I don't reckon Gary has a snowball's chance, but I don't vote because of predicted outcomes. I vote for the most suitable person. He's it.

Sad day here at the phenn household. We carry on.
 
2012-07-15 07:33:13 PM  

schrodinger: Once again, Deftoons, please answer the following questions, including one new one:

1) What currency do people use to pay the government under competing currencies?
2) What happens if people do not have access to the currency that government requires?
3) What currency does the government use to pay their employees?
4) What happens if people refuse to accept the currency of government employees, which they can do when you repeal legal tender?

If you seriously have any sensible answer to these questions, then it won't take you more than 20 seconds to type. For instance, you could type in "US dollars," or you can type in "gold," or you can type in "whatever you want."

The problem is, you know and I know that you have no answer for these questions. And these questions are really, really basic. If you answer "US dollars," then you have no explanation on what happens on question #4. If you answer "gold," then you have no explanation on what happens in question #2. In other words, you're screwed. You know it, and I know it.

The only way for you to answer this questions is to invent an entirely new form of currency, one that has never existed before on planet Earth (or else you would have simply typed it in), and one which you have no idea how it will work. You want to imagine that the free market will come up with a currency that will magically answer both #2 and #4. But you don't know how that will come to be. Also, the answer apparently doesn't exist anywhere on the internet, or else you could simply copy and paste a link. Which basically means that you have to come up with an answer that no other libertarian on the internet has ever come up with before. And I have to take you on your word that you have this answer, despite your inability to share it with us right now.

In other words, you're full of shiat.


1) Who gives a shiat. The govt doesn't deserve to be paid. If it was a farking voluntary transaction, the parties could negotiate a mutually agreeable currency. Since it is a coerced relationship, I'd venture to guess that the govt would demand payment in whatever currency worked best for them. Maybe the Yuan.

2) What happens when they don't "have access" to dollars? This is a stupid and meaningless question that only goes to show that you are trying to rely on people to draw their own emotional conclusions about hypothetical situations, instead of analytically reasoning about the actual problem at hand. It also goes to show that you have now idea about the economics of currencies, and that they wouldn't be currencies if people couldn't "access" them.

3) The govt currently pays with what? Would you call it scrip? It's a currency issued by the very agency paying their salary (or, created in tandem by them and an "independent" central bank). What is this question even designed to do? I don't care how the internal machinations of a firm in a free market work, as long as they aren't out there threatening and hurting people. If they wanted to pay their employees in camel hairs, it's not my business. And your free to quit if you don't like what they offer. Oh yeah, the govt employees also have the largest union membership in the nation now, so I bet they could negotiate a pretty damned useful currency for their salaries.

4) SO THE FARK WHAT? Let people turn away customers. You're just imagineering problems. If bob is selling ice cream that he pays .04 silver ounces to produce at the margin, he will charge more than .04 silver ounces for it. He might also accept .00025 gold ounces, US$2, .3 bitcoins, 1.5 british pounds, or 15 million camel hairs. Or he might decide that it's just too much of a burden to accept camel hairs and then trade them for a currency that's more useful to him, so he will refuse to accept them. THAT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST COMPETING CURRENCIES.

The rest of your post addressed to Deftoons is hogwash and deserves no further comment based on my answers to your childish, strawman, and distracting questions that assume that the govt is the be-all, end-all of a functioning economy instead of its mortal enemy.
 
2012-07-15 07:52:59 PM  

StokeyBob: Karac: So to put those numbers into your embiggened analogy we - the citizens, and them - the government both started with 1 super dollar. Then instead of the federal reserve going out and just printing eight more super dollars, the citizenry went out and produced 14.

Also, how is the government just saying "This is how much a dollar is worth" different from it saying "This is how much gold a dollar bill is worth"; or is RON PAULS plan to find enough gold to mint money for every person in the country, and everyone else on the planet that want to use US currency? Because those would be some damn small coins and I'd rather not lose a years pay in the cushions of my couch.


I was just using a hypothetical example. In reality they have given those that probably shouldn't of had any say with a dollar twenty six times the say as the people with the honest dollar.

[photos.imageevent.com image 600x532]


Why couldn't an honest fiat maintain a stable value and expand with the amount of stuff we have? If you double your stuff and double the money supply it should remain stable and something people could once again save and bank on.

Once you grab the concept of the corrupt fiat Super Dollar some other concepts may come into view.

~No matter where you aunt Martha hid the sugar jar with here savings in it others are able to slither in like vampires in the night and suck the strength out of it. (Total understatement. They are also slithering in and sucking the value out of the jar, the shelf it is on, the property it is on, and everything else. Everything!)

~Sure if the double the money supply your Uncle Phil gets twice as much when he sells his stocks but he is getting twice as many of something worth half as much. Plus some of the very people that counterfeited the money supply have now cut themselves in on his stuff with capital gains taxes.

Are these the false profits we were warned about?


Replot that on the logarithmic scale that inflation works in and get back to us.
 
2012-07-15 08:27:12 PM  

kevinatilusa: Iowa Caucus: Ron Paul finishes third in votes.
Louisiana Primary: Ron Paul finishes third with less than 17% of the vote to Santorum's 42%.
Maine Caucus: Ron Paul finishes 2nd to Mitt Romney in votes.
Minnesota Caucus: Ron Paul finishes 2nd in votes, 17% behind Mitt Romney.

And yet his supporters hijacked the voters' will at all four of those states' conventions. What a messed up system that let him do even this well.


the republicans have been doing similar things starting at the local level for years now. they did it at the national level in 2010 with the "jobs jobs jobs" oh we meant abortion when they got elected. you think the voters in VA don't feel lied to by governor ultrasound.

personally i would have loved to see Ron Paul get a speaking spot. but i hate the republican party so there's that.
 
2012-07-15 08:32:30 PM  

iawai: 1) Who gives a shiat. The govt doesn't deserve to be paid.


Oh, so you're advocating for total anarchy then, where the government is completely unable to pay for basic services like public roads and public police. Great platform, I'm glad we cleared that up.

2) What happens when they don't "have access" to dollars? This is a stupid and meaningless question

People will have access to dollars. Unfortunately, Ron Paul's proposal is to make the US dollar worthless and gold the de-facto currency by repealing legal tender laws.

3) The govt currently pays with what? Would you call it scrip?

The government currently pays for services in legal tender. Which Ron Paul hopes to repeal.

I don't care how the internal machinations of a firm in a free market work, as long as they aren't out there threatening and hurting people. If they wanted to pay their employees in camel hairs, it's not my business.

Well, it is sort of your business, because you're the one relying on government paid services. If government can't find a viable currency to build roads with, then that means no roads for you.

4) SO THE FARK WHAT? Let people turn away customers.

Businesses can't refuse legal tender as payment on debt. It's against the law. If you owe the tow company $500 and attempt to pay them in US dollars, the tow company does not have the legal right to refuse it and keep your car unless you give them a pile of gold. Under the law, once you pay the tow company in legal tender, the debt has been cleared. Ron Paul wants to give businesses the power to refuse legal tender.

Or he might decide that it's just too much of a burden to accept camel hairs and then trade them for a currency that's more useful to him, so he will refuse to accept them. THAT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST COMPETING CURRENCIES.

So tell us... what is a currency that Bob is universally willing to accept, and that his customers are universally able to pay? It's easy to list a currency that fulfills one burden or the other. It is exceedingly difficult to find a currency that fulfills both. Which is why we invented fiat currency and legal tender laws.

Don't just tell us that the free market will magically come up with a universal currency in the absent of fiat and legal tender laws. Actually tell us what the currency will be.

The rest of your post addressed to Deftoons is hogwash and deserves no further comment based on my answers to your childish, strawman, and distracting questions that assume that the govt is the be-all, end-all of a functioning economy instead of its mortal enemy.

So once again, you're advocating from a position of anarchy. Great. Move to Somalia.
 
2012-07-15 08:33:09 PM  

CokeBear: Paultards don't like government, so they don't care if taxes are collected or not, or if government employees are paid or not. If government shrinks to the point where they can drown it in the bathtub; so much the better.


I myself welcome our privatized police force overwarlords.
 
2012-07-15 09:18:36 PM  

schrodinger: iawai: 1) Who gives a shiat. The govt doesn't deserve to be paid.

Oh, so you're advocating for total anarchy then, where the government is completely unable to pay for basic services like public roads and public police. Great platform, I'm glad we cleared that up.


I'm glad you prefaced those services as "public." There would be roads and protection, and we'd be MORE able to pay for them without the waste of the monopolistic bureaucracy of govt running these services. And wouldn't you rather be able to switch providers if you didn't like the service that was being forced down your throat?

Great platform, I'm glad we cleared that up.



2) What happens when they don't "have access" to dollars? This is a stupid and meaningless question

People will have access to dollars. Unfortunately, Ron Paul's proposal is to make the US dollar worthless and gold the de-facto currency by repealing legal tender laws.


So what? You're not making any assertions here about how this would be good or bad for the people. You're just pretending that "gold" is some bad word that proves itself as a bad idea. And further, the current dollar policies are going to make the dollar worthless while forcing people to keep using it. Wouldn't you rather be able to jump ship to a "better" currency, whether gold, silver, private bank-notes, or bitcoins while your dollars still had some value?

Again, thanks for making it clear that you want EVERYONE to suffer, under penalty of law, to serve your interest in propping up a tyrannical system.


3) The govt currently pays with what? Would you call it scrip?

The government currently pays for services in legal tender. Which Ron Paul hopes to repeal.

I don't care how the internal machinations of a firm in a free market work, as long as they aren't out there threatening and hurting people. If they wanted to pay their employees in camel hairs, it's not my business.

Well, it is sort of your business, because you're the one relying on government paid services. If government can't find a viable currency to build roads with, then that means no roads for you.


You're no different than a sycophantic Russian saying "If govt doesn't provide food, that means we won't have any food!"

I'm relying on govt services only to the extent that they have driven competitors out of the markets because they can undercut costs and take resources via eminent domain. If the govt were just another actor in a free market without threats and coercion, maybe I'd still use some of their stuff. But until they compete fairly in the provision of "public goods," we don't have any empirical evidence that they are necessary to provide such things. And if we look historically at the provision of roads, etc., we can see that these things worked just fine under private, voluntary provision.

4) SO THE FARK WHAT? Let people turn away customers.

Businesses can't refuse legal tender as payment on debt. It's against the law. If you owe the tow company $500 and attempt to pay them in US dollars, the tow company does not have the legal right to refuse it and keep your car unless you give them a pile of gold. Under the law, once you pay the tow company in legal tender, the debt has been cleared. Ron Paul wants to give businesses the power to refuse legal tender.


Businesses CAN, TODAY, refuse to accept dollars. They can only accept barter currencies or in-kind trades for services. They can accept foreign currencies only. They aren't obligated to take US dollars. You're just wrong here.

So tell us... what is a currency that Bob is universally willing to accept, and that his customers are universally able to pay? It's easy to list a currency that fulfills one burden ...

Universally? Like if he was in "Best Korea"? You are confusing the landmass claimed by the US govt with the universe.

Besides, what is the point of arguing that a currency must be "universal"? Is there some benefit in using the business end of a gun to make everyone transact with some universal medium of exchange that exceeds the cost of those violent means? And what about the ethics of the situation?


You've made yourself blatantly clear, here, schodinger. You don't care about people's wants and needs. You don't care about what is good for people. You just care about having an institution of central control, that you hope will never be ran against your jingoistic interests. You want to be a stormtrooper in good favor to the empire, and you only care about issues to the extent that they can help the empire. People be damned, we have a Deathstar to build.
 
2012-07-15 09:29:00 PM  

schrodinger: iawai: Don't just tell us that the free market will magically come up with a universal currency in the absent of fiat and legal tender laws. Actually tell us what the currency will be.


Sorry to break it up, but your long-winded short-sightedness bled past the "quote-limit".

I don't want there to be such a currency. There doesn't HAVE to be such a currency for a well functioning economy. If you're interested you can look at some of the work in experimental economics that shows that one currency will tend to dominate absent central dictate. Where a room of people told to trade their multi-colored beads for different goods eventually settled on using a single color bead for transactions and left the other colors for personal collections without any outside influence.

You don't want to know the answer anyway. You're not asking Socratic questions here to flesh out the idea of competing currencies, you're following the path of the creationist trying to trap the darwinist in some anti-theological statement.

But if you wanted the example of a decentralized, universally accepted currency that is outside of the control of a central bank, I suggest you look into the bitcoin.

So once again, you're advocating from a position of anarchy. Great. Move to Somalia.

I'm not moving. I own my property, right? Why can't I keep it and live peacefully on it? I like my geographical location. I like my neighbors. I like my job. Am I not entitled to keep these things while advocating peace?

Second, as we've told you before: Somalia has been much better under "anarchy" than it was under the auspices of state control. It's still a third world country, but compare apples to apples. After the state in Somalia fell, the people were able to keep their resources to spend on things that they desired. They were able to get cell-phones at a rate that vastly out paced their closest neighbors. They have better food production and better security. Sure there are pirates working out of some undesirable areas, but they were there and unstopped while the govt was functioning.

If you love total govt control, move to North Korea.
 
2012-07-15 09:36:53 PM  

iawai: I'm glad you prefaced those services as "public." There would be roads and protection, and we'd be MORE able to pay for them without the waste of the monopolistic bureaucracy of govt running these services. And wouldn't you rather be able to switch providers if you didn't like the service that was being forced down your throat?

Great platform, I'm glad we cleared that up.


Wait, are you advocating that we privitize roads and the police?

This sounds like a really awful idea. You must not get out much huh?
 
2012-07-15 09:39:56 PM  

iawai: I'm not moving. I own my property, right? Why can't I keep it and live peacefully on it? I like my geographical location. I like my neighbors. I like my job. Am I not entitled to keep these things while advocating peace?


You're not your own island. If you want to live where you live, you have to live and work with the people around you. This is a critical flaw in libertarianism.

No man is an island.
 
2012-07-15 09:40:05 PM  
And the military, mustn't forget them. Can't have a monopolistic bureaucracy of government taking in funds, so we'll have to make due with local mercenaries.

/"the other kind of useless troops"
 
2012-07-15 10:16:56 PM  

Mrtraveler01: iawai: I'm not moving. I own my property, right? Why can't I keep it and live peacefully on it? I like my geographical location. I like my neighbors. I like my job. Am I not entitled to keep these things while advocating peace?

You're not your own island. If you want to live where you live, you have to live and work with the people around you. This is a critical flaw in libertarianism.

No man is an island.


I want to live and work with the people around me more than you do. I want to do so VOLUNTARILY, with mutual agreements as to how things get done.

You want to have some third party come in and force us all to follow some arbitrary rules. No govt is more equipped to solve societal problems than are the people directly involved.

That is the fundamental flaw of statism.
 
2012-07-15 10:17:51 PM  

Mrtraveler01: iawai: I'm glad you prefaced those services as "public." There would be roads and protection, and we'd be MORE able to pay for them without the waste of the monopolistic bureaucracy of govt running these services. And wouldn't you rather be able to switch providers if you didn't like the service that was being forced down your throat?

Great platform, I'm glad we cleared that up.

Wait, are you advocating that we privitize roads and the police?

This sounds like a really awful idea. You must not get out much huh?


The roads, the police, defense services, banks, and everything else.

It sounds better than letting an unaccountable monopoly handle all those things, doesn't it?
 
2012-07-15 10:41:35 PM  

iawai: The roads, the police, defense services, banks, and everything else.

It sounds better than letting an unaccountable monopoly handle all those things, doesn't it?


It's simply amazing how little you know of history. Otherwise, you'd know that at one time such things were all completely private, and the result was not to the good of society in general, or of the lower classes in particular. Only the wealthy elites profited from that situation. There's a reason these things were made the purview of the government, and that is because however badly the government does through enforcing regulation and public services, it's still better than the situation was when things were completely private and unregulated. "Stop being poor" and "Fark you I got mine" are not effective ways to provide for the general welfare of society.
 
2012-07-15 10:44:21 PM  
This is where we reach Poe's Law, Paulistinian Edition.

The point where you're faced with two possibilities: either this motherfarker's trolling, or you're dealing with a cranium so tightly encased in tinfoil that any mention of a central government, in any form, is an object of fear that is not to be considered.

But either way, at least it answers the original question. No, iawai doesn't get out much.
 
2012-07-15 10:57:30 PM  

iawai: Mrtraveler01: iawai: I'm not moving. I own my property, right? Why can't I keep it and live peacefully on it? I like my geographical location. I like my neighbors. I like my job. Am I not entitled to keep these things while advocating peace?

You're not your own island. If you want to live where you live, you have to live and work with the people around you. This is a critical flaw in libertarianism.

No man is an island.

I want to live and work with the people around me more than you do. I want to do so VOLUNTARILY, with mutual agreements as to how things get done.

You want to have some third party come in and force us all to follow some arbitrary rules. No govt is more equipped to solve societal problems than are the people directly involved.

That is the fundamental flaw of statism.


I love how you just forget that you got called out for your libertarian naivete.

The show must go on, eh?
 
2012-07-15 11:15:35 PM  

Wasteland: This is where we reach Poe's Law, Paulistinian Edition.

The point where you're faced with two possibilities: either this motherfarker's trolling, or you're dealing with a cranium so tightly encased in tinfoil that any mention of a central government, in any form, is an object of fear that is not to be considered.

But either way, at least it answers the original question. No, iawai doesn't get out much.


I'd say trolldinger spends more time online trolling libertarian and Ron Paul supporters (even non-Paul supporters, just those who express a remote amount of empathy towards him) than any libertarian-leaning poster on this forum. Threefold.
 
2012-07-15 11:24:07 PM  
Deftoons has given me a serious case of deja vu. I mean he said the exact same thing and got the exact same responses a few weeks ago.
 
2012-07-15 11:29:59 PM  

KiltedBastich:

It's simply amazing how little you know of history. Otherwise, you'd know that at one time such things were all completely private,


Uh, you mean the national railroad that was heavily subsidized by the federal government and was awarded federal "land grants", which in turn brought corruption with empowered unions that later had to be squashed?

It wasn't completely private at all. It was public/private - a practice that often breeds corruption, not co-operative partnership.

In regards to the banks - you thought banks were never nationalized? Ever heard of the First National Bank before - a Hamiltonian idea? It was a government charter, under regulatory supervision. Bank notes later started getting taxed in federal vs. state power struggles.

Finally, as for defense services - you might have heard of a decentralized army that fought a nationalized army from Britain at one time. It created early American independence and succeeded.

For someone that is all ga-ga over basic history, you just became the poster child for irony.
 
2012-07-15 11:36:43 PM  

Deftoons: Finally, as for defense services - you might have heard of a decentralized army that fought a nationalized army from Britain at one time. It created early American independence and succeeded.



You can't be farking serious.

Are you really about to argue that? Omitting both a) the centralized chain of command involved (which shouldn't exist at all, by his argument), and b) the essential assistance received from a major national power (which is apparently the root of all evil, in iawai's world)?

Christ, man.
 
2012-07-15 11:38:21 PM  

Deftoons: Uh, you mean the national railroad that was heavily subsidized by the federal government and was awarded federal "land grants", which in turn brought corruption with empowered unions that later had to be squashed?

It wasn't completely private at all. It was public/private - a practice that often breeds corruption, not co-operative partnership.

In regards to the banks - you thought banks were never nationalized? Ever heard of the First National Bank before - a Hamiltonian idea? It was a government charter, under regulatory supervision. Bank notes later started getting taxed in federal vs. state power struggles.

Finally, as for defense services - you might have heard of a decentralized army that fought a nationalized army from Britain at one time. It created early American independence and succeeded.

For someone that is all ga-ga over basic history, you just became the poster child for irony.


And you just demonstrated that you are a fool. Because however problematic and corrupt such things were, they were nonetheless far better than the completely private institutions controlled by the elites exclusively for their own benefits that they in some cases replaced. Go read up on feudalism and aristocracy and realize that unfettered privatization results only in benefit to the elite. If you are an elite, then good for you, clearly you wish to further the interests of yourself and your peers. But don't sit there and try and tell me that absolute privatization is a good thing when history demonstrates otherwise.
 
2012-07-15 11:53:09 PM  

Wasteland: You can't be farking serious.

Are you really about to argue that? Omitting both a) the centralized chain of command involved (which shouldn't exist at all, by his argument), and b) the essential assistance received from a major national power (which is apparently the root of all evil, in iawai's world)?

Christ, man.


Yes, armies have chains of commands, that doesn't contradict what I said. In regards to funding from other countries, it wasn't that funding alone that propped up the armies. Many of them - most of them - were citizen-soldiers dispatched from small colonies.

If you think the same guys that achieved American independence was no different, funding and organizationally speaking, than its British nationalized opponents, go for it and explain away, but you'll be digging your own point into a grave, and we'll be there to watch.
 
2012-07-15 11:58:49 PM  

KiltedBastich: And you just demonstrated that you are a fool. Because however problematic and corrupt such things were, they were nonetheless far better than the completely private institutions controlled by the elites exclusively for their own benefits that they in some cases replaced. Go read up on feudalism and aristocracy and realize that unfettered privatization results only in benefit to the elite. If you are an elite, then good for you, clearly you wish to further the interests of yourself and your peers. But don't sit there and try and tell me that absolute privatization is a good thing when history demonstrates otherwise.


Thanks Che Guevara for such enlightening discourse. *eyeroll*
 
2012-07-16 12:02:30 AM  

Deftoons: Yes, armies have chains of commands, that doesn't contradict what I said. In regards to funding from other countries, it wasn't that funding alone that propped up the armies. Many of them - most of them - were citizen-soldiers dispatched from small colonies.

If you think the same guys that achieved American independence was no different, funding and organizationally speaking, than its British nationalized opponents, go for it and explain away, but you'll be digging your own point into a grave, and we'll be there to watch.


Again, you are a fool. Go read up on the nature of armies in the days before professional national armies run by the government. They were private militias levied by particular nobles. This led to many problems: irregular training, irregular equipment, poor integration into the chain of command in the event of war, poor discipline, and divided loyalties. Many nobles maintained large standing militias as a way to promote their own power, and more than one civil war started when such a noble chose not to heed the commands of their monarchs.

There's a reason professional armies in Europe became the norm; they stomped all over the irregular household troops armies of their opponents.

The reason the irregular American forces defeated the British are almost exactly the same as the reasons why the USA lost in Vietnam and why the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan is so problematic today. It is very difficult to fight a guerrila war against troops with local support and supply when you are operating at the end of an extremely long chain of command, in terms of both logistics and strategy, espcially if you factor in the lack of communications at the time of the revolution.

You appear to have some background in American history. You also appear to be incredibly ignorant about history more generally. It's amusing to see, and quite typical.
 
2012-07-16 12:05:40 AM  

Deftoons: Thanks Che Guevara for such enlightening discourse. *eyeroll*


Fool. I am not a communist. I am a pragmatist. Ideology is worthless as a determinant of action. Results are what matters. Absolute privatization results in oppression, deprivation and misery, as does absolute nationalization. Pragmatic compromise to seek the best solutions for any given set of circumstances mandates that some situations see better results from regulated private enterprise, and some situations see best results from direct government action. If you were not so narrow-minded and blinded by your ideology, you would understand this.
 
2012-07-16 12:20:17 AM  
Wastleland and Schrodinger: 1
Deftoons and iawai: 0
 
2012-07-16 12:23:18 AM  

Deftoons: Yes, armies have chains of commands, that doesn't contradict what I said. In regards to funding from other countries, it wasn't that funding alone that propped up the armies. Many of them - most of them - were citizen-soldiers dispatched from small colonies.

If you think the same guys that achieved American independence was no different, funding and organizationally speaking, than its British nationalized opponents, go for it and explain away, but you'll be digging your own point into a grave, and we'll be there to watch.



...or maybe you need to scroll up, read the original posting that this concerns, and understand the argument you just blundered into the middle of. This clown isn't just advocating decentralization, but full-scale privatization. Hell, I thought I was joking when I first quoted Machiavelli on mercenary and auxilliary troops, but apparently I was mistaken.

That's the charitable interpretation. The uncharitable one is that you actually intended to argue that the Continental Army was structurally decentralized. (Not "no different...than its British nationalized opponents," which was not the claim that was made, but decentralized as opposed to nationalized.)
 
2012-07-16 12:27:10 AM  

Ray_Peranus: Deftoons and iawai: 0


Well no, now, that's not really fair either.

I disagree vehemently with Def on any number of subjects, but I don't think he's farking insane. I'm not prepared to make that same claim about iawai.
 
2012-07-16 02:39:21 AM  

Deftoons: I'd say trolldinger spends more time online trolling libertarian and Ron Paul supporters (even non-Paul supporters, just those who express a remote amount of empathy towards him) than any libertarian-leaning poster on this forum. Threefold.


I find it amusing that you waste more time explaining why you shouldn't answer a straight forward question than actually answering the question.

I asked you to name the currency the government would tax and pay out under a competing currency system. There is literally no currency that would take you longer than two seconds to type out, whether it's US dollars, bottle caps, gold, etc. If it's a currency that we are unfamiliar with but which has been seriously discussed in the past, then add a minute to check google for a link.

There are three basic possibilities here:

1) Competing currency does not allow for any government expenditures, and is basically a call for anarchy.

2) Competing currency does call for government expenditures, but libertarians are too utterly clueless to say how this will be possible under their proposal. Which is precisely why no one has any reason to take them seriously, ever.

3) Competing currency does call for government expenditures, and libertarians aren't clueless and they actually have thought this through, at which point you should already have both the answer and the link readily available.

Which is it? Because right now it looks like #2.
 
2012-07-16 02:49:12 AM  

iawai: There would be roads and protection, and we'd be MORE able to pay for them without the waste of the monopolistic bureaucracy of govt running these services.


Right, so you're calling for anarchy, glad we have that settled.

Businesses CAN, TODAY, refuse to accept dollars.

They can refuse the transaction from taking place at all. They cannot refuse legal tender as payment on debt. That's the legal definition for what legal tender is.

Besides, what is the point of arguing that a currency must be "universal"?

Because that's the entire point of having money in the first place, you know, medium of exchange of all. If money is not widely accepted for exchanges, then it is not useful as money.

Second, as we've told you before: Somalia has been much better under "anarchy" than it was under the auspices of state control.

Uh-huh.
 
2012-07-16 04:55:06 AM  
Oh, and Paultards: Ron Paul was never going to legalize weed. That's just something he told ya'll to sell books because his fellow Republicans (yes, he is still a Republican) over-saturated the Tea Party market and he went for the mostly untapped "Libertarian" crowd.

It's still amazing that you guys can look at a career Republican and think he's some kind of outsider.
 
2012-07-16 09:32:24 AM  

KiltedBastich: And you just demonstrated that you are a fool. Because however problematic and corrupt such things were, they were nonetheless far better than the completely private institutions controlled by the elites exclusively for their own benefits that they in some cases replaced. Go read up on feudalism and aristocracy and realize that unfettered privatization results only in benefit to the elite. If you are an elite, then good for you, clearly you wish to further the interests of yourself and your peers. But don't sit there and try and tell me that absolute privatization is a good thing when history demonstrates otherwise.


First off:

-What examples are you talking about, specifically, where a free country creates feudalism and aristocracy? You realize that a free country, where the government protects rights (not entitle services), and feudalism, have nothing to do with each other? And you're the guy calling ME a fool, what an utterly laughable response.

-As far as I'm aware, it's because of countries with freer markets, instead of heavily regulated nationalist countries, that have the greatest inventions that bring quality to our lives, not Atilla the Hun feudalism.

You're like Republican of the left - when they call Obama and the Democrats "socialists" and "communists," except on your end you are calling anyone who advocates a free country with extreme sound bytes like "feudalism" and "aristocracy" and "anarchy" when you don't even know what those words even mean.
 
2012-07-16 09:39:25 AM  

Wasteland: That's the charitable interpretation. The uncharitable one is that you actually intended to argue that the Continental Army was structurally decentralized. (Not "no different...than its British nationalized opponents," which was not the claim that was made, but decentralized as opposed to nationalized.)


I'm not referring to just the Continental Army. Achieving American independence was through various decentralized methods. Once again - many of them were "citizen-soldiers" from small colonies. Not to mention the minutemen, along with the help of other citizens along the eastern seaboard; achieving American independence from Britain was not handled through large tax-and-dole nationalistic methods.
 
2012-07-16 10:11:14 AM  

KiltedBastich: Again, you are a fool. Go read up on the nature of armies in the days before professional national armies run by the government. They were private militias levied by particular nobles. This led to many problems: irregular training, irregular equipment, poor integration into the chain of command in the event of war, poor discipline, and divided loyalties. Many nobles maintained large standing militias as a way to promote their own power, and more than one civil war started when such a noble chose not to heed the commands of their monarchs.


Compared to a nationalized army, where you get millions of dead people for political reasons (under questionable-at-best causes), veterans with PTSD, and countries in ruin?

When you add in the total of the negatives with positives, I would rather deal with the problems of private armies compared to our current over-active military; any day. The only time I feel government should get involved is when liberties are being encroached - you know, like murder, rape, theft, burglary, vandalism, and fraud. But if people want to have a private army to defend their land - go for it. This isn't the same as hiring thugs. It's about defense, not offense.

KiltedBastich: There's a reason professional armies in Europe became the norm; they stomped all over the irregular household troops armies of their opponents.

The reason the irregular American forces defeated the British are almost exactly the same as the reasons why the USA lost in Vietnam and why the insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan is so problematic today. It is very difficult to fight a guerrila war against troops with local support and supply when you are operating at the end of an extremely long chain of command, in terms of both logistics and strategy, espcially if you factor in the lack of communications at the time of the revolution.

You appear to have some background in American history. You also appear to be incredibly ignorant about history more generally. It's amusing to see, and quite typical.


Note the irony when you kinda just supported my point in your post before you accuse me of being ignorant.
 
2012-07-16 10:38:55 AM  

Deftoons: First off:

-What examples are you talking about, specifically, where a free country creates feudalism and aristocracy? You realize that a free country, where the government protects rights (not entitle services), and feudalism, have nothing to do with each other? And you're the guy calling ME a fool, what an utterly laughable response.


How quickly the ignorant forget their history. Wage slavery happened in your "free" country, the result of unfettered private capitalism.

As for aristocracy, do the names DuPont, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, etc. sound familiar? How about Koch or Romney or Bush? You don't need an official noble title to be an aristocratic elite.

Deftoons: -As far as I'm aware, it's because of countries with freer markets, instead of heavily regulated nationalist countries, that have the greatest inventions that bring quality to our lives, not Atilla the Hun feudalism.


Inventions only indirectly create quality of life. What directly creates quality of life is a lack of oppression, deprivation and misery - all of which are created by unregulated capitalism just as much as by totalitarianism. Go back and listen to that song again, and realize it is based on real events, and then tell me again how the people experiencing those conditions had a good quality of life due to inventions and living in a free country. Freedom to be ground in to the dirt by the wealthy is no freedom at all for the majority of the population.

Deftoons: You're like Republican of the left - when they call Obama and the Democrats "socialists" and "communists," except on your end you are calling anyone who advocates a free country with extreme sound bytes like "feudalism" and "aristocracy" and "anarchy" when you don't even know what those words even mean.


Fool. I have studied those terms in detail, and I clearly understand them far better than you do. I'm a sociologist by training, and I reiterate that I am a pragmatist. Results are what matter, not your penny-ante ideology. Ideologies are easy to come by, and in the end they tell you nothing about the actual consequences of their claims. Reality deals with what is, not what ideologues think should be.

Freedom to starve is not freedom. Freedom to be a wage slave is not freedom. Freedom to see the fruits of your labor enrich the already ultra-rich is not freedom. Freedom to watch the middle class wither away is not freedom. All of these things are direct results of unregulated privatization and capitalism put into action, and this has been demonstrated over and over throughout history. As I already pointed out to you, a pragmatic evaluation of real world situations based on the goal of maximizing actual freedom for society at large clearly demonstrates that a mix of regulated private enterprise and direct government action is what gets the best results.

That you remain ignorant of this is evidence of either willful partisan blindness or colossal stupidity. I don't care enough about your obviously uninformed opinion to bother figuring out which is the case.

Deftoons: Compared to a nationalized army, where you get millions of dead people for political reasons (under questionable-at-best causes), veterans with PTSD, and countries in ruin?


Are you really this much of a fool? Nationalized armies in Europe reduced some of those things, because they had a markedly lower tendency to engage in wholesale slaughter, rapine and pillage of innocent civilians. So you had less random death and destruction, and better win-loss ratios. Go read up on the Hundred Years war in Europe, especially the campaigns of Gustavus Adolphus, who more or less invented the modern professional army.

As far as PTSD goes, any combat can create it. The perceived incidence is higher now because we know what to look for and how to treat it. It used to be called shell-shock, or the shakes, or any number of other colloquial terms. You can get it from getting mugged in the street, not just from seeing combat.

Deftoons: Note the irony when you kinda just supported my point in your post before you accuse me of being ignorant.


Fool again. I just pointed out the only reason the Americans won the revolution was due to communications lag and logistics problems - problems which are solvable now with modern warfare techniques. Or are you under the impression that the Iraq insurgency beat the US Army? Because the last time I checked, they were surviving because of the aforementioned local supply and support which lets them replenish their arms and numbers, but the loss ratios were enormously skewed in the favor of the modern professional national army.

Militias cause trouble and do damage. However, they do not win wars against professional armies in a modern setting. Heck they do not win against professional armies in a historical setting when the supply and communications lines are not prohibitively long, or where the commanders are willing to be ruthless.
 
2012-07-16 10:54:09 AM  

downpaymentblues: Karac: Because those would be some damn small coins and I'd rather not lose a years pay in the cushions of my couch.

It's important we base our economy on a metal used primarily for jewelery.


Maybe I should be quoting a post from upthread but anyone seriously talking about "fiat currencies" is generally an idiot. The "value" of anything is only relative to anything else, including "non-fiat" currencies. Hell, even if you could actually prove to me that even the price of a gold-based dollar would not be entirely as arbitrary as a paper-based dollar, it is actively traded with other paper-based currencies so there is no getting away from "fiat currencies" in any way, shape or form.

Get this: money would not be a real thing if no one else were interested in taking it. Unless you're some sort of blacksmith etc. gold has no practical value to you except to trade to other people, and most people don't have any need outside of maybe trading with other people. It's an old convention that is far less relevant today than a few centuries ago, which is where the goldbug mindset should have been left.
 
2012-07-16 11:13:20 AM  

GAT_00: StokeyBob: PAULtard ramblings (plus charts!)

Replot that on the logarithmic scale that inflation works in and get back to us.


Actually, you can go to Robert Sahr's webpage and see just that: pdf warning. Page 2 is CPI on a log plot. I'd say the change since the 1971 Nixon Shock is probably different from previous eras, but increases in GDP measures (last page) have more than kept pace.

Actually, page 6 is the most interesting to me...Aunt Martha's proverbial "sugar jar with her[] savings in it" would never have been a reliable investment/savings option. +/- 10% swings in yearly inflation/deflation were commonplace throughout the entire "stable" value StokeyBob applauds from 1665-WWI. The estimated CPI is flat over that time precisely because there were catastrophic shifts in purchasing power on a year-to-year basis. It's quite easy to see what you want to see in a graph if you're not willing to be honest about the context...
 
2012-07-16 11:16:20 AM  

KiltedBastich: How quickly the ignorant forget their history.


Poor people in free countries earn 10 times more than they do in least free countries. You don't even need to look this up in a study to see the difference - here in America, people have access to open wifi networks, can buy a beater car for a couple hundred bucks, have access to homeless shelters ran by charities to keep them off the streets, and can get cellphones for cheap or even free in certain situations. Compare that to places like India and China where the poorest of the poor have a tough time finding basic needs like food and shelter.

And...I ask you to cite some historical sources that relate to your argument, and you link me to a Tennessee Ford song?? Wtf?!?! For a person who has "studied them in detail" you have done nothing to cite much of anything . Then you constantly say "Fool!! FOOL!!!" redundantly like it's an actual argument of substance, making nonsensical convoluted equivalences like "freedom to starve" and "freedom to be a wage slave" (what exactly do you even mean?)...in short, I'm utterly lost.
 
2012-07-16 11:29:57 AM  

Deftoons: Poor people in free countries earn 10 times more than they do in least free countries. You don't even need to look this up in a study to see the difference - here in America, people have access to open wifi networks, can buy a beater car for a couple hundred bucks, have access to homeless shelters ran by charities to keep them off the streets, and can get cellphones for cheap or even free in certain situations. Compare that to places like India and China where the poorest of the poor have a tough time finding basic needs like food and shelter.


Right. And all those things are possible due to regulation of private industry, regulation that is notably absent from the countries like China and India. In terms of unfettered capitalist activity, that is, lack of regulation or government control, both China and India are more free by the standard you use.

Deftoons: And...I ask you to cite some historical sources that relate to your argument, and you link me to a Tennessee Ford song?? Wtf?!?! For a person who has "studied them in detail" you have done nothing to cite much of anything . Then you constantly say "Fool!! FOOL!!!" redundantly like it's an actual argument of substance, making nonsensical convoluted equivalences like "freedom to starve" and "freedom to be a wage slave" (what exactly do you even mean?)...in short, I'm utterly lost.


Ah, so you then assert that the song is based on fiction? Are you sure that argument?

(As an aside, what I did there is often colloquially referred to as "giving someone enough rope to hang themselves". A cursory Google search would have found all the supporting references you could ever want, were you not too stupidly partisan to make the effort.)

You are indeed utterly lost, fool. That much is quite clear. Your staggering ignorance of the historical realities of capitalism would be quite comical if it was not so completely typical of right-wing ideologues.
 
2012-07-16 11:34:36 AM  
Because I am slightly bored and Fark ate one of the links in my last post, here are some more links for you. Judge their reliability and accuracy for yourself, and maybe you'll learn something in the process - assuming it can get through your towering wall of ideological ignorance.
 
2012-07-16 12:27:46 PM  

Wasteland: Ray_Peranus: Deftoons and iawai: 0

Well no, now, that's not really fair either.

I disagree vehemently with Def on any number of subjects, but I don't think he's farking insane. I'm not prepared to make that same claim about iawai.


I'm glad that you can't tell if I'm insane or not. From your point of view, I must be some crazed lunatic.

But all I'm doing nothing but trying to get you to question your faith that a central state is necessary for the good of the people, the poor, and the minorities. History has shown that the existence of the monopoly state has been mostly an impediment to the progress of the people. Further, if the govt is just the manifestation of the will of the people, why is it necessary at all? If you and I want to help the poor, what does the govt do but waste our money in a giant bureaucracy and spend it in a way that we have little, nay, NO, control over? If you or I want to foster in a society of racial tolerance, what does govt force do but create more hatred by pitting group against group, brother against brother, in the search for control over the massive purse of the central govt?

Finally, what would it take for you to question your faith in the state? What evidence could I provide that would make you rethink my positions? If there is nothing, then you are a hopeless ideologue, and I hope for your sake that your beliefs are correct. For me, I could be open to accepting statism if evidence were presented to me that a state could exist without oppressing the minority, without trampling on the rights of the people to be secure in their persons and justly acquired property, and without stifling human innovation and prosperity for the enrichment of the empowered class.
 
2012-07-16 01:18:59 PM  

KiltedBastich: Because I am slightly bored and Fark ate one of the links in my last post, here are some more links for you. Judge their reliability and accuracy for yourself, and maybe you'll learn something in the process - assuming it can get through your towering wall of ideological ignorance.


Finally some links with some substance, thank you. And you can stop with your melodramatic bullshiat please - it took a enough prying with a crowbar between all of your demagoguery to get this out of you so it's only ironic you use the term "ideological ignorance."

As for wage slavery - workers co-ops (as a method of resolution) do exist in free, voluntary societies, and in fact actually part of the whole evolution for worker improvement in a free society; just like voluntary private unions are. So this still doesn't support your notion that feudalism is the end game to liberty, it in fact proves that through voluntary efforts it keeps anything close to that in check.
 
2012-07-16 01:41:13 PM  

Deftoons: Finally some links with some substance, thank you. And you can stop with your melodramatic bullshiat please - it took a enough prying with a crowbar between all of your demagoguery to get this out of you so it's only ironic you use the term "ideological ignorance."

As for wage slavery - workers co-ops (as a method of resolution) do exist in free, voluntary societies, and in fact actually part of the whole evolution for worker improvement in a free society; just like voluntary private unions are. So this still doesn't support your notion that feudalism is the end game to liberty, it in fact proves that through voluntary efforts it keeps anything close to that in check.


You're actually serious. Pray tell, fool, did you not read up on what the response of the capitalist class was to the formation of unions? Did you miss the fact that their response was both brutal and oppressive and it was only the intervention of the government that changed that? Do the words "strike-breaking" or "Pinkerton" ring a bell? Your continued willful ignorance is not surprising, but it is rather contemptible.

Actual freedom, wherein the rights and opportunities of every member of society are protected rather than simply the perquisites of the rich, requires compromise between private ownership and government action, despite what your knee-jerk libertarian ideology tells you.

Grow up and learn a little bit, stop demonstrating your utter ignorance about how the social landscape you take for granted came to be, and perhaps I might be more willing to treat you with less contempt. As it stands, you're simply yet another ideological simpleton fantasizing about the simplified perfect world you pretend exists rather than dealing with the murky reality we all actually have to deal with.
 
2012-07-16 02:10:20 PM  

ZombieApocalypseKitten: So can Gary Johnson have the Ron Paul supporters now?

Gary Johnson


If he drops the "Fair" Tax, he's got my support. Until then, no.
 
2012-07-16 02:41:38 PM  

KiltedBastich: Actual freedom, wherein the rights and opportunities of every member of society are protected rather than simply the perquisites of the rich, requires compromise between private ownership and government action, despite what your knee-jerk libertarian ideology tells you.


You've made a strong assertion here. I'd like to see you prove it.

Please, also, be specific on how "private ownership" - as a class - can compromise collectively without the goals and means of each individual owner being subject to expropriation. Also, what kind of govt has the best interests of protecting the whole of society without "simply [using force to mandate] the perquisites of the rich."
 
2012-07-16 02:45:37 PM  

iawai: You've made a strong assertion here. I'd like to see you prove it.

Please, also, be specific on how "private ownership" - as a class - can compromise collectively without the goals and means of each individual owner being subject to expropriation. Also, what kind of govt has the best interests of protecting the whole of society without "simply [using force to mandate] the perquisites of the rich."


Then go back and read my earlier comments. I have no interests in arguing with an obvious partisan shill like yourself. If the evidence of the effects of unfettered capitalism at the turn of the 18th century don't prove this to you, then you're so willfully blind that you're verging on solipsism.
 
2012-07-16 03:10:51 PM  

KiltedBastich: iawai: You've made a strong assertion here. I'd like to see you prove it.

Please, also, be specific on how "private ownership" - as a class - can compromise collectively without the goals and means of each individual owner being subject to expropriation. Also, what kind of govt has the best interests of protecting the whole of society without "simply [using force to mandate] the perquisites of the rich."

Then go back and read my earlier comments. I have no interests in arguing with an obvious partisan shill like yourself. If the evidence of the effects of unfettered capitalism at the turn of the 18th century don't prove this to you, then you're so willfully blind that you're verging on solipsism.


I've read your previous posts, and never have you made clear the proof that there needs to be a govt to control business. You've rattled on about "unfettered capitalism" as though it were fact that there was no govt redistributing wealth all over the western world in the early republic, but you are willfully ignoring the scope of the govt at that time, much of which directly led to the horrors that you blame on freedom.

And I'm not saying that people don't need to be governed. I'm saying that a monopoly state governs poorly. Businesses that refuse to treat people (workers and customers) with dignity and respect don't deserve to exist. But when there is a central govt, it becomes easy for them to lobby and gain favor, to legitimize their bad practices and to lock out competitors that would be able to be more humane.

I see the problems you point out. I agree that the past wasn't perfect, and in some instances was downright bad. But you claiming that my idea of just allowing free-association is akin to "18th century unfettered capitalism" is no more honest than if I said that your idea of a well-regulated state is analogous to a Jonestown cult.

I don't care if you don't want to argue (out of fear that I might bring some evidence to light that will change your mind, or out of sheer frustration that you can't convince me of your tired excuses for state action), I'm trolling you to let the readers of these threads see who is on the side of peace, prosperity, and virtue, and who compromises these ideals to facilitate the growth of a central state that, by necessity, loses touch with the people and becomes wasteful (at best) and despotic.
 
2012-07-16 04:36:18 PM  

iawai: I've read your previous posts, and never have you made clear the proof that there needs to be a govt to control business. You've rattled on about "unfettered capitalism" as though it were fact that there was no govt redistributing wealth all over the western world in the early republic, but you are willfully ignoring the scope of the govt at that time, much of which directly led to the horrors that you blame on freedom.

And I'm not saying that people don't need to be governed. I'm saying that a monopoly state governs poorly. Businesses that refuse to treat people (workers and customers) with dignity and respect don't deserve to exist. But when there is a central govt, it becomes easy for them to lobby and gain favor, to legitimize their bad practices and to lock out competitors that would be able to be more humane.

I see the problems you point out. I agree that the past wasn't perfect, and in some instances was downright bad. But you claiming that my idea of just allowing free-association is akin to "18th century unfettered capitalism" is no more honest than if I said that your idea of a well-regulated state is analogous to a Jonestown cult.

I don't care if you don't want to argue (out of fear that I might bring some evidence to light that will change your mind, or out of sheer frustration that you can't convince me of your tired excuses for state action), I'm trolling you to let the readers of these threads see who is on the side of peace, prosperity, and virtue, and who compromises these ideals to facilitate the growth of a central state that, by necessity, loses touch with the people and becomes wasteful (at best) and despotic.


Your argument ignores that a government behaving as you suggest it does is not acting in accordance with the actual purpose of government, which is to see to the welfare of the people. It is acting in accordance with the wishes of big business. And that is entirely predictable. All agencies that have social power will seek to promote and extend that social power and use it to further their immediate interests. That is basic human behaviour, as predictable as the sunrise.

The purposes of big busines are very simple: maximum possible profit. This is, again, as predictable as the sunrise. Make more money by polluting than not polluting? Then pollute. Make more money by oppressing workers than by not oppressing workers? Then oppress workers. Make more money by outsourcing jobs to 3rd world countries with no regulations than by keeping the jobs local? Then outsource those jobs. Make more money by buying off politicians to prevent intrusive legislation than by acquiescing? Then buy off politicians. Make more money by paying the fines than by ceasing the actions that cause the fines? Then pay the fines and continue the action.

This pattern has been demonstrated over and over and over again, ad infinitum and ad nauseam. The only way you can make a large corporation act in any manner whatsoever is by threat of consequence, financial or criminal. Make it cost them more money to pollute, oppress, outsource, etc. than otherwise, or make the officers of the business criminally responsible for the consequences.

Therefore, in any social milieu where powerful social organizations like big business are acting, you must have some form of equivalently powerful social actor that can counterbalance them. The only possible such actors are other businesses or the government (at one point there were other estates that could so counterbalance, like religion or the press, but they have either waned in importance or been coopted by business). Other businesses will either compete to put each other out of business by the most ruthless means allowable, or they will form cartels, formal or otherwise, to further maximize profits through exploiting their markets. They will only refrain from these profit-maximizing behaviours if enjoined by government. This is, again, utterly trivial business sociology.

Government's entire reason for being is to promote the goals of the nation. That does not necessarily mean the well-being of the people; that particular conceit is a product of the western individualist mindset, and would be considered quite alien to many cultures, but I digress.

Decentralized government is nearly powerless to redress the actions of big business, especially at the level of multinationals, because those organizations are far more mobile and flexible than the population base upon which a government depends. A business can go elsewhere with relative impunity once it reaches a certain size and level of operating capital; a town cannot. Furthermore, businesses can and will draw upon specialized resources to maximize their advantages, i.e. researching the best locations for tax breaks, low costs, access to resources and markets, etc. all of which are not available to the average individual trying to deal with those businesses.

So centralized government empowered to rein in and limit the perfectly normal and predictable but nonetheless self-serving and potentially destructive actions of big business are effectively an absolute necessity to a stable and healthy society in the long term. So all your critiques of central government utterly miss the point. The problems you cite are in large part (although not exclusively) a result of the (once again) completely predictable attempts by the wealthy owners of business to subvert and eliminate the restrictions on their activity.

They do so by levying their social power (wealth) in the form of social action to try and convince you and those like you, members of the general public, the only body that government is actually answerable to, to fear and distrust government, and instead trust business, and to act to corrupt and disrupt the functioning of central government. Which generates a circular argument. Big government is bad because they've done everything they possibly can to make it bad. I repeat, that is not the only problem with the system (such a claim would be laughably simplistic), but it is one of the major contributors. A complete dissection of all the sources of problems would be an enormous conversation in its own right, not to mention a topic worthy of the entire career of a Doctor of Political Science.

The remedy proposed by big business is to do away with central government, of course. But that is because such an action would leave them free and clear to act unopposed, because there would no longer be any other social actors with the ability to mitigate their activities in the event that profit again dictate actions detrimental to the welfare of society in general to the benefit of the business, as it has done many, many times in the past. It is again simply the predictable action of a social organization for which maximizing profit for the ingroup is the sole overriding concern.

The appropriate course is rather to reform central government. To excise the influence of those actors with a vested interest in subverting government in the first place. And that is a much more complex and difficult job than simply calling for its abolishment, one that requires careful study, coordinated political action and a high degree of social unity. Unsurprisingly, these are all things that the modern knee-jerk libertarian opposes - because you are useful idiots who are unwittingly dancing to a tune piped by the wealthy corporate elites, the top 0.1% who control the majority of the political and social power that derives from control of industry and finance. Not the small business owner, not the doctor or lawyer; they are not the problem. The problem is the neo-aristocracy of extreme wealth, the owners and CEOs, just as it was at the time of the robber barons and strike breakers at the end of the 18th century.

None of this is controversial information. All of it is available with a modicum of study, and none of it requires investing in extreme-leftist ideas. It simply requires eschewing ideology for pragmatism, seeking actual results rather than pie-in-the-sky proclamations about how things should be.
 
2012-07-16 09:02:46 PM  

KiltedBastich: Your argument ignores that a government behaving as you suggest it does is not acting in accordance with the actual purpose of government, which is to see to the welfare of the people. It is acting in accordance with the wishes of big business. And that is entirely predictable. All agencies that have social power will seek to pr ...


I appreciate the time you took in putting together such a well reasoned post.

But it seems to be contradictory in saying that (1) current govt is influenced by big business and is ran in the interest of "the nation" and not the people, and then that (2) the path to take is to reform govt and by playing the "abolish it" card, we're being useful idiots to the rich and powerful.

So not only are these contradictory, but lets look at the evidence. Where is big business money being spent? Was it funneled to astro-turf efforts to elect people like Ron Paul (who is as close to the "abolish it" as anyone has been since the Haymarket Square bombings), or is it being given to the same-old establishment candidates?

And if big businesses are supporting the likes of Obama and Romney to the tune of many thousands of times the amount they are willing to to support a Ron Paul, who is the useful idiot, the Paul supporter who wants to take away their plaything, or the Obama supporter who thinks more regulation will somehow, magically, help the people and hurt big business, despite the fact that big business lobbies heavily for MORE regulation to shut out competitors.

You are logical and coherent, but I can't believe that you actually believe the contradictory things that you say. I'm not working from a knee-jerk reaction here, and I may have been in your position a long time ago. I've had a long, studious path that has convinced me that the mainstream game isn't worth playing. I'm not saying that there needs to be a massive revolution or that "we should all do X."

I'm just saying that I don't care about the federal govt, or state monopolies in general, and that I have control and responsibility for my own life. I'd appreciate it if you tried your theories of "pragmatic rule" without involving me. I encourage you to try, just as I encourage the communists to go start communes, and the theocrats to go live according to god. Just don't hurt people or force them to go along.
 
2012-07-16 09:41:32 PM  

iawai: I appreciate the time you took in putting together such a well reasoned post.

But it seems to be contradictory in saying that (1) current govt is influenced by big business and is ran in the interest of "the nation" and not the people, and then that (2) the path to take is to reform govt and by playing the "abolish it" card, we're being useful idiots to the rich and powerful.


No. First they control and subvert government, to reduce confidence and gain priviledges. Then they cast government as the source of the trouble, and advocate for it's elimination, because whatever advantags they gain pale besides the possibility of eliminating all taxation and regulation. And note that this is not some machiavellian plot all thought out in advance. This is simply seeking advantage by whatever means using all available resources. Subvert and exploit when possible, eliminate completely when possible.

This is not an either-or situation. This kind of corruption and subversion does not go unopposed, and generally speaking there are forces at work that seek to limit this kind of activity, often traditional leftist but also some centrist and leftist libertarians. It's just that currently there is a huge ideological push for hard right libertarianism that plays into this problem.

iawai: So not only are these contradictory, but lets look at the evidence. Where is big business money being spent? Was it funneled to astro-turf efforts to elect people like Ron Paul (who is as close to the "abolish it" as anyone has been since the Haymarket Square bombings), or is it being given to the same-old establishment candidates?


Your conjecture assumes coordination and planning that isn't present. There is no grand conspiracy. There is only powerful social actors seeking advantage, by any means. Some will seek to exploit government to gain priviledge. Others will seek to undercut it to remove restrictions. The only commonality is that all will seek to subvert the ability of the government to limit their actions. Ron Paul isn't useful in the sense that he can actually accomplish the abolishment of central government. What he is useful for is to marshal a group that will attack any attempt by the government to limit the actions of business, without the businesses appearing to be the ones promoting the attack.

In short, the current right-libertarian movement are useful idiots because they distract from the real problems and tie up social and political resources that could otherwise be marshalled more effectively to address the problem of corporate subversion of government, not because they have any realistic chance of actually doing away with centralized government.

iawai: And if big businesses are supporting the likes of Obama and Romney to the tune of many thousands of times the amount they are willing to to support a Ron Paul, who is the useful idiot, the Paul supporter who wants to take away their plaything, or the Obama supporter who thinks more regulation will somehow, magically, help the people and hurt big business, despite the fact that big business lobbies heavily for MORE regulation to shut out competitors.


Again, big businesses are not a monolithic block. They are a group of powerful social organizations that perform as individual social actors seeking their own best advantage. They usually do not coordinate closely, but their shared primary goal (maximum possible profit) drives them to many similar actions and often informal collusion. That does not mean that there will not be many seemingly separate activities that appear to confuse the issue as to what they actually want. Each business wants to maximize its own profits, but doesn't really care about the profits of anyone not a direct competitor unless it somehow affects them. Exploit, subvert, or eliminate depending on what impedes their particular profit margins.

The point is that it remains true that the only agency capable of counterbalancing the social power of a large national or multinational business is a central government.

iawai: You are logical and coherent, but I can't believe that you actually believe the contradictory things that you say. I'm not working from a knee-jerk reaction here, and I may have been in your position a long time ago. I've had a long, studious path that has convinced me that the mainstream game isn't worth playing. I'm not saying that there needs to be a massive revolution or that "we should all do X."


First, you are, as I have already mentioned, grossly oversimplifying and misunderstanding the point, and implying things that simply are not the case. There is only contradiction if you somehow assert a grand unified conspiracy, as opposed to a large group of powerful social actors (businesses) seeking their direct advantage by whatever means. Second, this is not controversial material. It's basic sociology. Feel free to go check my information elsewhere.

iawai: I'm just saying that I don't care about the federal govt, or state monopolies in general, and that I have control and responsibility for my own life. I'd appreciate it if you tried your theories of "pragmatic rule" without involving me. I encourage you to try, just as I encourage the communists to go start communes, and the theocrats to go live according to god. Just don't hurt people or force them to go along.


And in so doing, you are a useful idiot who contributes to the larger problem, because "Fark you I got mine" is detrimental to society as a whole, and you depend on that society for your well being and continued livelihood whether you realize it or not. Put simply, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
 
2012-07-17 12:28:17 AM  

Generation_D: Republicans still remember 1992 and Ross Perot. They were never going to allow a repeat.

// Perot taunted Bush senior all through the election, stole many votes from him, which helped Clinton get elected.


Nobody steals votes, because no one is entitled to them. You get what you earn. If all you can forward is crap candidates, you'll remain a loser.
 
2012-07-17 01:31:41 AM  

KiltedBastich: The point is that it remains true that the only agency capable of counterbalancing the social power of a large national or multinational business is a central government.


First, before I get to this specific quote, you keep saying that "big business subverts govt" - this is entirely wrong. Big business is there from the beginning, instituting a central govt for them to shut out competitors and funnel "public works" projects into their contracts.

On to this quote. You say that ONLY central govt can counterbalance the power of a large corporation. You do not prove this in your text, you do not assume a counterfactual and show inconsistencies. You just make a blanket statement and expect me to take it as the truth.

Further, WHAT KIND of central govt is needed? Does it have to be a national govt? a World govt? Why does it matter where the lines are drawn on a map? Could I, living in New York City, claim to be a citizen of the British govt to achieve the same "counterbalancing" effect, or does everyone in a landmass have to be forced into a single monopoly agency? And once a govt is "subverted" to big business, how are the relatively powerless people subject to the govt monopoly supposed to "change" it, when they don't have nearly the same political capital as big business?

KiltedBastich: And in so doing, you are a useful idiot who contributes to the larger problem, because "Fark you I got mine" is detrimental to society as a whole, and you depend on that society for your well being and continued livelihood whether you realize it or not. Put simply, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.


I could say the same about you, giving allegiance to this destructive, big business controlled entity in the hopes of changing it, voting for the lesser of evils, and just holding out hope that one day you or yours will be in charge and fundamentally change the financial workings of the system and the human nature of the hordes of bureaucrats that run the system.

I recommend reading Etienne la Boetie for a reasoned analysis of why the only chains that bind you to this unfair, top-heavy, wasteful system are of your own creation. All it takes to change things is to stop giving them permission to be powerful over you. Bill Gates isn't some oppressive force, neither is George Soros or the Koch bros. if they don't have the govt to toy with. They only have power because power is centralized in a govt. Otherwise they are limited by only being able to engage in peaceful transactions with others, whatever their economic means.

There is a class struggle going on, and it's not "the rich" vs. "the poor" or employers vs. workers or urbanites vs. farmers. It's people in control of the power of govt against those subject to the control of the govt. Sometimes the rich are in charge, sometimes the poor. Sometimes the employers, sometimes the employees. If you care about the disparity of "social power" - stop giving your power to the govt that does nothing but pit us all against each other. Freedom allows us all to work together for our personal goals, for great public works, and for eradicating bad actions.

I'm willing to work with you on reaching these goals through peaceful means. Are you willing to help?
 
2012-07-17 01:41:42 AM  

Diogenes The Cynic: Generation_D: Republicans still remember 1992 and Ross Perot. They were never going to allow a repeat.

// Perot taunted Bush senior all through the election, stole many votes from him, which helped Clinton get elected.

Nobody steals votes, because no one is entitled to them. You get what you earn. If all you can forward is crap candidates, you'll remain a loser.


Unless the "other party" has a crappier candidate. The two parties got scared by Perot actually competing with them, so created a new debate organization to shut out third party candidates. Republicans and Democrats each remember Perot strongly.
 
2012-07-17 04:41:56 AM  

Wasteland: Ray_Peranus: Deftoons and iawai: 0

Well no, now, that's not really fair either.

I disagree vehemently with Def on any number of subjects, but I don't think he's farking insane. I'm not prepared to make that same claim about iawai.


Didn't mean to assume they were loons, in fact quite the opposite. This has been a good debate as far as concentration on the actual subject and not a shiat slinging fest. Great arguments on both sides. Didn't mean to dismiss entirely one sides credibility, but while great on paper I think the actual application of competing currencies would be disappointing as your points provided. Def and iawai want less violence, prosperity and more freedom for Americans, and I respect that. However I have to say the way of achieving that goal (or at least this step toward it) wasn't as strongly demonstrated as the oppositions.
 
2012-07-17 11:01:11 AM  

iawai: First, before I get to this specific quote, you keep saying that "big business subverts govt" - this is entirely wrong. Big business is there from the beginning, instituting a central govt for them to shut out competitors and funnel "public works" projects into their contracts.


Nonsense. Business in a form resembling the modern understanding, that is, private profit seeking enterprise, in general is a relatively recent development, arising from the creation of a mercantile class in the Renaissance; government as a concept is much older than that. Big business, business organizations that have wealth and resources that rival that of small nation-states, is a very recent development. The USA is older, just as an example, and so is its government.

This is a pure example of ideological reasoning. You've substituted a naked counterfactual for what has actually gone on by presenting a simplistic black-and-white caricature of a much more complex issue. Not only that, but you've presented it in such a fashion that your obvious conclusion is one that serves the ends of the businesses you claim to be complaining about in the first place, namely the weakening of central governments ability to limit the actions of business. That renders it an absurdity.

iawai: On to this quote. You say that ONLY central govt can counterbalance the power of a large corporation. You do not prove this in your text, you do not assume a counterfactual and show inconsistencies. You just make a blanket statement and expect me to take it as the truth.


No, I did not. I said that other businesses can do so as well, but that in general this doesn't really help, and I also mentioned other social organizations that had the capacity at one point but have since lost it (religion and the press).

This is a claim not based on assumptions, but on the factual nature of big businesses as they operate in modern context. They have mobility and wealth, and use that to further their goals of profit even when such is to the detriment of society. This is historical fact, and has been demonstrated by example many times. A cursory Google search on corporate malfeasance will find you all the evidence you need. The outsourcing of jobs to third world nations that lack regulations and taxation on big business alone is a perfect example of that phenomenon.

So I then return the question to you: What other organization is capable of and has a motivation to limit these problematic activities? Who is it that prevents strike-breaking, outsourcing, depreciation of benefits for profit, pollution, and all the other activities that are harmful to a society but helpful to a profit margin? Oh, and don't tell me "the people" or some such. That's a cop-out non-answer, because central government is exactly that: the people organizing together on large scale to deal with problems that eclipse the scope of smaller scale government.

iawai: Further, WHAT KIND of central govt is needed? Does it have to be a national govt? a World govt? Why does it matter where the lines are drawn on a map? Could I, living in New York City, claim to be a citizen of the British govt to achieve the same "counterbalancing" effect, or does everyone in a landmass have to be forced into a single monopoly agency? And once a govt is "subverted" to big business, how are the relatively powerless people subject to the govt monopoly supposed to "change" it, when they don't have nearly the same political capital as big business?


First, the exact nature of the central government is whatever works. I repeat, I am a pragmatist. I am much more interested in the results of the system put in place than whether it is the "right" system. How much power you invest in any level of government, be it state, federal or even world depends on how much power you need invested at those levels in order to successfully resolve the problems and challenges of government at that level. The only real limit is that it can't be too weak, or else it can't do the job.

Second, the whole point is that the subversion of government by business is invariably accomplished by a special interest group (the big business or businesses involved) acting at cross-purposes to the needs of the society. That's an unstable situation, because in a democratic government, the people who make up that society can always take that power back if they realize they have lost it and organize themselves.

The wealthy individuals who control big business have access to enormous resources, not the least of which is research into economic behaviour, sociology, psychology, etc. This information gives them tools that they use to weaken the ability of the general public to organize and oppose their activity. They can create dissension on the correct course of action, distrust of the government, apathy that the efforts are pointless, and so on. Usually simply by supporting and promoting marginal actors who already espouse these views.

All of this is done because if a large enough segment of the population decides to oppose what they are doing, they are dead in the water instantly and they all know it. Look at what happened with the ACTA vote in the European parliament last month. It's a classic example of both sides of the situation I am describing. Lobbying and propaganda that nonetheless did not prevent the groundswell of public outcry, and the government of the European Union responded, because at the end of the day, government is more beholden to and vulnerable to the will of the people than it is to business, even when there is massive attempts at subversion.

The idea that individuals don't have the same political capital as big businesses is deceptive. Sure, a big business compared to an individual is a boulder compared to a grain of sand. But there are a great many more grains of sand on a beach than there are boulders. Individuals have the power to organize into a central government in the first place, and to retake one subverted by big business, as long as they organize and work together. That's one of the major reason why right-libertarians are useful idiots for big business. They generally oppose large scale social organization that extends beyong the local. As long as individuals do not organize on anything larger than a local level, they cannot successfully oppose big business.

iawai: I could say the same about you, giving allegiance to this destructive, big business controlled entity in the hopes of changing it, voting for the lesser of evils, and just holding out hope that one day you or yours will be in charge and fundamentally change the financial workings of the system and the human nature of the hordes of bureaucrats that run the system.


You're missing the point. There will always be a central government. Always. In the absence of one, humans create one. If you were to completely do away with central government, and prevent one from arising politically somehow, then you would create a power vacuum that large multinational corporations would step into to act in the agency of government, except exclusively for their own benefit rather than the benefit of the societies in which they operate.

The only real question about central government is what it's nature will be and who it is responsive to. A central government that is responsive to the people who comprise its society is the goal, but it's not one that can ever be achieved with final permanency, because law and social behaviour is in flux and changes with time. People seeks new loopholes to exploit for their own behefit. It's just what humans do, and expecting them to stop is utter folly. Therefore any system of government must be able to adapt and change to deal with new forms of exploitation and attempts at subversion.

iawai: I recommend reading Etienne la Boetie for a reasoned analysis of why the only chains that bind you to this unfair, top-heavy, wasteful system are of your own creation. All it takes to change things is to stop giving them permission to be powerful over you. Bill Gates isn't some oppressive force, neither is George Soros or the Koch bros. if they don't have the govt to toy with. They only have power because power is centralized in a govt. Otherwise they are limited by only being able to engage in peaceful transactions with others, whatever their economic means.


You really think a 16th century writer can tell you how to resolve problems with business that have access to all the tools and resources available in modern times? That's a classic ideological statement right there, one that ignores all the larger and more complex ramifications and substitutes a simplified counterfactual reality instead.

And you really think that in the absence of a central government, businesses would be able to engage only in peaceful transactions? REALLY? Then you're a fool. History is littered with examples of exploitation and murder for profit. Some of the worst of them were done in the absence of government oversight. Look into the history of the East India Corporation, just as an example, if the prior example of the 18th century strike breaking was not enough. Multinationals are right now polluting and exploiting third world populations in ways that produce hardship, suffering and misery. All that is done in the name of profit, and profit alone. They are not going to stop if you make it easier for them to do so by clearing the board of anyone who can challenge them.

Human beings are self-interested, and don't really give a damn about what happens to strangers unless you force them to either by persuasion and argument, or by more direct means like actual coercion. Again, this has been demonstrated over and over again by sociologists and psychologists. We care about our tribe, and those who can impact our lives. You can't wish that away.

Don't get me wrong. We need business. We need a system of risks and rewards that drives industry and commerce. But it's got to be regulated to prevent the abuses that occur with depressing regularity otherwise.

iawai: There is a class struggle going on, and it's not "the rich" vs. "the poor" or employers vs. workers or urbanites vs. farmers. It's people in control of the power of govt against those subject to the control of the govt. Sometimes the rich are in charge, sometimes the poor. Sometimes the employers, sometimes the employees. If you care about the disparity of "social power" - stop giving your power to the govt that does nothing but pit us all against each other. Freedom allows us all to work together for our personal goals, for great public works, and for eradicating bad actions.

I'm willing to work with you on reaching these goals through peaceful means. Are you willing to help?


You've been lied to. You've been told that you can simply do away with government. That is not the case. Humans are social creatures and they create social organizations. If you destroy a large social organization, all you have really done is create a power vacuum wherein another social organization of similar size will arise. All it requires is for someone with ambition and charisma to start one, and those are not particularly rare qualities. This is not conjecture. There are plenty of specific examples, from multiple societies under multiple different cultural conditions at multiple times. If you want a recent and extreme example, the rapid ouster of the Catholic Church from social power in Quebec during the Quiet Revolution created exactly such a power vacuum that was filled by the rise of the nationalist movement.

The only thing you can do is try and control the nature of the social organization that arises, by deliberately creating one that is responsive to the needs of the people, and resistant to the attempts at subversion and cooption that will inevitably arise. In short, by doing what the founding fathers in the USA did, and creating a government. Their major problem was that they could not forsee all the changes that their society would undergo, and could not plan for the rise of big business.

You are working based on ideology, not facts, not pragmatic attempts to accomplish a goal. You are being used as a distraction from the real problems, and as such I repeat: You are not part of the solution. You are part of the problem.
 
2012-07-17 10:16:22 PM  

KiltedBastich: Nonsense. Business in a form resembling the modern understanding, that is, private profit seeking enterprise, in general is a relatively recent development, arising from the creation of a mercantile class in the Renaissance; government as a concept is much older than that.


Yeah, before the industrial revolution the govt was big business. But "profit seeking enterprise" is much, much older than the first govt. It is evident in EVERY trade ever made. You want apples and have eggs? Well, I have eggs and want apples. Let's Trade. We both PROFIT.

KiltedBastich: So I then return the question to you: What other organization is capable of and has a motivation to limit these problematic activities? Who is it that prevents strike-breaking, outsourcing, depreciation of benefits for profit, pollution, and all the other activities that are harmful to a society but helpful to a profit margin? Oh, and don't tell me "the people" or some such. That's a cop-out non-answer, because central government is exactly that: the people organizing together on large scale to deal with problems that eclipse the scope of smaller scale government.


So why is "a voluntary association of people" a cop-out, but "an institution demanding participation from all people" not a cop-out? Why do you put limits on the size of a voluntary organization in the internet age? Couldn't we find 30 million people on Facebook willing to stand against a company that enslaved children as employees and tainted their drinking water with arsenic? Why do you resort on forcing me to pay for your concerns, when all you may have had to do was ask?

KiltedBastich: There will always be a central government. Always. In the absence of one, humans create one. If you were to completely do away with central government, and prevent one from arising politically somehow, then you would create a power vacuum that large multinational corporations would step into to act in the agency of government, except exclusively for their own benefit rather than the benefit of the societies in which they operate.


You didn't read my question: If I were born and raised in New York City, could I pledge allegiance to the govt of England or Chile or China? I'm not saying that these institutions should be forcibly abolished - I'm say that we should be able to enter into them VOLUNTARILY, without regard to happenstances of birth or where some plutocrats drew lines on their maps. There is no power vacuum, there is simple the freedom to choose, to EXPERIMENT, with what governing structure works best for individuals and society.

You're looking for what WORKS, right? So how better to find what works than through people exhibiting their conscious choices and preferences by selecting which government works for them? I'm speaking of a freedom that allows successful structures to grow and thrive and harmful ones to die off quickly with as little destruction as possible. Your nationalist tendencies indicate that you want static, dinosaur monopolies plodding around the globe laying waste to resources and people, with out any signals as to whether they are actually acting in the best interest of the people.

KiltedBastich: And in so doing, you are a useful idiot who contributes to the larger problem, because "Fark you I got mine" is detrimental to society as a whole, and you depend on that society for your well being and continued livelihood whether you realize it or not. Put simply, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.


I never said that, or implied it. I do "depend on society". BUT SOCIETY IS NOT GOVT. Society is the collection of voluntary interactions between people. It is inseparable from each individual, it is not it's own entity. Govt is an institution that has it's own goals and sense of self-preservation, and it is not synonymous with society. People thinking that funneling money into govt is what has drained useful resources from society.


/It's been fun, but the thread is dead. Have the last word if you wish, I will not reply here. Until next time!
 
2012-07-17 11:01:37 PM  

iawai: Yeah, before the industrial revolution the govt was big business. But "profit seeking enterprise" is much, much older than the first govt. It is evident in EVERY trade ever made. You want apples and have eggs? Well, I have eggs and want apples. Let's Trade. We both PROFIT.


No, that is not what the word means in that sense. Profit, as in the accrual of wealth, the improvement of personal circumstance, not the meeting of immediate needs through barter. This is disingenuous of you in the extreme. The two meanings of the words are not the same, and you are attempting to split linguistic hairs.

iawai: So why is "a voluntary association of people" a cop-out, but "an institution demanding participation from all people" not a cop-out? Why do you put limits on the size of a voluntary organization in the internet age? Couldn't we find 30 million people on Facebook willing to stand against a company that enslaved children as employees and tainted their drinking water with arsenic? Why do you resort on forcing me to pay for your concerns, when all you may have had to do was ask?


Power to enact legislation mandated by the will of the people as a whole. Otherwise you have no teeth with which to enfore action when faced with intransigence. When you can show me a facebook pledge that can do that, then we'll talk - but at that point you have become a de facto government anyways, and your ultimate point here becomes moot.

iawai: You didn't read my question: If I were born and raised in New York City, could I pledge allegiance to the govt of England or Chile or China? I'm not saying that these institutions should be forcibly abolished - I'm say that we should be able to enter into them VOLUNTARILY, without regard to happenstances of birth or where some plutocrats drew lines on their maps. There is no power vacuum, there is simple the freedom to choose, to EXPERIMENT, with what governing structure works best for individuals and society.


Actions have consequences. The existing power structures are in place for a reason. Cities need infrastructure, as do nations. The individuals living in those locations are benefiting from those same, as well as from the social structure of laws that are in place. That produces the flipside of rights granted - responsibilities required, like taxation and support. And if you disagree with some of the things done, well, that is the limit of democracy, after all. You never get everything you want - but neither does the next guy. That is why government even at its absolute best is still the art of compromise.

Your freedom has limits, just as does everyone else's. The kind of absolute freedom you suppose is once again enormously simplistic and ideological, and lacks nearly all consideration for larger ramifications and consequence. How would you pay for services and infrastructure where you live? What are the responsibilities you gain from the nationality you purport to choose? How do you prevent people from exploiting that freedom cynically for personal gain? You think and write like an impractical ideologue, and I really don't have much respect for that.

iawai: You're looking for what WORKS, right? So how better to find what works than through people exhibiting their conscious choices and preferences by selecting which government works for them? I'm speaking of a freedom that allows successful structures to grow and thrive and harmful ones to die off quickly with as little destruction as possible. Your nationalist tendencies indicate that you want static, dinosaur monopolies plodding around the globe laying waste to resources and people, with out any signals as to whether they are actually acting in the best interest of the people.


Because the level at which I am concerned with what works is at the level of the society, the general welfare, and such is never served by anarchy, because that always devolves to the rule of the strong, be it by direct force, intrigue or wealth. Here's a clue for you. The reason we have the structures we have now are because they are powerful. Humans are very predictable if you are willing to be honest about it. The kind of high-minded ideological firebranding you are going on about is deeply impractical precisely because it pretends that humans by and large are better than they are. Yes, certain individuals may do well with what you propose. The majority of humans will not.

Your ideological fantasy is in essence an invitation to tyranny, because tyranny is easy. It is simple to arrange and impose given enough force of personality to create a following and the freedom to pursue power without hindrance. Look at the endless historical litany of conquerors and despots. Look at the despots we have now in the world. There's a reason that pattern emerges over and over again when human activity is left unchecked. It's not an aberration or an outlandish response. It's pretty much the norm in the absence of more complex and carefully thought out forms of central government.

iawai: I never said that, or implied it. I do "depend on society". BUT SOCIETY IS NOT GOVT. Society is the collection of voluntary interactions between people. It is inseparable from each individual, it is not it's own entity. Govt is an institution that has it's own goals and sense of self-preservation, and it is not synonymous with society. People thinking that funneling money into govt is what has drained useful resources from society.


No, you are quite wrong. Society is the collection of ALL interactions between people, voluntary, involuntary, intentional and unintentional. Societies produce governments once they reach a certain size in order to organize and self-regulate. That is inevitable, so unless you plan on forcing everyone to live in small tribal groups of less than 150 individuals (and even then accepting that there will be a chief/council of elders/mayor/etc.) you WILL have government. The larger the association of people you need to deal with, the larger and more centralized that government becomes. And even if you were to somehow manage to do away with all official government, you will simply leave open the power vacuum for some other unofficial form. Organized crime, big business, religion - something will take that role to allow people organize themselves socially, because people want social organization.

So you can either leave it up to chance, and not only risk despotism but also set yourself up to have to face all the historical mistakes we've already experienced, learned from and dealt with through legislation (classism, sexism, racism, homophobia, sectarian violence, disenfranchisement of minority groups, etc., etc.)

That is all simply inevitable. It is what happens when people congregate in large groups, and people will always congregate in large groups. You can no more get them to stop doing it than the communists could get people to stop being greedy. If you try, all you are doing is setting yourself up for failure through sheer ideological blindness. It's one of the most foolish things people do, in my considered opinion.
 
2012-07-17 11:25:07 PM  

iawai: I want to live and work with the people around me more than you do. I want to do so VOLUNTARILY, with mutual agreements as to how things get done.


The problem is there is such an agreement... which includes prescriptions on how disagreements are resolved; and on how the agreement is modified. It's loosely referred to as "the Rule of Law", and includes the legal/political system.

Now, technically, you have the choice whether to go along with the agreement or not. However, if you don't agree, the only agreement to cover how to resolve it is that one. Outside the agreement... there's no agreement about restrictions on how to resolve the disagreement. Including the disagreement over whether or not you are going to go along with the agreement or not.

Which means, there's no mutual agreement against any way for "getting things done". Such as (eventually) having you taken out and shot... though usually it doesn't get that far.
 
Displayed 125 of 125 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report