Mercer
-
Posts
21,284 -
Joined
-
Days Won
237
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Store
Everything posted by Mercer
-
I dunno, just keep making the same mistakes, and hoping for different results.
- 10,220 replies
-
- 2
-
-
-
- 2nd amendment
- boomers
- (and 10 more)
-
The end result of months of hardcore memery:
-
Only safe way to use one of those systems is to place the mask on other end of the tube over the anus.
- 10,220 replies
-
- 2
-
-
-
- 2nd amendment
- boomers
- (and 10 more)
-
Most people would agree, but don't let that make you pessimistic, or close minded. Simply not knowing the truth, isn't proof that the truth can't exist basically. The logical consistency of Anarcho-Capitalism is staggering. It all boils down to one simple rule: One cannot aggress against another's person, or property unless in self defense. Any interpretation, definition, law, or it's application must remain 100% consistent with this rule. That's why libertarians say taxation is theft, it's basically property seized by threat of force, resulting in a loss of property without the owners consent. If a band of armed robbers wish to conduct their trade legally, they only need to claim they're a state, and the capitol goods they demand is only a "tax". Laws concerning the legitimacy of a government can't be applied consistently to every government, and can only be decided randomly by either the sway of mass consent, indifference, or the outcome of political conflict. Hardly a consistent enough foundation to build upon. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's only being realistic for most who haven't devoted much formal study into a specific political, economic, scientific, or religious ideology. That doesn't make actually having convictions wrong, any more than it makes not having convictions wrong. The only thing I find issue with is when it's implied my opinion is invalid simply because I have convictions. It's a copout from actual debate. I'd prefer to debate the subject at hand, rather than go into a dead end conversation where I'm explaining why it's OK that I'm sure of my beliefs. In the system I advocate for: pollution is considered an aggression against person, if the pollutant being released it is proven to cause harm to humans. If a chemical plant releases a chlorine gas that harms me, I should be able to go into an arbitrator and file claim against the entity that has released it into the atmosphere. If I'm able to prove it has effected me, the court should find reasonable damages. The same thing goes for any pollution that harms, causes damage to, and takes away from the rights of a property owner. There's a lot of discussion on how this should be handled regarding CO2. Most people with expertise in the subject agree it does to some extent cause losses on the part of some property owners. The cumulative effects of increased temperature on crop production, property values etc. could be translated into losses for land owners for example. I do a pretty good job at defending my ideology myself, and never expected help. Not having any ideology to defend is convenient, and very comfortable. Especially if you always want the person you're debating to be on the defensive. To me it's just a convenient cop out, it's basically admitting from the jump you're not sure what is correct, well then, why are you so sure I'm wrong then? Surely it's not ideal to be blissful in ignorance, unaware of what the truth is, bogged down by doubt on how to move. How this relates to our conversation, or any debate n general makes absolutely no sense to me but I like the poop reference. If I see flaws in methods, I call them out, so do you. I appreciate this, and at the same time feel like I'm not the only person in here that reads. I don't think anyone else is down with reading economic magnum opuses, but outside of this specifically I'd say I'm no more well read on political matters than most in here. Many of other participants in the news thread have referenced some pretty heavy reading, serious authors and stuff I'm not up on, or end up looking into when they use it to make a great point. The "answer before the question" thing isn't really fair if I'm explaining my position. Besides, one could say that you, and him are both "insisting my answer is wrong", while admitting you don't actually know the answer yourselves, or the question for that matter. Again, this is an unproductive argument but one I'm willing to take on occasionally, when I'm forced into it but I'd prefer to debate the actual topic at hand. I can't really respond to the rest of this properly because it covers so much territory and I don't have enough time, but I'm sure we'll have plenty of time to continue the conversation. Appreciate you taking the time yourself to respond to everything though. I'd like to have a thread on environmentalism in here to discuss that topic though, maybe post and comment on news articles or something.
-
Without a person in power to be corrupted there is zero corruption. The free market takes care of this, if a good or service becomes to overpriced by a monopoly, market pressure builds inviting competitors into that market sector. For a great example of this read the breaking of a monopoly story of Dow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Henry_Dow#Breaking_a_monopoly At no point did he make an appeal to authority, he just outmaneuvered a state sanctioned monopoly. The term "monopoly" itself comes from the crown granting "monopoly" to an individual, or group. There are almost zero examples of people building, and maintaining a monopoly without state interference. Agreed, regulations must exist. How they're enforced now is OK, but private solutions to something like building code are almost always superior. It's much harder to have an insurance company scrutinize your property for example, than having a state organization do it. The insurance company has something to lose, the state doesn't and it's that simple.
-
False, you clearly have your own opinions. The fact that you don't have a consistent ideology behind your opinions does not mean they don't exist. Trust me, you have your own beliefs. This statement is meaningless in the context of a formal conversation, any one of us could say this, and nothing about it differentiates, or defines your method. The statement was more aimed at@Hua Guofangoriginally. I never once claimed to have all the answers, fact is, I know 100% that I don't and never forget it. What I do have is a consistent ideology based on years of study, open debate, and extensive reading. I'll never applologise for this, in fact I like the fact it seems to bother people so much. It would be impossible for me to unlearn what I've learned so this will never change. I'm even reading Kaynes right now, an economist I hate, just to get a better understanding of Keynsianism ideology so I can fire back. Here's where you're wrong. We've been advancing forward and finding solutions our entire existence as humans, it's actually worth finding answers to these seemingly impossible/tough problems. If humans/human nature is flawed to the point where we cannot be trusted to govern ourselves without a threat of force/violence, why would you hand over power to some of these same flawed humans, to rule over others. There has never once been a system in place where power isn't abused. So if you have no vision, no solutions, and no answers what is it you believe then? Repair this ship how? Cool analogy but you're basically saying nothing here outside of implying my solutions are wrong. I say just following the status quo is wrong, the entire system is flawed to it's core and the ship has been slowly sinking. One hole gets gets plugged, and two more open. We may be able to hire a new captain every once in a while to steer this ship, but steering this ship to the left, or to the right won't fix the fact that it's sinking. Every service a state can offer (security, roads, etc.) doesn't have to be provided by a state. It can be provided privately, or more importantly in a voluntary way where consumers have a choice, they're not stuck in a constant struggle against a monopoly that has zero incentives to improve it's services, or lower it's costs. The opposite is the norm with government, small departments bloat, rules/regulations are added , and never deleted, and the government becomes bigger, and bigger, never reducing. It's such an inefficient system.
-
Because he's been locked up, tortured, and beaten for multiple years. He used to look more normal.
- 10,220 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- 2nd amendment
- boomers
- (and 10 more)
-
Less anal fisting stuff, more memes. Milton Friedman, Ludwig Von Mises, Fredrick A Hayek, Murray N Rothbard, Hans Herman Hoppe Carl Marx
- 10,220 replies
-
- 2
-
-
-
- 2nd amendment
- boomers
- (and 10 more)
