I don’t quite understand the rational argument for libertarianism specifically (if it’s just about that freedom stuff, why not just call it being more conservative?). Many US people want less government intervention, a more balanced playing field, and more freedom to pursue their own interests. However, few people would go so far as to call themselves libertarians.
Also, it seems like any policy-type argument needs to be based on a starting point - usually the current state of politics. For instance, “I want public policy to become more/less liberal/conservative”. If you say “I want public policy to be liberal”, what are you comparing that to?
No question there are evolutionary dead ends and missteps but it is the only process in the history of the world that has worked in broad terms over an extended period of time. The only one. I’m open to other forms of government if you can propose a better system, but so far no one has been able to come up with one that actually works for sustained periods of time.
I don’t buy the physics argument because it (seems) to look strictly at energy distributions (movement, physics) but fails to account for the “spirit” behind the systems in discussion, which is self interest. Self interest finds a way. Without that engine, we would have died out millenia ago. Maybe other worlds would have different carbon distributions or atmospheres, but for life to exist the same engine would need to be in place. The details are kind of arbitrary.
I totally agree about unrestrained free capitalism which ultimately results in slavery or widescale exploitation. This is why I am a moderate libertarian. We need restrictions / regulations that ensure a relatively fair and even playing field to develop a platform that is in the best interest of society. It’s just that we need way fewer regulations than what we currently have (and in some areas way more, arguably). What’s interesting about nature is that it always balances itself out over time to prevent monopolistic behavior. The human population will continue to grow to unsustainable levels and the planet will eventually fight back with a global pandemic that wipes out 20% of the population. That may well happen within our lifetimes. I’m not really sure who to root for in that scenario, the planet or us (other than myself, of course).
“I lost my wife to a margin call. Wives get mad when you come home and say, ‘Sweetheart, I lost the house today.’” - Dennis Gartman on trading mistakes
I think the problem is that I don’t understand what people mean by “libertarian”. Everyone seems to have a different definition. What is a “moderate libertarian”? Can I be a “light libertarian”? Who is the world’s tallest midget?
Furthermore, the fact that we have evolved through mother nature’s process does not mean it’s the best process. Evolution is often short cited. Several species in history have evolved their way to extinction by becoming to specialized or evolving without foresight to geological regime changes or shifts. An efficient virus may evolve until it kills its host and therefore itself. Furthermore, while the evolutionary process may seem libertarian, many species thrive within that system using collective structures similar to that of a communist or socialist political view. I believe we are intelligent so we owe it to ourselves not to unequestioningly say “this is the way nature works, so it’s how we should work”. Doing this we would be encouraged and justified in enslaving other populations. Or wiping them out to free more resources for ourselves as was done in the intial empire building eras or by ants in the jungle. Furthermore, from the perspective of a pysicist, you could argue the current configuration of the world is just one of many possibilities that resulted on random probility. Another world could have been different in nature, so using the fact that nature is structured in a way, so we should model ourselves to that political viewpoint without planning could be a weak approach. Lastly, nature holds many tennents of pure capitalism in the form of evolution. Pure unrestrained capitalism is the opposite of libertarianism (which protects the rights of individuals) as capitalism without restraint leads to abuses by those with the power to abuse. Such a model could be argued using the same logic of a natural foundation.
yea libertarianism does not and should not follow a model of evolution. there is a legitimate role of governement in a society, which as BS pointed out is to protect the personal and property rights of individuals (from both foreign and domestic threats). this is the only legitimate role of government.
But none of those are true socialism either. You can still be a capitalist in Canada. All these policies are arbitrary points on a spectrum. It’s like being gay/not gay. Apparently, everyone has a gayness factor, i.e. it is a scale, not black and white.
I never understood something about libertarianism, since we’re discussing this. How would public institutions like the following function or be created?: (serious question)
- Railroads and highways and other infra (could only be built due to Gotus taking private land)
- Armies. (Or do we maintain private militias…)
- Municipal public services….(police etc)…or do you just “opt out” of police coverage?
- Was civil war a giant violation of property rights??
These are just the most obvious ones….but off the top of my head.
Cities teem with evil and decay, let’s give it a good shake and see what falls out!!
But none of those are true socialism either. You can still be a capitalist in Canada. All these policies are arbitrary points on a spectrum. It’s like being gay/not gay. Apparently, everyone has a gayness factor, i.e. it is a scale, not black and white.
But that’s exactly why it is a utopian ideology right? It’s not really actually possible to implement this as it’s full of internal contradictions, so libertarians get divdided into “moderate libertarian” , “conservative libertarian” etc…
Cities teem with evil and decay, let’s give it a good shake and see what falls out!!
Dude, I think Europe is banko, right? Most of these countries lasted, what, 60 years (if that) since we bailed them out last time? I bet if you looked the ballooning debt and social entitlements are much more recent than that even.
Arguably we have a socialist government as well and are pretty much bankrupt. I’ve never done this experiment but I bet if you came up with some sensible continuum of political distributions, both Dems and Repubs would be pretty far left in the grand scheme of things (excluding weird secular social issues that some conservatives have).
To ohai’s point – I don’t know if there is a general definition. To me, a moderate libertarian is basically the definition of socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Let’s legalize gay marriage and stop wasting time talking about that non-issue. Drugs should be legalized and taxed. Probably other similar social issues as well. If people want to shoot up and bang each other in the butt, that’s fine, I just don’t want to pay for it.
On the fiscal front, Ron Paul makes some great points (although I don’t know the extent of his full platform). Let’s close down some of our 800 to 1,000 military bases around the world. Let’s put in budgetary caps. Let’s fix healthcare. Let’s eliminate mounds of red tape and bullshit legal structure (has anyone ever looked at what percentage of GDP is made of legal activity? Probably a lot). Let’s figure ou thow to stop debauching the currency.
So basically for me, it would involve having a basic working infrastructure of education, services such as fire and police, and government oversight in key areas such as our financial system, anti-fraud, anti-crime, etc. We would fundamentally change the nature of the political process by instituting term limits and removing funding from elections – everyone gets X time on the major news channels and that’s it. No corporate sponsorship (corporations should be allowed to fail as well), no government for hire. Let’s dramatically scale back the entitlement programs as well.
I agree with your general point – I don’t even know what kind of government we have today. It’s clearly not a democracy.
“I lost my wife to a margin call. Wives get mad when you come home and say, ‘Sweetheart, I lost the house today.’” - Dennis Gartman on trading mistakes
I never understood something about libertarianism, since we’re discussing this. How would public institutions like the following function or be created?: (serious question)
- Railroads and highways and other infra (could only be built due to Gotus taking private land)
- Armies. (Or do we maintain private militias…)
- Municipal public services….(police etc)…or do you just “opt out” of police coverage?
- Was civil war a giant violation of property rights??
These are just the most obvious ones….but off the top of my head.
the privatization of all property takes care of many of these issues (the question of how we get from “here to there” is a tricky one). the government must be able to tax or collect fees to provide for national defense. municipal police services would also be a funciton of the government as would the court system.
As ohai pointed out, the question is of what direction do we move (i.e. what is the ideal we continually strive for)? Libertarianism would continually try to find ways to effectively reduce the role of government towards its ideal, while maintaining individual property rights. like a fat ass who has stuffed his face for 20 years, it would take still many more years to get back into shape.
But none of those are true socialism either. You can still be a capitalist in Canada. All these policies are arbitrary points on a spectrum. It’s like being gay/not gay. Apparently, everyone has a gayness factor, i.e. it is a scale, not black and white.
I am not gay..And I am correct about that.
BTW, if one’s gayness factor is 0 doesnt that mean he is not gay?
" CFAvsMBA is the brah'da, that plays the role of another brah'da, that is a brah'da"
Bromion, “Europe” is not bankrupt. Norway, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, etc. No, 4-5 countries are having issues after having been around much longer than any pure capitalist country. Their issues stem more from inability to print Euros than anything. Now because the US has issues, apparently it’s no longer Democratic (wtf?). A libertarian government wouldnt’ have bailed out it’s banks. How f*cked would the US be right now?
The fact that you need public services (no civilization has EVER survived without them) points out the obvious flaw to libertarianism. You started with a “proof” from nature. That was instead shown to be a flawed representation as nature more closely resembles unrestrained capitalism so you scaled back your argument to governments and now that is being undermined. Once you abandon your logical scientific hocus pocus argument this all becomes as Ohai said, “a gayness scale” where you must argue things in degrees and with a sense of subjectivity. It was the argument that libertarianism is “correct” - as in a logical fact, that Ohai and I took issue with. And to that end, we were right.
Also, you started an earlier religious point saying “Turd was correct” thus taking on his stance. Then you went on to say “The reason I don’t believe in God is the biblical..” I corrected your false line of thinking and assumptions then you went on to rephrase your argument as one against organized religion.
Pick a freaking stance and an argument and stick with it man. Jaysus. This is why Libertarianism is falling apart. It’s underthought and held onto by too many idealistic college kids.
The US is quite democratic, but it is not pure democratic. People’s opinions can still be influenced by media (i.e. Romney’s $2 billion), and no one has perfect information. Democracy is an ideal, just like all this other stuff. The point at which it is “no longer a democracy” is subjective.
It’s a plutocracy in function, if democratic in name.
Europe is bankrupt. It is a failed socialist experiment. I understand your argument about individual countries, but basically all of the large countries are bankrupt – France, Spain, the UK (England as well), Italy, Portugal. The Scandinavian countries I believe are also functionally bankrupt. The only reason Germany is not bankrupt is because the structure of the EU funneled money into Germany from the other countries; it is effectively an agent of the bankruptcy process. The entire fiscal structure of the EU is a failed experiment.
There’s no reason the majority of services can’t function in a free market system. We don’t need to give stuff away for free. No point of my argument has been undermined in any way that I can see. Please point that out. It’s pretty rock solid from where I’m sitting – you keep dancing around but haven’t made any meaningful points yet.
Turd – my point was that Turd is correct that you can basically just say “libertarianism is correct” if you take a reductionist stance and work backwards. I’m not sure what the rest of his argument was (if there was one).
If you have a point, please feel free to make it. I honestly think you are just spouting jibberish, although I do respect you as a poster and think you contribute a lot to the forum overall. You are trying to nitpick my argument because you don’t have an argument of your own. I haven’t changed or corrected anything I have said, just corrected your mistatements.
“I lost my wife to a margin call. Wives get mad when you come home and say, ‘Sweetheart, I lost the house today.’” - Dennis Gartman on trading mistakes
France, the UK, and Italy are not bankrupt. Germany is not bankrupt, neither are any of the Scandi countries (wtf is functionally bankrupt?) Portugal has 10MM people (not a “big country”) Check your facts. Or better yet, stop making up facts to support your garbage.
Many government assets like roads, power, and sewage don’t operate reliably in a free market system. You want a great example? ENRON. The reason is simple, the returns are too low, the outlays too high, and distributing these services to remote populace is not something a private company would choose to do.
My arguments unlike yours have been consistent and so far, you’ve failed to overturn a single point. You just keep dancing. The arguments all center around the point (which was stated clearly in my last post) that there is no clear logical argument for libertarianism, it simply becomes a bunch of subjective drivel. But people often underthink it and present it as some logical statement. So far, you’ve taken a reductionist stance. I’ve overturned every attempt you’ve made, despite numerous attempts by you to change the argument, distract others, revise your wording, etc. Now it appears, you’ve given up and gone back to just saying “it’s correct”. Nice work, man. Congrats.
Give me one mis-statement you’ve correct. I looked back didn’t see one. You made up facts about Europe, highlighting your ignorance there (our group’s main function is European risk). You lied about your original stance on the relgion aspect. You backed down from your stance on natural evolution. What’s left?
England and Ireland are bankrupt. There is no way that England will be able to meet its future liabilities. They’re done. Portugal is not a big country but is bankrupt. Greece is bankrupt. If you go through, the majority of the Western European countries of any size are bankrupt. It’s impossible to argue against that.
I already quoted Enron, did you even read my posts? Go read my original post carefully and thoughtfully and you will understand why you are chasing your tail.
You don’t have an argument.
“I lost my wife to a margin call. Wives get mad when you come home and say, ‘Sweetheart, I lost the house today.’” - Dennis Gartman on trading mistakes
A libertarian government wouldnt’ have bailed out it’s banks. How f*cked would the US be right now?
A libertarian government wouldn’t need to bail out banks because it wouldn’t allow a monopoly over money creation and force its citizens to use the currency it borrows in.
But the argument that “all non-libertarian countries have failed” is negated by the fact that no libertarian country actually exists. Yes, the fact that no libertarian country exists does not disprove that no libertarian country can exist. However, even if all existing non-libertarian countries have failed, this does not mean all non-libertarian countries must fail. Maybe they just haven’t gotten the formula right.
Interestingly, despite Turd’s apparent insanity, my main takeaway came from one of his posts; all these concepts - libertarianism, socialism, democracy, are just ideals. They are directions where society can move from its current point. The definition of these concepts must be vague; if they were clearlty defined, society would no longer have an ideal once it reaches that definition.
All that stuff about physics and god was kind of confusing though. No idea where that came from.
England and Ireland are bankrupt. There is no way that England will be able to meet its future liabilities. They’re done. Portugal is not a big country but is bankrupt. Greece is bankrupt. If you go through, the majority of the Western European countries of any size are bankrupt. It’s impossible to argue against that.
I already quoted Enron, did you even read my posts? Go read my original post carefully and thoughtfully and you will understand why you are chasing your tail.
You don’t have an argument.
UK 10 year yields are 1.56%, the markets disagree with you. You’re either dumb, or a liar. Ok, so you’re ignoring Italy (who’s only stressed at this point, not bankrupt, ignoring, Germany, France (no way France is bankrupt, you cannot possibly be that stupid), ignoring the scandi countries who are doing just fine thank you, and focusing on really three countries with roughly 30MM in population as the majority? Are you really this ignorant?
And apparently you’ve revised “bankrupt” to “in decline” with the Scandis. So apparently, in fantasy land, where libertarianism lives assets only go up. Just like in markets.
I already quoted Enron, did you even read my posts? Go read my original post carefully and thoughtfully and you will understand why you are chasing your tail.
You don’t have an argument.
bromion wrote:
There’s no reason the majority of services can’t function in a free market system. We don’t need to give stuff away for free.
I gave you a reason, several of them. Hence Enron. Either that or you lied about the no reason part.
But the argument that “all non-libertarian countries have failed” is negated by the fact that no libertarian country actually exists. Yes, the fact that no libertarian country exists does not disprove that no libertarian country can exist. However, even if all existing non-libertarian countries have failed, this does not mean all non-libertarian countries must fail. Maybe they just haven’t gotten the formula right.
Interestingly, despite Turd’s apparent insanity, my main takeaway came from one of his posts; all these concepts - libertarianism, socialism, democracy, are just ideals. They are directions where society can move from its current point. The definition of these concepts must be vague; if they were clearlty defined, society would no longer have an ideal once it reaches that definition.
All that stuff about physics and god was kind of confusing though. No idea where that came from.
in BS’s and Bchad’s world I am glad to call myself insane. i wake up everyday knowing that i live my life the way it’s meant to be lived and because of that i have a phenomenal life. BS and bchad sound like very unhappy people and i’m not surprised given that their world view necessarily requires them to contradict their requirements for a happy life. they cannot live their ideal and be happy because their ideal is suicide (for lack of a better word. yes it’s dramatic, but it captures the essence of their world view – which is incompatible with preservation and furtherance of human life).
But the argument that “all non-libertarian countries have failed” is negated by the fact that no libertarian country actually exists. Yes, the fact that no libertarian country exists does not disprove that no libertarian country can exist. However, even if all existing non-libertarian countries have failed, this does not mean all non-libertarian countries must fail. Maybe they just haven’t gotten the formula right.
Interestingly, despite Turd’s apparent insanity, my main takeaway came from one of his posts; all these concepts - libertarianism, socialism, democracy, are just ideals. They are directions where society can move from its current point. The definition of these concepts must be vague; if they were clearlty defined, society would no longer have an ideal once it reaches that definition.
All that stuff about physics and god was kind of confusing though. No idea where that came from.
in BS’s and Bchad’s world I am glad to call myself insane. i wake up everyday knowing that i live my life the way it’s meant to be lived and because of that i have a phenomenal life. BS and bchad sound like very unhappy people and i’m not surprised given that their world view necessarily requires them to contradict their requirements for a happy life. they cannot live their ideal and be happy because their ideal is suicide (for lack of a better word. yes it’s dramatic, but it captures the essence of their world view – which is incompatible with preservation and furtherance of human life).
Ohhhh kay.
I’m gonna just go ahead and make this Exhibit A in all future Rand / liberterianist arguments.
Low yields don’t necessarily indicate low chance of default. They could be showing expected deflation (probably not, but the point is that there are other explanations). Otherwise, maybe the market is irrational. When SPX was at 1550 in 2007, I’m sure a lot of people said those high levels meant the economy was doing great.
England and Ireland are bankrupt. There is no way that England will be able to meet its future liabilities. They’re done. Portugal is not a big country but is bankrupt. Greece is bankrupt. If you go through, the majority of the Western European countries of any size are bankrupt. It’s impossible to argue against that.
I already quoted Enron, did you even read my posts? Go read my original post carefully and thoughtfully and you will understand why you are chasing your tail.
You don’t have an argument.
It’s interesting to note that all those graphs and data points cut off around 2004. Do you want to know how the scandanivia model has been working in more recent times? It goes something like, almost full employment, low inflation extremely high hdi, extremely low corruption, high economic freedom, and very high per capita incomes.
This ‘evidence’ is a clearly biased hunk of out of date shit.
Low yields don’t necessarily indicate low chance of default. They could be showing expected deflation (probably not, but the point is that there are other explanations). Otherwise, maybe the market is irrational. When SPX was at 1550 in 2007, I’m sure a lot of people said those high levels meant the economy was doing great.
Oh, you can make that argument. But to present those countries as factually default, particularly, France, UK and the Scandis is just absurd and shows a lack of knowledge on the topic. You can rule out deflation since no amount of realistic deflation is going to give you a 1% yield if you’re a major default risk, and also, because threatened peers such as Portugal have yeilds of 10% or in the case of Greece, 25% on a 10 year bond.
I think it was Arrafat who said something along the lines of : Religion is the history of men fighting over who has the strongest imaginary friend…lol
______________________________________________________
You must be the square root of two cause i feel irrational around you
http://alphahive.wordpress.com/
I don’t quite understand the rational argument for libertarianism specifically (if it’s just about that freedom stuff, why not just call it being more conservative?). Many US people want less government intervention, a more balanced playing field, and more freedom to pursue their own interests. However, few people would go so far as to call themselves libertarians.
Also, it seems like any policy-type argument needs to be based on a starting point - usually the current state of politics. For instance, “I want public policy to become more/less liberal/conservative”. If you say “I want public policy to be liberal”, what are you comparing that to?
“I’m a CPA! I got money b***h!”
No question there are evolutionary dead ends and missteps but it is the only process in the history of the world that has worked in broad terms over an extended period of time. The only one. I’m open to other forms of government if you can propose a better system, but so far no one has been able to come up with one that actually works for sustained periods of time.
I don’t buy the physics argument because it (seems) to look strictly at energy distributions (movement, physics) but fails to account for the “spirit” behind the systems in discussion, which is self interest. Self interest finds a way. Without that engine, we would have died out millenia ago. Maybe other worlds would have different carbon distributions or atmospheres, but for life to exist the same engine would need to be in place. The details are kind of arbitrary.
I totally agree about unrestrained free capitalism which ultimately results in slavery or widescale exploitation. This is why I am a moderate libertarian. We need restrictions / regulations that ensure a relatively fair and even playing field to develop a platform that is in the best interest of society. It’s just that we need way fewer regulations than what we currently have (and in some areas way more, arguably). What’s interesting about nature is that it always balances itself out over time to prevent monopolistic behavior. The human population will continue to grow to unsustainable levels and the planet will eventually fight back with a global pandemic that wipes out 20% of the population. That may well happen within our lifetimes. I’m not really sure who to root for in that scenario, the planet or us (other than myself, of course).
“I lost my wife to a margin call. Wives get mad when you come home and say, ‘Sweetheart, I lost the house today.’” - Dennis Gartman on trading mistakes
I think the problem is that I don’t understand what people mean by “libertarian”. Everyone seems to have a different definition. What is a “moderate libertarian”? Can I be a “light libertarian”? Who is the world’s tallest midget?
“I’m a CPA! I got money b***h!”
yea libertarianism does not and should not follow a model of evolution. there is a legitimate role of governement in a society, which as BS pointed out is to protect the personal and property rights of individuals (from both foreign and domestic threats). this is the only legitimate role of government.
Otherwise, BS is a Turd ;-)
KISS MY CONVERSE.
Bromion, there are many viable socialist governments throughout Europe, not to mention Canada.
I used to smoke pot and go to class.
Sneak in ten minutes late with a bullsh*t excuse.
Slink down low at my desk.
Pray to god nobody asked me any questions.
I was the best teacher ever.
But none of those are true socialism either. You can still be a capitalist in Canada. All these policies are arbitrary points on a spectrum. It’s like being gay/not gay. Apparently, everyone has a gayness factor, i.e. it is a scale, not black and white.
“I’m a CPA! I got money b***h!”
I never understood something about libertarianism, since we’re discussing this. How would public institutions like the following function or be created?: (serious question)
- Railroads and highways and other infra (could only be built due to Gotus taking private land)
- Armies. (Or do we maintain private militias…)
- Municipal public services….(police etc)…or do you just “opt out” of police coverage?
- Was civil war a giant violation of property rights??
These are just the most obvious ones….but off the top of my head.
Cities teem with evil and decay, let’s give it a good shake and see what falls out!!
But that’s exactly why it is a utopian ideology right? It’s not really actually possible to implement this as it’s full of internal contradictions, so libertarians get divdided into “moderate libertarian” , “conservative libertarian” etc…
Cities teem with evil and decay, let’s give it a good shake and see what falls out!!
Dude, I think Europe is banko, right? Most of these countries lasted, what, 60 years (if that) since we bailed them out last time? I bet if you looked the ballooning debt and social entitlements are much more recent than that even.
Arguably we have a socialist government as well and are pretty much bankrupt. I’ve never done this experiment but I bet if you came up with some sensible continuum of political distributions, both Dems and Repubs would be pretty far left in the grand scheme of things (excluding weird secular social issues that some conservatives have).
To ohai’s point – I don’t know if there is a general definition. To me, a moderate libertarian is basically the definition of socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Let’s legalize gay marriage and stop wasting time talking about that non-issue. Drugs should be legalized and taxed. Probably other similar social issues as well. If people want to shoot up and bang each other in the butt, that’s fine, I just don’t want to pay for it.
On the fiscal front, Ron Paul makes some great points (although I don’t know the extent of his full platform). Let’s close down some of our 800 to 1,000 military bases around the world. Let’s put in budgetary caps. Let’s fix healthcare. Let’s eliminate mounds of red tape and bullshit legal structure (has anyone ever looked at what percentage of GDP is made of legal activity? Probably a lot). Let’s figure ou thow to stop debauching the currency.
So basically for me, it would involve having a basic working infrastructure of education, services such as fire and police, and government oversight in key areas such as our financial system, anti-fraud, anti-crime, etc. We would fundamentally change the nature of the political process by instituting term limits and removing funding from elections – everyone gets X time on the major news channels and that’s it. No corporate sponsorship (corporations should be allowed to fail as well), no government for hire. Let’s dramatically scale back the entitlement programs as well.
I agree with your general point – I don’t even know what kind of government we have today. It’s clearly not a democracy.
“I lost my wife to a margin call. Wives get mad when you come home and say, ‘Sweetheart, I lost the house today.’” - Dennis Gartman on trading mistakes
the privatization of all property takes care of many of these issues (the question of how we get from “here to there” is a tricky one). the government must be able to tax or collect fees to provide for national defense. municipal police services would also be a funciton of the government as would the court system.
As ohai pointed out, the question is of what direction do we move (i.e. what is the ideal we continually strive for)? Libertarianism would continually try to find ways to effectively reduce the role of government towards its ideal, while maintaining individual property rights. like a fat ass who has stuffed his face for 20 years, it would take still many more years to get back into shape.
KISS MY CONVERSE.
I am not gay..And I am correct about that.
BTW, if one’s gayness factor is 0 doesnt that mean he is not gay?
" CFAvsMBA is the brah'da, that plays the role of another brah'da, that is a brah'da"
Bromion, “Europe” is not bankrupt. Norway, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, etc. No, 4-5 countries are having issues after having been around much longer than any pure capitalist country. Their issues stem more from inability to print Euros than anything. Now because the US has issues, apparently it’s no longer Democratic (wtf?). A libertarian government wouldnt’ have bailed out it’s banks. How f*cked would the US be right now?
The fact that you need public services (no civilization has EVER survived without them) points out the obvious flaw to libertarianism. You started with a “proof” from nature. That was instead shown to be a flawed representation as nature more closely resembles unrestrained capitalism so you scaled back your argument to governments and now that is being undermined. Once you abandon your logical scientific hocus pocus argument this all becomes as Ohai said, “a gayness scale” where you must argue things in degrees and with a sense of subjectivity. It was the argument that libertarianism is “correct” - as in a logical fact, that Ohai and I took issue with. And to that end, we were right.
Also, you started an earlier religious point saying “Turd was correct” thus taking on his stance. Then you went on to say “The reason I don’t believe in God is the biblical..” I corrected your false line of thinking and assumptions then you went on to rephrase your argument as one against organized religion.
Pick a freaking stance and an argument and stick with it man. Jaysus. This is why Libertarianism is falling apart. It’s underthought and held onto by too many idealistic college kids.
I used to smoke pot and go to class.
Sneak in ten minutes late with a bullsh*t excuse.
Slink down low at my desk.
Pray to god nobody asked me any questions.
I was the best teacher ever.
The US is quite democratic, but it is not pure democratic. People’s opinions can still be influenced by media (i.e. Romney’s $2 billion), and no one has perfect information. Democracy is an ideal, just like all this other stuff. The point at which it is “no longer a democracy” is subjective.
“I’m a CPA! I got money b***h!”
It’s a plutocracy in function, if democratic in name.
Europe is bankrupt. It is a failed socialist experiment. I understand your argument about individual countries, but basically all of the large countries are bankrupt – France, Spain, the UK (England as well), Italy, Portugal. The Scandinavian countries I believe are also functionally bankrupt. The only reason Germany is not bankrupt is because the structure of the EU funneled money into Germany from the other countries; it is effectively an agent of the bankruptcy process. The entire fiscal structure of the EU is a failed experiment.
There’s no reason the majority of services can’t function in a free market system. We don’t need to give stuff away for free. No point of my argument has been undermined in any way that I can see. Please point that out. It’s pretty rock solid from where I’m sitting – you keep dancing around but haven’t made any meaningful points yet.
Turd – my point was that Turd is correct that you can basically just say “libertarianism is correct” if you take a reductionist stance and work backwards. I’m not sure what the rest of his argument was (if there was one).
If you have a point, please feel free to make it. I honestly think you are just spouting jibberish, although I do respect you as a poster and think you contribute a lot to the forum overall. You are trying to nitpick my argument because you don’t have an argument of your own. I haven’t changed or corrected anything I have said, just corrected your mistatements.
“I lost my wife to a margin call. Wives get mad when you come home and say, ‘Sweetheart, I lost the house today.’” - Dennis Gartman on trading mistakes
France, the UK, and Italy are not bankrupt. Germany is not bankrupt, neither are any of the Scandi countries (wtf is functionally bankrupt?) Portugal has 10MM people (not a “big country”) Check your facts. Or better yet, stop making up facts to support your garbage.
Many government assets like roads, power, and sewage don’t operate reliably in a free market system. You want a great example? ENRON. The reason is simple, the returns are too low, the outlays too high, and distributing these services to remote populace is not something a private company would choose to do.
My arguments unlike yours have been consistent and so far, you’ve failed to overturn a single point. You just keep dancing. The arguments all center around the point (which was stated clearly in my last post) that there is no clear logical argument for libertarianism, it simply becomes a bunch of subjective drivel. But people often underthink it and present it as some logical statement. So far, you’ve taken a reductionist stance. I’ve overturned every attempt you’ve made, despite numerous attempts by you to change the argument, distract others, revise your wording, etc. Now it appears, you’ve given up and gone back to just saying “it’s correct”. Nice work, man. Congrats.
I used to smoke pot and go to class.
Sneak in ten minutes late with a bullsh*t excuse.
Slink down low at my desk.
Pray to god nobody asked me any questions.
I was the best teacher ever.
Give me one mis-statement you’ve correct. I looked back didn’t see one. You made up facts about Europe, highlighting your ignorance there (our group’s main function is European risk). You lied about your original stance on the relgion aspect. You backed down from your stance on natural evolution. What’s left?
I used to smoke pot and go to class.
Sneak in ten minutes late with a bullsh*t excuse.
Slink down low at my desk.
Pray to god nobody asked me any questions.
I was the best teacher ever.
England and Ireland are bankrupt. There is no way that England will be able to meet its future liabilities. They’re done. Portugal is not a big country but is bankrupt. Greece is bankrupt. If you go through, the majority of the Western European countries of any size are bankrupt. It’s impossible to argue against that.
This is a good explanation of functionally bankrupt: http://workforall.net/ScandinavianModel.html They are in decline.
I already quoted Enron, did you even read my posts? Go read my original post carefully and thoughtfully and you will understand why you are chasing your tail.
You don’t have an argument.
“I lost my wife to a margin call. Wives get mad when you come home and say, ‘Sweetheart, I lost the house today.’” - Dennis Gartman on trading mistakes
A libertarian government wouldn’t need to bail out banks because it wouldn’t allow a monopoly over money creation and force its citizens to use the currency it borrows in.
KISS MY CONVERSE.
But the argument that “all non-libertarian countries have failed” is negated by the fact that no libertarian country actually exists. Yes, the fact that no libertarian country exists does not disprove that no libertarian country can exist. However, even if all existing non-libertarian countries have failed, this does not mean all non-libertarian countries must fail. Maybe they just haven’t gotten the formula right.
Interestingly, despite Turd’s apparent insanity, my main takeaway came from one of his posts; all these concepts - libertarianism, socialism, democracy, are just ideals. They are directions where society can move from its current point. The definition of these concepts must be vague; if they were clearlty defined, society would no longer have an ideal once it reaches that definition.
All that stuff about physics and god was kind of confusing though. No idea where that came from.
“I’m a CPA! I got money b***h!”
UK 10 year yields are 1.56%, the markets disagree with you. You’re either dumb, or a liar. Ok, so you’re ignoring Italy (who’s only stressed at this point, not bankrupt, ignoring, Germany, France (no way France is bankrupt, you cannot possibly be that stupid), ignoring the scandi countries who are doing just fine thank you, and focusing on really three countries with roughly 30MM in population as the majority? Are you really this ignorant?
And apparently you’ve revised “bankrupt” to “in decline” with the Scandis. So apparently, in fantasy land, where libertarianism lives assets only go up. Just like in markets.
I used to smoke pot and go to class.
Sneak in ten minutes late with a bullsh*t excuse.
Slink down low at my desk.
Pray to god nobody asked me any questions.
I was the best teacher ever.
I gave you a reason, several of them. Hence Enron. Either that or you lied about the no reason part.
I used to smoke pot and go to class.
Sneak in ten minutes late with a bullsh*t excuse.
Slink down low at my desk.
Pray to god nobody asked me any questions.
I was the best teacher ever.
Damn, BS is son’in mufuckahs like alfredo in the godfather
in BS’s and Bchad’s world I am glad to call myself insane. i wake up everyday knowing that i live my life the way it’s meant to be lived and because of that i have a phenomenal life. BS and bchad sound like very unhappy people and i’m not surprised given that their world view necessarily requires them to contradict their requirements for a happy life. they cannot live their ideal and be happy because their ideal is suicide (for lack of a better word. yes it’s dramatic, but it captures the essence of their world view – which is incompatible with preservation and furtherance of human life).
KISS MY CONVERSE.
10Y Yield
UK 1.56%
FR 2.30
DE 1.27
SE 1.29
NL 1.69
CH 0.50
NO 1.58
FN 1.48
Bold = Bromion says are bankrupt. Get started on your shorts man, you’ll either be the richest HF manager in history or washed out.
I used to smoke pot and go to class.
Sneak in ten minutes late with a bullsh*t excuse.
Slink down low at my desk.
Pray to god nobody asked me any questions.
I was the best teacher ever.
Ohhhh kay.
I’m gonna just go ahead and make this Exhibit A in all future Rand / liberterianist arguments.
I used to smoke pot and go to class.
Sneak in ten minutes late with a bullsh*t excuse.
Slink down low at my desk.
Pray to god nobody asked me any questions.
I was the best teacher ever.
Low yields don’t necessarily indicate low chance of default. They could be showing expected deflation (probably not, but the point is that there are other explanations). Otherwise, maybe the market is irrational. When SPX was at 1550 in 2007, I’m sure a lot of people said those high levels meant the economy was doing great.
“I’m a CPA! I got money b***h!”
Ahaha..Turd’s last post does remind me of someone who has ‘seen the light’
______________________________________________________
You must be the square root of two cause i feel irrational around you
http://alphahive.wordpress.com/
It’s interesting to note that all those graphs and data points cut off around 2004. Do you want to know how the scandanivia model has been working in more recent times? It goes something like, almost full employment, low inflation extremely high hdi, extremely low corruption, high economic freedom, and very high per capita incomes.
This ‘evidence’ is a clearly biased hunk of out of date shit.
Oh, you can make that argument. But to present those countries as factually default, particularly, France, UK and the Scandis is just absurd and shows a lack of knowledge on the topic. You can rule out deflation since no amount of realistic deflation is going to give you a 1% yield if you’re a major default risk, and also, because threatened peers such as Portugal have yeilds of 10% or in the case of Greece, 25% on a 10 year bond.
I used to smoke pot and go to class.
Sneak in ten minutes late with a bullsh*t excuse.
Slink down low at my desk.
Pray to god nobody asked me any questions.
I was the best teacher ever.
Pages