OK Hannibal.
Another school shooting in rural America
Posts
Total:
256
-->
@badger
lol.
... but the people who are hungry and want a place to call home do care, that's what the "self-organizing" means.
Yeah they'll just start up their own multi-billion dollar corporation to compete with the already existing multi-billion dollar corporations. That's what runaway system of human organisation means.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
In an alternative system where the government doesn't play a role in creating big corporations through regulations and subsidies, the marketplace would likely be much more competitive. Without protective regulations that favor multi-billion dollar corporations and destroy small competition, smaller businesses would have an easier time entering the market and competing. This creates a more diverse economy where companies are rewarded based solely on how efficiently they operate and the quality of their products or services, not on their ability to navigate complex regulations or lobby for government favors.
If subsidies and and competition regulations were removed, companies would have to rely solely on their own performance and innovation to succeed. This creates a level playing field where businesses that operate efficiently and deliver real value to customers could thrive. Instead of large corporations getting an unfair boost through tax breaks, direct government payments, or competition regulations (cough, green energy)... every business would be responsible for covering its own costs and maintaining the public trust for survival instead of the government. We would see smarter, more sustainable practices and reduced wasteful spending.
Such a system would also result in more local and regional businesses succeeding, with efficient companies spread across the country. Instead of just a handful of mega-corporations controlling entire industries for the entire USA, there would be more regional competition, leading to lower prices, more innovation, and greater choice for consumers. The economy would become more dynamic, flexible, and responsive to needs as companies would have to constantly improve to stay ahead without relying on cronyism or government intervention.
Did I miss anything?
-->
@Greyparrot
Did I miss anything?
Well I wouldn't limit the problem to giant corporations. Small businesses down to the individual can be part of the problem when government infringes. Like a plumber or an electrician is not a multi-billion dollar corporation but when they can charge $200/hr effective rate (and some can) because government made it illegal to fix your house without them, illegal to be one without spending more time than a doctor, and then hired them to decide what qualifications there would be, that's basically the same thing.
I steer away from talking about government size as a problem (because it isn't) as I steer away from talking about company size as a problem (because it isn't). It's what government does and what companies can get away with. The 'greed' of the individual is just as reliable as the 'greed' of a megacorp. Both will always be able to convince themselves they're just that good.
An HOA (micro government) can easily become the primary force of tyranny in your life and that is saying something given the 50% slavery rate from the various levels of government.
A giant corp that can thrive in a truly free market is probably improving a lot of people's lives and doing it with an excellence that is difficult to surpass. The same is true of a tradesman whose genuine expertise means he can do the job so much faster than a homeowner or general laborer that it's worth it to pay him rather than illegal to pay anyone else.
Incomplete socialism (and it can never be completed because communism is impossible, CCP and USSR both had oligarchies at the head of the means of production) creates oligarchies, depressions, and logistical crises.
Then socialists use oligarchies, depressions, and logistical crises as the boogeyman of "capitalism" to frighten people into accepting more socialism. An example is the shrinking markets fallacy which Adolf Hitler and his socialists used to scare many young Germans into supporting their movement.
Big money's tireless working to corrupt government in order to crush competition is an excellent argument for abandoning any effort to curtail it.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Then socialists use oligarchies, depressions, and logistical crises as the boogeyman of "capitalism" to frighten people into accepting more socialism.
Socialist man bad. People dont need government. All problems can be solved by people without government. People strong.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Did you know that property, even private property, is actually defined by government? Government defines property. Cute cute.
-->
@Best.Korea
Did you know that I don't bother to respond to anything you say beyond frivolous banter because you've already admitted you didn't care if you contradicted yourself?Did you know that property, even private property, is actually defined by government? Government defines property.
-->
@badger
Your "effort to curtail it" is empowering government to corrupt the market... creating mechanism by which someone can make money by controlling government.... mmmmBig money's tireless working to corrupt government in order to crush competition is an excellent argument for abandoning any effort to curtail it.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Did you know that I don't bother to respond to anything you say beyond frivolous banter because you've already admitted you didn't care if you contradicted yourself?
I thought it was because you had no good response, but anyway, please tell us who defines property.
-->
@Best.Korea
please tell us who defines property.
Definitions are made by emergent consensus. Definitions do not create or destroy concepts, they just connect letters and sounds to the concept.
You shore up government. That's what you vote for. The alternative is to put your faith in pure greed. Money will never be a vote like a vote is, because it costs money. Your vote is free.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I steer away from talking about government size as a problem (because it isn't)
I think it is fair to talk about government size when operating under the premise: Power corrupts and Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely.
More government is synonymous with more power.
You shore up government. That's what you vote for.
You can't expect the cause of problems to be the cure.
That's homeopathy.
You're dumb as shit GP.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Definitions are made by emergent consensus. Definitions do not create or destroy concepts, they just connect letters and sounds to the concept.
So democratic vote defines property? Isnt that just Communism, what we have now? Majority choosing who owns what.
-->
@Greyparrot
I steer away from talking about government size as a problem (because it isn't)I think it is fair to talk about government size when operating under the premise: Power corrupts and Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely.More government is synonymous with more power.
the degree of power is not the same as the size of government, again see an HOA.
An HOA karen selling your house from under you because you planted the wrong bush is absolute power, does that mean the HOA is too big? That the HOA is trying to do too much? Will cutting off some of the grifters from the karen president help?
No, nothing will help but to remove the degree of authority.
An HOA that landscapes everyone's property is a "big" HOA, as in it's budget would be rather larger but that doesn't mean it's a bad HOA. Negotiating for a big contract like that means the HOA has significant leverage and landscapers love it when their jobs are near each other so you could expect that the price would be better when served collectively.
The problem with small government and the problem with big government begins and ends when the opportunity becomes duty. When consumer awareness becomes producer regulation. In other words when liberty ceases to be the absolute priority.
I know that "government is too big" has been the vernacular for libertarians for a long time, and these are the reasons I think it's misleading language. It gives libertarians the false hope that if you could just cut the budget things would necessarily improve and it gives people who like the idea of society wide cooperation the impression that such a thing is incompatible with liberty.
-->
@badger
I do trust that people will seek their own enrichment. It's a lot safer than trusting that they won't while giving them the opportunity (government mixing with economics).The alternative is to put your faith in pure greed.
Money will never be a vote like a vote is, because it costs money. Your vote is free.
Your vote has been bought, the cost was your public education.
-->
@Best.Korea
Definitions are made by emergent consensus. Definitions do not create or destroy concepts, they just connect letters and sounds to the concept.So democratic vote defines property?
Not traditionally.
Isnt that just Communism, what we have now? Majority choosing who owns what.
Defining the letters "property" to mean something other than property doesn't mean the majority or the individual or anyone is choosing who owns what.
Just because the nazis decided to stop defining jews as human doesn't mean jews weren't human or that the concentration camps weren't murder. That is simply assertion.
The concept of human, of murder, of life, of property all exist regardless of being named and they will always exist. The fact that I can know what they are in this instant means their existence (as a concept) is eternal. No matter what other concepts may be discovered no matter what languages link to them these concepts exist.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Defining the letters "property" to mean something other than property doesn't mean the majority or the individual or anyone is choosing who owns what.
Actually, if property is to exist, there must be a system which establishes who owns what. This is simple.
The concept of human, of murder, of life, of property all exist regardless of being named and they will always exist.
Now tell us who decides who owns what, if this question isnt too complicated for you. Is it?
-->
@Best.Korea
The concept of human, of murder, of life, of property all exist regardless of being named and they will always exist.Now tell us who decides who owns what, if this question isnt too complicated for you. Is it?
First, answer this: Who decides what is murder and what is not?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
First, answer this: Who decides what is murder and what is not?
People do, government does, but anyway, even if I were to respond with "no one", which is what you are trying to fish for, same answer cannot be said about property, since there must be a system which determines who owns what, otherwise, how do you know who owns what?
Now answer the question, or are you going to run away?
-->
@Double_R
I'm going to defend myself from somebody using a gun or knife. That attacker is not harmless because the person doesn't have a gun. A gun is not the only way to kill somebody. It is what it is.
-->
@FLRW
https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6217/posts/270401
Still the best post ever made on this website.
Still the best post ever made on this website.
-->
@Best.Korea
First, answer this: Who decides what is murder and what is not?People do, government does, but anyway, even if I were to respond with "no one", which is what you are trying to fish for, same answer cannot be said about property, since there must be a system which determines who owns what, otherwise, how do you know who owns what?
How do you know which killings are murder and which aren't?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
How do you know which killings are murder and which aren't?
People decide that, I already told you. After defining murder, they see which killings fit the definition of murder.
Now, are you really not going to answer a simple question I gave you?
Is your capitalist world view really crushed by the question of how property ownership is determined in capitalism?
I mean, its not even a hard question, common!
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The meaning of words is determined by their intentI see, well I intend to always be right. That should cut down on our disagreements?
It would if it were true, unfortunately you prefer to attack the caricature of me you invented so the disagreements will likely continue.
There is a reason we have constitutional scholarsThere is a reason that self-described constitutional scholars vehemently disagree with each other.
Yes, because it turns out that interpreting what words written down hundreds of years ago is far more complicated than 2+2=4.
If you want to exit clown world at some point I would suggest you start with the premise that words have meanings you can understand yourself and if the truth isn't objective then there is hardly any point talking about it.
I never said words don't have meaning, and I haven't said anything close to the truth isn't objective. You really hate responding to the things I actually say don't you? I wonder why...
What I said is that determining what someone is saying isn't as simple as you pretend it is. If I said to you I'm hungry, that's very simple to figure out. If I write a 5,000 word essay about my philosophy on gun violence, that's going to take a lot more work to figure out. That's how reality works. I suggest you learn to deal with it.
Or you can just keep fantasizing about civil war, since that seems to be what gets your dick hard.
And most people in their subjective opinions think that ensuring the safety of it's citizenryAt the cost of the primary function?
It's not an all or nothing proposition. Everything in life requires balance.
It's also a historical fact that violating rights is not the safest on the grand scale, but if you start thinking about morality as a means to an end the abstraction breaks and the slippery slope begins.
It's a slippery slope fallacy. There is no such thing as absolute rights because then they would come into conflict with each other, so reasonable restrictions have always been unavoidable. Your conception of rights as some impenetrable thing that would lead to the downfall of society should they be the slightest bit infringed is pure fantasy.
I guess a full paragraph was too much for your reading comprehension level. Let's try just this:That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men - Declaration of Independence
Reading comprehension indeed. Let's look back at what I said that you cut off, which is consistent with everything I've been saying since the start of this conversation...
"Nothing about this supports your assertion that the founding fathers saw protecting rights as the only legitimate purpose of government."
I never said they didn't see protecting rights as a legitimate purpose, I said nothing about that passage supports that they see protecting rights as it's only legitimate purpose, as in there could be other legitimate purposes as well, which contradicts your claim. To prove my position wrong with regards to the founding fathers (which is still not what you originally argued) you would need to show where they exclude other possible purposes as being legitimate, which is very difficult to do since they explicitly stated that the people have a right to alter their form of government as they see fit.
If that is what you were talking about you would have answered "of course not" to "they aren't obligated to".
I didn't say "of course not" because that's not my position. Again, *if* lawmakers are going to argue that the problem facing our society and leading to unwarranted deaths is an epidemic of mental illness then they have an obligation to offer some kind of solution to improve the situation. Not sure how anyone can disagree with that, but you're entitled to your own opinion to say they have no obligation to fix anything, even though that's literally their job.
Assuming it can be solved by law in a way that doesn't create other problems (such as violating rights). Your assumption of such is integral to the false dichotomy. A bit more expanded: "all problems must have legal solutions, those legal solutions must be simultaneously available, and anyone who doubts one proposal must be aware of and propose a real solution lest their doubts be cast aside as irrelevant"
If you don't think the problem can be solved by law then make that case, as silly as that idea is. Good luck.
-->
@Best.Korea
Which people?How do you know which killings are murder and which aren't?People decide that, I already told you.
-->
@Double_R
The meaning of words is determined by their intentI see, well I intend to always be right. That should cut down on our disagreements?It would if it were true, unfortunately you prefer to attack the caricature of me you invented so the disagreements will likely continue.
Wait so you get to decide my intent and the meaning of my words depends on my intent, which you decide. You must be an ADOL scholar, congratulations!
I never said words don't have meaning
You implied it in two different ways. First you said anything created by man is subjective. Words are created by man, therefore you said words are subjective. Secondly you said that the meaning of words depended on intent, and intent which apparently changes after you die making it some kind of mystical property only discernible by the tech priests known as "scholars".
What I said is that determining what someone is saying isn't as simple as you pretend it is.
"it's more complicated than that" isn't an argument.
And most people in their subjective opinions think that ensuring the safety of it's citizenryAt the cost of the primary function?It's not an all or nothing proposition.
It's one before the other, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. I was just pointing out that of the things I am objectively correct in saying, this is not a new or unique claim.
Everything in life requires balance.
What's your balanced intake of sarin gas? What's the right balance between murder and non-murder? How much contradiction should be mixed in with truth?
It's a slippery slope fallacy.
It's not a fallacy when the slope is slippery and there are a lot of people at the bottom of that slope who started with the best intentions.
There is no such thing as absolute rights because then they would come into conflict with each other
That just means you failed to derive them correctly.
so reasonable restrictions have always been unavoidable
As if those who pursued those restrictions tried to avoid them.
Your conception of rights as some impenetrable thing that would lead to the downfall of society should they be the slightest bit infringed is pure fantasy.
That's what they said about the united states, and the abolition of slavery, and universal suffrage, and letting the homosexuals keep their balls.
Reading comprehension indeed...
Fine, play stupid. Ctrl-v makes this easy:
[ADOL] The job of government is to protect rights.[Double_R] No, that's your opinion on what you think the government should be limited to.[ADOL] It's an objective fact, since that is the only legitimate use of force and the government is differentiated from any other organization by its use of force.[Double_R] Just take a moment to stop and think about what you're saying... You're arguing that the *purpose* of government is an objective fact. Does that not give you pause to recognize how absurd you are falling just to defend your position?[ADOL] No. I have always said this, and so did the people who started the government I live under.[The founders of the United States of America] That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men
Again, *if* lawmakers are going to argue that the problem facing our society and leading to unwarranted deaths is an epidemic of mental illness then they have an obligation to offer some kind of solution to improve the situation. Not sure how anyone can disagree with that
Well that's on you because I've explained three times how someone can disagree with that.
If you don't think the problem can be solved by law then make that case, as silly as that idea is. Good luck.
If you think you can prove that all problems are soluble by law until proven otherwise then make that case, as silly as that idea is. Good luck.
Let's use a diagnostic example: People dying of old age is a problem