Realism Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Okay, cool, so you break the government monopoly on roads, insurance, whatever. You privatize it. Do you seriously think sooner or later that a private company will not come along and fill the void, and create a monopoly of their own over whatever service/product they produce? Not to mention how messy it will be with various small companies fighting for the same job? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 How do you survive on food brought to you by private industry? That is way more important than school. All you have to say is you wont throw me in jail if I have a different opinion and want choice I would say that providing an education for ALL children is a very important thing, something we wouldnt have if education was private which would be to the detriment of society as why would a business run schools if they didnt turn a profit? You are comparing goods against services. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Let's not forget that AOD has stated previously that he does not consider formal education important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Mamerro Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Okay, cool, so you break the government monopoly on roads... You privatize it. Do you seriously think sooner or later that a private company will not come along and fill the void, and create a monopoly of their own...? More like 6 or 7 duplicates of every road, each owned by a different company, competing against each other for the best toll price to offer commuters. Save over 52% when you drive on Halcyon Interstates! Driving would be so heavenly and full of freedom of choice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambot5000 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 you walk down the street at night and the lights are on, you are benefitting from government, not to mention they would be looking after the sidewalks and roads.[/color] You use any of the services provided by the government then you are agreeing to the contract. I dont believe that libertarians are after freedom it is more about greed as far as I can see they dont want to contribute to the society they live in and have benefitted from. Not to mention that as CIL says taxes are written into the constitution. So avoidance of taxes just comes down to greed or selfishness as far as I can see. Amazing. So you are saying that If I use any service monopolised by the state, then I have consented to all of its laws and regulations? How can this be so? I simply don't know all of its laws and regulations? Does that mean that if I walk down the street and am enlightened by a street light that I am to take on blind faith that everything the government tells me to do is absolutely legitimate? Given the gravity of your statement, shouldn't myself and others be made aware of this indefinite contract of subservience so that we attempt to make informed choices? What you are presenting is an ambush of state power! All government has to do then is to provide you the slightest of benefits and it locks you into an indeterminate contract of lifetime subservience. Imagine if a private organisation could engage in such contract making! You could overhear music playing from a nearby gig and the band says you now have to buy every album we ever produce. Or someone offers you a chocolate bar and you eat it assuming it was a gift then the next day you have Nestle banging on your door saying you have to pay for a percentage of their operating costs, subject to change at their whim, for as long as they stay in business, but don't worry its sweet because you can come to the shareholder meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 nobody consents to any law, I didnt sign a contract that says I wont murder anyone, does that mean I can now murder people if I like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambot5000 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 nobody consents to any law, I didnt sign a contract that says I wont murder anyone, does that mean I can now murder people if I like? Certainly not, because you do not have the right to initiate force over someone else's body without their consent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 who says so? When have I agreed to that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambot5000 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Whoever you try to initiate force against says so. It doesn't matter if you have agreed to it or not. What right do you have to act upon the body of others? If you attempted to murder me I would demand no ongoing contract, I would simply demonstrate by way of returned force that your act is illegitimate. If the roles were reversed you would certainly do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 exactly my act would be illegitimate as a society we have decided killing people is wrong, being taxed and that money being used towards society ARE legitimate. I don't agree with the wars being fought around the world by the UK government but my tax money still goes to that because as a society we have agreed that we live in a democracy where we have elected officials to represent us and make those decisions, the system is not perfect too much business involvement in it and career politicians with no fight, but that is the system agreed upon and by living in that country you agree to the laws within as that is what happens. You have the choice to move somewhere else, no one is keeping you here, you could move somewhere that no government would bother you, you aren't enslved you are free to go and do what you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 decy: when all their philosophies boil down they have this: each person is an individual entity with no responsibility to anyone else or rights over any one else. there is no inherent duty or membership to any society. each individual is only responsible for himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 yea man I know, fucking crazy, glad that it will always just be theory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I do not like something, so I am enslaved because I live around other people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spambot5000 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 exactly my act would be illegitimate as a society we have decided killing people is wrong, being taxed and that money being used towards society ARE legitimate. You are confusing what you think is legitimate with what the government thinks is legitimate and attributing any government action to the will of that society. This is straight up fallacious. If this were true, whatever issue had majority support would become law, but this is not the case. How do you explain that? How do you explain, for example, that in Australia there is majority support for same sex marriage but it is not law? We have decided as a society that same sex marriage is appropriate right? So why is that not reflected in law? Inversely why in the UK does The Hunting Act face majority opposition, for example, yet it is not repealed? You as a society have found a majority on this issue, so why is that not law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Okay, cool, so you break the government monopoly on roads, insurance, whatever. You privatize it. Do you seriously think sooner or later that a private company will not come along and fill the void, and create a monopoly of their own over whatever service/product they produce? Not to mention how messy it will be with various small companies fighting for the same job? if you study free market economics, you quickly learn that monopolies are incapable of forming as long as free entry is maintained. governments are responsible for restricting entry by law, regulation, edict, mandate, etc. if you use your logic that competition is bad, then are you in favor of nationalizing everything? the total state? because if you can use that argument against roads, it applies equally to every other good or service. I would say that providing an education for ALL children is a very important thing, something we wouldnt have if education was private which would be to the detriment of society as why would a business run schools if they didnt turn a profit? You are comparing goods against services. i agree with you that education is an important thing. which is precisely why it needs to be severed from the state. the state has screwed up education so bad and dumbed down entire generations of kids, its not even funny. you assume that state schools are the best at delivering education. they simply arent. imagine if the state delivered food services? there would be nothing to check its quality since they have a monopoly and get their revenue by force. ever notice the difference between walking into a store or restaurant and walking into a government building? the private business asks 'can i help you?' the government 'business' tells you to get at the back of the line while trying to DENY you services. have you ever heard of the concept of a non profit organization? there are lots of them. but this aside, you are undermining your own argument by saying how important schools are. you see, this is what you call demand. most people have a demand for schools for their kids. just like they have demand feed their kids. so if private business can feed the poor, why do you assume that they cant educate the poor? the poor can get what they need at walmart and cheap clothing stores...do you propose we need to nationalize clothing because some people might not afford to clothe themselves? where does it stop? where do you draw the line with these arguments? so which is it...do businesses seek profit all the time? obviously they seek profit, which means since there is such a high demand, the supply will meet it. basic economics. because government has largely monopolized education, you dont know any different. a similar problem surfaced around the founding of the US. the issue was the separation of church and state. the proponents of state religion said that we needed to tax people for churches, because it was for the good of society. if it wasnt for compulsory churches, everyone would go to hell. if it wasnt for mandatory state churches, churches would vanish. (just like schools, eh?) yet, when the ties of the state were severed from churches, private religion flourished. those that didnt want to go to church stayed home on sundays. people voluntarily donated to them. now you have pastors that are millionaires because their congregations voluntarily give them the money. there is another part of education that needs to be addressed. not only are you required to pay for schools you dont use, if you seek to educate your children by other means, you must ask the government for permission! you reserve no right to educate your kids as you see fit! if you home school your kids, you have to get an exemption. now, who owns who? does the state own your family? it must because if it didnt, you wouldnt have to get permission from them to educate your own children. the very basis of government and its reason for existence was to use delegated power from the people. if a person has a right to educate their own kid, they do not need a permission slip to do so. More like 6 or 7 duplicates of every road, each owned by a different company, competing against each other for the best toll price to offer commuters. Save over 52% when you drive on Halcyon Interstates! Driving would be so heavenly and full of freedom of choice! man, you got a racket going on. some how you manage to not respond to my posts but you reinforce what a similar ideologue says while ignoring my arguments. im going to have to try this. stop debating directly with people and just talk to similar like minded people and point what i think are flaws in the opposing sides arguments, without ever really addressing the argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 nobody consents to any law, I didnt sign a contract that says I wont murder anyone, does that mean I can now murder people if I like? no it doesnt, because if you try to murder someone you will be met with force. if you succeed in murdering someone, someone will seek justice against you. exactly my act would be illegitimate as a society we have decided killing people is wrong, being taxed and that money being used towards society ARE legitimate. for thousands of years society thought chattel slavery was legitimate. just because a bunch of people think something, does it justify it? i think the question answers itself. I don't agree with the wars being fought around the world by the UK government but my tax money still goes to that because as a society we have agreed that we live in a democracy where we have elected officials to represent us and make those decisions, the system is not perfect too much business involvement in it and career politicians with no fight, but that is the system agreed upon and by living in that country you agree to the laws within as that is what happens. this is actually the very crux of the matter. who exactly 'agreed' to participate in this? if anything, the US constitutional system applied to the people that were alive when it was originally written. how can it be binding on people 200 years later? you are basically saying if a whole bunch of people get together, declare themselves the rulers, have a portion of the population verify they are the rulers and vote in new rulers occasionally, that they have the right to do what they want to. this is nothing but gang rule. and governments are nothing but gangs with flags. my ancestors were here WAY BEFORE any US government was formed. if they didnt consent to it, how can you claim it has legitimacy over them? your basic argument is that if a power takes over a given territory, the people that live there are automatically under its rule, no matter what. and your solution is that by living there, you agree to it. its the same argument that says if you live in a bad neighborhood and people are raping and killing, the rapers and murderers arent bad because you consented to this by living there, even if it was before the murderers and rapists started committing their crimes. in fact, you arent free to go. the US will only dissolve you citizenship if you are under the jurisdiction of another government. the very discussion is whether government is justified in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 yea man I know, fucking crazy, glad that it will always just be theory yeah, its a fucking crazy idea. people own themselves. its definitely a radical notion. a freaking crazy idea indeed...freedom. man, all the good movies are about freedom yet you guys think its some crazy idea. a long time ago, you flat earthers thought the earth was flat. some radical came in and said it wasnt, and you were about to burn dude at the stake. wilberforce screamed that slavery was immoral from the rooftops and you thought he was a dangerous radical with some stupid theory that would never become the way society organized its self. back when monarchies ruled the day, a republic or a democracy was 'just a theory' that would never be. one day brave abolitionists will recognize government as the monopoly on violence that it is and abolish most or all of it freeing billions of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I just have to ask, How does any of this relate to Ron Paul and his so-called revolution? Is any of this inline with the talking points of his campaign? Since he is 100% for the constitution, how does a anti-taxes agenda relate to his positions and his campaign? BTW, sometimes it amazes me how delusional libertarians are when it comes to consistency of their ideological positions. For example, how many are going to vote for Ron Paul in the "Republican" primary, which is in direct contrast to their personal agendas. AOD is blatantly not for the 16th Amendment, but I guarantee that he is going to vote in the republican primary (so would spambot if he were an American). Hypocrites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realism Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 if you use your logic that competition is bad, then are you in favor of nationalizing everything? the total state? a long time ago, you flat earthers thought the earth was flat.. I love how if someone questions/disagrees with some libertarian value, you automatically dismiss them as complete totalitarians or group them with some ridiculous historical faction that has no bearing on the debate at hand. Yet when someone implies you're a wing nut you get all salty. I'm also interested as to whether you will be voting for Ron Paul and participating in government sex trafficking, or whatever insane thing you'd compare elections to. I'm assuming that while you're strongly in favor of democratic elections (as they are stressed in the Constitution) you must be disillusioned with the process as it has continuously resulted in officials that you view as tyrants. Will you vote for him because you believe he embodies your values best out of any recent candidates, or will you just endorse libertarian ideals and hope for the best? Just when I thought I was out...they pull me back in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I love how if someone questions/disagrees with some libertarian value, you automatically dismiss them as complete totalitarians or group them with some ridiculous historical faction that has no bearing on the debate at hand. Yet when someone implies you're a wing nut you get all salty. whats funny is you consider the idea of freedom to be a 'wing nut' idea. even more funny is a guy who says he 'cant deal with debating this idiocy' or whatever line you parroted before yet are still debating. well, semi debating, because you never really offer a full response. you take one little part, then comment on it and change the topic to something else where you can try your case again. I'm also interested as to whether you will be voting for Ron Paul and participating in government sex trafficking, or whatever insane thing you'd compare elections to. I'm assuming that while you're strongly in favor of democratic elections (as they are stressed in the Constitution) you must be disillusioned with the process as it has continuously resulted in officials that you view as tyrants. Will you vote for him because you believe he embodies your values best out of any recent candidates, or will you just endorse libertarian ideals and hope for the best?i think hl mencken offered the best insights on elections to date. i'll leave those insights up to you to find. actually, im not 'strongly' in favor of 'democratic' elections nor am i 'strongly' in favor of the constitutional form of government (as i previously explained.) i have never seen elections as any way to achieve liberty. well, except maybe when i was 18 or 20. i have never been one of those guys that is like..'if we just get so and so in the white house...everything will be different.' the reason i am a ron paul fan is not because he could dismantle the federal government (even though he would love to) its because he is someone who has dedicated his life to bringing people to the ideas of liberty. if it werent for him, there wouldnt nearly be as many freedom advocates as there are today. RP could immediately do some great things if elected. he could use all his powers as president to do things that people such as yourself supposedly stand for. restoration of civil liberties by non enforcement of the laws like the patriot act. he could shut down gitmo and would as well as bring home troops from around the world. he could and said he would pardon all non violent drug offenders. you see RP is a strange politician, he doesnt want to run your life and he doesnt want power, he wants to limit power over you. 'hoping for the best' is rather a silly statement. there has never been a time where a government has voluntarily ceded back its own power it has accumulated. 'hoping for the best' achieves nothing. think of an election as a bunch of the enslaved, voting on their masters. sure, we would want the masters who treat us best, so i see no harm in the practice. but we must realize you are still enslaved. you cant be just a little bit pregnant. you either are or you arent. i choose not to participate because i know it doesnt matter. after all, if it did, it would be illegal. i think a much better approach is try to limit the affects of government in your life, come to terms with that and then live your life as if it doesnt exist to the best of your ability. there is nothing wrong with voting, i just think its a waste of time to devote your entire life for the political process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Am I understanding this correctly, AOD does not vote? Not even for a independent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 AOD your faith in business to do anythign than make money is amazing to me. Yea you have no profit organisations, they wont be able to afford to run a school, therefore best option is government run education at least you can keep bat shit crazy religion out of it. Also AOD what you want may be freedom to you but moat peoples lives would be worse under what you want, education, healthcare, roads fuck allowing business to run that and profit. Most 3rd world countries that have been pushed to adopt free market policies aer now suffering less growth and development now tan in the 60s and 70s, the free market doesnt work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 he's going to say its not a true free market, and that its 'not working' because of the oppressive regulations they face. and that if we eliminate those regulations, more competition will somehow rise up and the existing players will develop a moral compass, and the people will decided who succeeds and fails because now they have so much choice (and still no moneys).......................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILONE/SK Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 One of the biggest problems I see with the "free market" is that it adjusts on the backs of the people. For example, the only reason a drug maker would change anything about their products in a free market, would be because people were dying or getting sick. And even then they would only do so if enough people stopped buying their product. But what about the dead and sick people? do we just write them off as market actors? it is hard to sue someone that has an unlimited legal fund. It is even harder to sue someone if you are already dead. The free market is totally reactive and does nothing to limit irresponsible corporate behavior, ecspecially if that bad behavior is making money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 AOD your faith in business to do anythign than make money is amazing to me. where have i denied free market businesses dont want to make money? what you fail to accept is that when they seek 'profit' they benefit society. you said you own an iphone. do you really think apple has oppressed you, ripped you off and made you impoverished? they are making billions by giving people what they want, hand held computers. Yea you have no profit organisations, they wont be able to afford to run a school, therefore best option is government run education at least you can keep bat shit crazy religion out of it. haha, scared of these fantasies. non profits wont be able to run schools? really. they do it ALL the time in the US. private schools exist. ever realize that? so you are saying people can afford to pay 25K per student in public school for a shitty education where kids are getting dumber(federal and state funding) but they cant pay 5-10K per year for a super high quality education at a private school. home schoolers tend to produce the smartest kids with the least amount of resources. i know of plenty of cases where people have raised people who were incredibly intelligent, some have offers for scholarships to ivy league schools, and they were taught their entire lives on the amount of money it takes to send one public school student to school for 1 year. yes, you heard right. an entire 1-12 education, came out unbelievably smart, for what it takes to send a public school student to school for 1 year. Also AOD what you want may be freedom to you but moat peoples lives would be worse under what you want, education, healthcare, roads fuck allowing business to run that and profit. i've already offered you a million times, if you leave me alone, i'll leave you alone. you can have your government just dont force others to participate. the problem is and the reason why you REFUSE to answer this is because you realize that your system relies totally on forcing your will on others because you want them to do what YOU think is right. I say lets have freedom of choice. on everything. Most 3rd world countries that have been pushed to adopt free market policies aer now suffering less growth and development now tan in the 60s and 70s, the free market doesnt work. every time you go to work, you receive a pay check the 'free market' is 'working. if state intervention works, why didnt communist russia flourish? why isnt zimbabwe doing great? why cant you just go to a third world country, pass a few laws and create a workers paradise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 he's going to say its not a true free market, and that its 'not working' because of the oppressive regulations they face. and that if we eliminate those regulations, more competition will somehow rise up and the existing players will develop a moral compass, and the people will decided who succeeds and fails because now they have so much choice (and still no moneys).......................... you have that same racket going on that elmammero does... you cant respond to the actual debate points, you just interject stuff like this. its quite obvious you have never studied a lick of any free market theory because you cant even grasp the basics. its not from benevolence that we get our wares from the butcher and baker, its because he has a keen awareness for his own self interest. because he seeks his own self interest, he has to satisfy his customers, otherwise he cant profit. you guys keep making incoherent arguments. first you say business only cares about profit and seeks to rip off customers. then you try to tell me that when it comes to schools and serving blacks and minorities they suddenly dont want to seek profit, they want to kill people of color. that they dont want to serve blacks. all of a sudden they dont want to seek their own self interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 i'm sorry what basics am i not grasping? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 your economic beliefs seem based on a soft marxism. so i can assume you never were taught basic free market economics or totally reject econ 101. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 interesting, so you assume that disagreement implies ignorance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 no, not at always. but the arguments you put forth in previous posts demonstrate that you just dont understand the basics of free market theory. if you did, you would not of presented the arguments like you did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.