Damn you guerilla, damn you

[guerilla]

I am certainly for limiting the power of the government and what we actually spend tax dollars on.

Why? You claim the government is above what individuals want.

Government can be efficient, and that's the libertarian argument.

No, it isn't the libertarian argument. The libertarian argument is non-aggression.

That's the small government conservative argument, the minarchist argument.

It's total nonsense.

Not to mention, Government can't be efficient because it is a monopoly. Can you truly tell me your landing page is the best variant if you haven't performed any split tests? Of course not. Efficiency is determined through competition.

Some things are better controlled by 1 entity, and it's kind of hard to do that without a monopoly on it.

Are you making an argument for one world government now?

It's a better way of dealing with hundreds of millions of people interacting with each other closely.

But again, how can you say it is better if you never test it?

You're basically refuting the small government argument with the world government argument, and you're denying any notion of free market economics.

This ^^^^ is the sort of contortion statists have to engage in to justify their position.

seems to me someone hasnt been laid in a while

Paul's a good looking guy, I am sure he does alright.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

Can you truly tell me your landing page is the best variant if you haven't performed any split tests? Of course not. Efficiency is determined through competition.


Are you making an argument for one world government now?


This ^^^^ is the sort of contortion statists have to engage in to justify their position.

It's hard to take you seriously when your arguments reduce down to making absurd analogies and drawing false conclusions.

I say "some things are better controlled by 1 entity" and you conclude that I'm arguing for a one world government. I've argued for small and limited government for a while now.

 

[JarredLv]

I say "some things are better controlled by 1 entity" and you conclude that I'm arguing for a one world government. I've argued for small and limited government for a while now.

If you think that controlling large groups of people is best done through governmental force, why stop on the national level. By your logic, the world would be better off run by a small, limited, single government.

 

[guerilla]

It's hard to take you seriously when your arguments reduce down to making absurd analogies and drawing false conclusions.

I say "some things are better controlled by 1 entity" and you conclude that I'm arguing for a one world government. I've argued for small and limited government for a while now.

How is it false? Look, I think you're a bright guy. No Einstein, but certainly not stupid despite the fact you keep posting stupid arguments.

Jarred below gets it.

If you think that controlling large groups of people is best done through governmental force, why stop on the national level. By your logic, the world would be better off run by a small, limited, single government.

When you say things, think through the consequences causally if your argument is correct.

 

[guerilla]

Can you prove that these societies would function better without government?

If society functioned better by killing off old people, would that be ok with you?

If society would function better if blacks were slaves, would that be ok with you?

If society would function better if we burned women alive at the stake, would that be ok with you?

See where I am going with this? If not, don't reply.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

When you say things, think through the consequences causally if your argument is correct.

There's just absolutely no grey-scale in life for you, is there? If someone makes a statement, in your eyes they have to be willing to support the most extreme example of that statement. If I think it's ok to fish off Western Canadian shores, then that must mean I'm all for the entire extinction of all fish species. That's the type of logic you use.

I... I don't know, I just don't get that, which is why having a rational discussion with you is impossible.

 

[samgeneric]

SUP3RNOVA, why are taxes not theft? It's not an assertion. The government requires you to pay taxes with threat of jail or other forms of force. If I did that to you, that would be theft, financial rape even. Why is it any different when a government does it?

 

[guerilla]

There's just absolutely no grey-scale in life for you, is there?

What is grey-scale?

If someone makes a statement, in your eyes they have to be willing to support the most extreme example of that statement.

Because we're talking about principles, about consistency, about logic, about ideas, yes.

It wasn't that extreme. He said that some solutions required a monopoly. If that's true, then the logical assumption to make is that many governments is inefficient.

If not, then he needs to explain why we need many monopolies. He's welcome to do so. He'd be arguing for anarchy between states though, which just makes my point.

Did you read Jarred's reply? We're both arguing a position articulated by Walter Block, an economist in Louisiana.

If I think it's ok to fish off Western Canadian shores, then that must mean I'm all for the entire extinction of all fish species.

That's a non-sequitur. That's not what Paul is arguing.

I... I don't know, I just don't get that, which is why having a rational discussion with you is impossible.

You're the guy who won't attack my argument and attacks me personally (which is probably a weak form of implied ad hominem).

You're the guy who won't answer the simple yes/no question I posted to the other thread. And you're the guy who claims he has already made up his mind and it can't be changed, but continues to come back to this argument to argue ... what? That I am a bad person? That my thinking is flawed?

I don't think my rationality is the issue.

If I am wrong, prove it, or make me prove it. Don't attack me personally and non-specifically. That's the behavior of someone who is dishonest and an intellectual coward.

 

[samgeneric]

There's just absolutely no grey-scale in life for you, is there? If someone makes a statement, in your eyes they have to be willing to support the most extreme example of that statement. If I think it's ok to fish off Western Canadian shores, then that must mean I'm all for the entire extinction of all fish species. That's the type of logic you use.

I... I don't know, I just don't get that, which is why having a rational discussion with you is impossible.

Seriously? What a cop out

If society functioned better by killing off old people, would that be ok with you?

This is a thing that happens. We are arguing about euthanasia, societies have existed where old people are sort of rolled away and left for dead. If you're going to make results-based arguments rather than principled arguments, you're going to have to answer for the consequences of your argument.

If society would function better if blacks were slaves, would that be ok with you?

Yeah, mega extreme. Slaves have never existed. How could you ask such a question? Again, if you're going to make results based arguments rather than principled arguments, you need to answer questions like these.

If society would function better if we burned women alive at the stake, would that be ok with you?

Too bad no one's ever been burned at stakes. I mean, seriously, these are all examples from history. At one time people thought that doing some fo these things were good ideas. Just over 50 years ago, Hitler thought killing Jews was a good idea. Pol Pot killed Cambodians in unimaginable numbers. Society dies when idiots decide that results matter more than principle. And if all you can say is "stop picking extreme examples" it's a good time to re-examine your analytical framework.

 

[johnmatrix]

Seriously? What a cop out


This is a thing that happens. We are arguing about euthanasia, societies have existed where old people are sort of rolled away and left for dead. If you're going to make results-based arguments rather than principled arguments, you're going to have to answer for the consequences of your argument.


Yeah, mega extreme. Slaves have never existed. How could you ask such a question? Again, if you're going to make results based arguments rather than principled arguments, you need to answer questions like these.


Too bad no one's ever been burned at stakes. I mean, seriously, these are all examples from history. At one time people thought that doing some fo these things were good ideas. Just over 50 years ago, Hitler thought killing Jews was a good idea. Pol Pot killed Cambodians in unimaginable numbers. Society dies when idiots decide that results matter more than principle. And if all you can say is "stop picking extreme examples" it's a good time to re-examine your analytical framework.

Fucking lol, seems like you just accidentally shot down guerilla. This is great stuff.

 

[kingofsp]

Resistance is victory.

And persistence.

 

[samgeneric]

Fucking lol, seems like you just accidentally shot down guerilla. This is great stuff.

Those bits were sarcasm. Read what I wrote, I clearly agree with G.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

If you think that controlling large groups of people is best done through governmental force, why stop on the national level. By your logic, the world would be better off run by a small, limited, single government.

Jesus the Strawman is in full force with anarchists. Again boiling things down to extremist absurd conclusions.

Why the fuck would it be sensible for a small and limited government to control the entire planet? Do you know what geography is and how it drives where societies settle? Why do we have countries? Do you think I'm against countries?

 

[Meatytreats]

You know I agree with all of this.

There is no service that is provided by the government that cannot be provided in a more cost-effective and efficient way by the free market.

Bingo! It's the combination of free enterprise and competition that creates the best possible scenario for individuals. It doesn't matter whether you are consuming goods, "building roads" or getting an education.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that it is bad for individuals when a monopoly is formed.

What's ironic is that the US government has anti-monopoly laws, yet they are a monopoly themselves.

 

[scottspfd82]

You anarchists are still unable to provide any evidence it works to provide essential services, for example roads, private security or defense, to an entire country. It's nothing but theory.

All I ask is for a some large-scale evidence to turn your utopian fantasy theories into fact.

Here's some large-scale evidence...

The US Senate has been debating whether the Government can kill or detain US citizens indefinitely without trial.

The state has already assumed the legal right to do so, and they *may* retroactively amend the law... How the hell is that even up for debate? They kill and imprison everyday. They come up with more ways to put people in prison everyday.

Do you think that the right to a fair trial is a basic human right? Why would anyone trust an entity that's already stripped you of that right?

When over 500k Iraqi children died due to sanctions in the 80's-90's, the Secretary of State went on record saying "It was worth it". Look at Iraq now. How could anyone ever make that statement, agree with that statement or support an entity that is psychotic enough to do and say something like that?

They blow people up with missiles launched from drones everyday in countries that we aren't at war with. They're occupying countries that we've never declared war with.

They have dropped nuclear weapons on civilians.

They supplied Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons which he went on to use for genocide.

They imprison more of our population per capita than any other country on the planet, that includes Russia, China, North Korea and every "terrorist" country in the world.

They, just this year, bought enough hollow-point bullets (illegal to use in war) to shoot every US citizen 5 times.

They spy on their own citizens constantly.

If you prefer to pay in cash you may be considered a terrorist and your neighbors are encouraged to report you.

They want to use armed drones to police their own people.

States are responsible for BILLIONS of deaths over the last 50 years, they continue to expand their power, limit individual freedom and initiate force against innocent people - yet people fanatically, almost religiously praise them.

That's just the tip of the iceberg, no one has seen how much evil they're capable of yet, but unfortunately we most likely will.

We are in perpetual war by design. If you had a kid in the last 10 years, he will most likely never experience peace time. It's not a stretch to say that he may very well be drafted and forced to fight in illegal/immoral wars of aggression.

Every politician on the planet is a notorious liar. If they will lie about one thing why not everything?

Knowing the evil that states have proven, time after time, that they are capable of and the atrocities that they are willing to commit against innocent people - I'd like to see some evidence that a world without them could possibly be more violent or more corrupt and evil than the world we live in right now.

 

[guerilla]

Jesus the Strawman is in full force with anarchists. Again boiling things down to extremist absurd conclusions.

It's not a strawman. A strawman would be saying you said X when you did not. He's simply asking you what the logical conclusion does your statement lead to? Is it not that if government should be monopolized, then all of these governments are [sic] inefficient.

It's not extreme in the least. In a formal debate, this would be very passe stuff.

Why the fuck would it be sensible for a small and limited government to control the entire planet?

Why is it sensible for it to control half a continent?

Why do we have countries?

Delusion?

Do you think I'm against countries?

I think we just want you to explain why there can be many governments if government is a necessary monopoly.

Are you saying that we should have many different monopolies?

I keep saying this, but when you have to justify something that is fundamentally irrational, it's inevitable you're going to dig a hole for yourself. What makes me sad is that you can't see how what you're doing is no different than a theist trying to justify the existence of a mystical being.

 

[JarredLv]

Jesus the Strawman is in full force with anarchists. Again boiling things down to extremist absurd conclusions.

Not a strawman at all. Nor is it extreme. I'm simply using your logic on a larger scale. If it is such an absurd conclusion, by all means tell me why. After all, you said:

Some things are better controlled by 1 entity, and it's kind of hard to do that without a monopoly on it. It's a better way of dealing with hundreds of millions of people interacting with each other closely.

So why not billions? Seems to me it would be just a matter of scaling the campaign. See what I did there?

Why the fuck would it be sensible for a small and limited government to control the entire planet?

That's what I want to know. So let's knock it back a notch in scale and ask why is it sensible for a government to control hundreds of millions spread out over an entire hemisphere?

Do you know what geography is and how it drives where societies settle? Why do we have countries? Do you think I'm against countries?

So geography is the impediment? That didn't stop the British Empire. Or the French...Roman, U.S., Ottoman, Portuguese-Spanish, etc.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

Not a strawman at all. Nor is it extreme. I'm simply using your logic on a larger scale. If it is such an absurd conclusion, by all means tell me why. After all, you said:



So why not billions? Seems to me it would be just a matter of scaling the campaign. See what I did there?



That's what I want to know. So let's knock it back a notch in scale and ask why is it sensible for a government to control hundreds of millions spread out over an entire hemisphere?



So geography is the impediment? That didn't stop the British Empire. Or the French...Roman, U.S., Ottoman, Portuguese-Spanish, etc.

Well this is where the topic becomes "tricky" as I've said, and something I can't admit to being an expert in (drawing property lines).

It is hard to say what is an "efficient" amount of land to be controlled by a government. Right now the model works well with societies of a few million people and societies of hundreds of millions of people. I don't think it would work well globally because the world is too diverse (and geography is a big reason). Telling an Islamic state that they must practice equality towards all citizens and religions is obviously unrealistic, so I don't see of a non-bloody way of changing things like that.

That being said, perhaps if continents broke down into smaller states with more choices (including anarchist "states") things would be more efficient and fair. For example I wouldn't say that absolving the US federal government and giving state governments 100% control over their borderlines is a bad idea. I don't know really. But I still believe governments help regulate large societies, and most people like living in large societies.

Court systems have been brought up multiple times here and I have never heard a good response. How is morality based? If you cut my finger off, do I have the right to hire a security firm to hunt you down and cut your finger off? If you steal $100 from me but have no money for me to take back from you, do I have the right to hire a security firm to cut your finger off as payment? Who decides the validity of moral actions? How are there consistent laws to act by and pay consequences to?

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

Hey the anarchists stopped responding when security & courts were brought up, brilliant!

 

[scottspfd82]

Hey, the Statists stopped responding when I pointed out genocide! Brilliant!

Seriously Paul, I wish you the best. We don't agree on things, that's fine. I tried to help. Maybe I'm wrong. I often am. But you should know that I had what I believed to be your best interest in mind when making my points.

You could be right.

I hope you're not.

Regardless, best of luck.