@kmel5150 This is the only time I agree with Kelly, and I think she polished on a good point from which I saw. Republicans don't always agree with Obama, but that doesn't mean that he should be impeached for nothing. Being a terrorist, a Marxist, where is that coming from? Really, and I hate to say it, I think it was jealously that led Tancredo's argument.
@Doodoorump "No one has heard of"? Only painfully ignorant people such as yourself. A mere google search will bring up the necessary .pdf to fill yourself in on what I am referring to.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK I'm quite sure most people---economics majors included---haven't read that little ode to anarcho capitalism. Thus far everything I read is a rose-colored spin on obvious attempts by private organizations at coercion. I suppose it's easy to see anarcho capitalism as a success when you state that cowboy associations who enforced their rules by way of violence were just 'private security firms' and then explain the larger bad ones as 'adjuncts to government.'
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK So, by the time the article I read was done qualifying all clearly bad examples of private associations as either 'selling a different product' or 'adjuncts to government' I guess the Wild West seems pretty nice. What a joke.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK The best you've ever been able to come up with are obscure sources with dubious accuracy, at best. The article I read about this was no different.
@Doodoorump "The article I read about this"? We're talking about a book(Available as a free pdf online, too!) that anyone with even a 2 year degree in economics has read.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Just because you keep repeating this little 'everyone with a 2 year degree in economics' talking point doesn't make it so, and I suspect that just the opposite is true. Anyway, appealing to 'wild west' style judging means nothing, even in the face of your source, which outlines several private firms and the several -different- methods they went about settling disputes, two out of the three firms explicitly discussed using violence.
@Doodoorump What's wrong with using violence in that context, libtard? Honestly, I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore, considering argumentum ex silentio kinda applies when you disappear for several months, only to return after I bait you multiple times.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK If you're complaining about the state using violence to coerce individuals against their will, a private entity doing the same thing is nothing better than a government. As usual, you're whining about factors extraneous to the actual argument and calling names.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No, I have not heard of the NAP. You still have yet to really counter the basic point that it is eminently rational for individuals to collectively agree to protection by a government. What they have to lose is everything, what they have to gain is an entity increasing productivity by taking a service off their collective hands.
@Doodoorump Non-aggression principle, you fucking moron. I don't have to "counter" that, because I agree with it. I simply feel the free market would provide better services than the States we have now. There would be hundreds of mini-States when it comes right down to it.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK You've been against the concept of the state this entire time. But that's fine. So long as you're now not arguing government is inherently wrong, cool enough.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK We didn't. You either changed positions or forgot your original claim---namely, that a State should not have the monopoly on force. However, you've just admitted several mini-States are acceptable, which would have the same monopoly.
@Doodoorump "Essentially" Mini-States. By which I mean free market competition from competing forces until one faction got a serious foothold-Others would still be around, but not have nearly as much influence in that area unless the other faction collapsed or something. Make sense?
Watch a Pre-January 8th copy of Inception. Listen closely when the actors say imagine, reality, safe, and envelope, or point pistols. You'll hear the words, Loughner, offin' her, part of the word Giffords, and much more. Some even say they hear, do it.
The only reason that I do not support impeachment against B.O. is because that very act would legitimize him as President of the United States. There is so much wrong with B.O.. I support all popular peaceful moves to remove B.O. from the White House in the most expedicious way possible/
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion - limited excessively by judicial activism 1942 without citing any precedent. All previous cases of same charges overwhelmingly ruled in favor of religious expression in public area, citing numerous precedents.
People (supposedly) elect Presidents
Presidents appoint judges.
Judges interpret the Constitution.
Judges overturn years of precedent, and scorn the will of the people with godless, agenda driven interpretation of the Constitution.
Impeach the lying, racist, Muslim Islamic jihad lover, Marxist, communist, socialist progressive, law breaking, utilizer of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, Constitution burning, supporter of Black Liberation Theology, Farrakhan supporting, Black Panther supporting, bankrupting, irresponsible, African Colonial despot wannabe! ALREADY!
I agree with Mr. Tancredo! President Obama is an absolute threat to our American way of life. He hates America and the basic principles we stand for. Not only that, he is not even an American born citizen.
Retarded. Absolutely ridiculous that a) this gets aired on television under the tenuous banner of journalism and b) so many people eat up this bullshit. Bush not a committed ideologue? You mean the same guy who, according to the former chief counter-terrorism advisor, after 9/11 agreed with the reasoning of going into Iraq because 'there were better targets?'
a)I didn't hear anyone say Bush wasn't a problem but Bush is not in office any longer. b)When people voted for BO they thought they were voting for hope and change from what Bush was doing. They had no clue he would turn out to be a Marxist. TT is right on mark!
@semprefedele1 Oh, I see. Where were you when he -was- in office? Were you agreeing with the fringe loons who said he should be impeached for his actions? Certainly they were on par with whatever Obama has done---newsflash, George Bush presided over the same unprotected border and did NOTHING as well. As for your other 'point'---explain to me what Marxism is.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Every 'great' man of history can be construed to be these things. If you think that abolishing the state would lead to 'less' of such men, you are sorely mistaken.
@Doodoorump Who said I dismiss the notion of liars, thieves, and murderers still existing in an ancap world? I do believe that it would lead to optimal results, however. Care to say otherwise?
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Do you know what the burden of proof is...? You see, there's a thing called the status quo---life with government. You are presenting a claim outside the status quo. The burden of proof is on you to prove somehow that life without government will be so much more 'optimal'
@Doodoorump I'll give you a simple example: Everyone knows that forced monopolies are bad, right? If we extend that notion to its logical conclusion at the State, we can guess that the State's continued monopoly on violence is a bad thing.
Ignoring doomsday predictions like "Warlords will kill everyone!!!" and other value judgments, it appears to me that competition will help bring prices down and provide better service.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Everyone doesn't know that, though. There are some monopolies that are good. And yes, I guess you have to -ignore- those predictions because that's the only way your paradigm can remain tenable. If you think thugs start governments, abolishing the government won't rid the world of them. What's to keep the best private police force from simply acquiring other police forces? Force could rightly be considered to be a natural monopoly. (contd)
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Lets say we have 10 mercenaries, and the first group hires five of them. Now, if another group wants to start, they have to convince the other five mercenaries that it's better to join their group than to the other one. However, each mercenary will realize that if they join, it could be them versus 5 people---it'd be much easier to just get a job with the first firm.
There is no point where the marginal product of an additional mercenary is outrun by additive cost (contd
@Doodoorump That's not a very good analogy, that ignores a multitude of additional possible subjective factors. For one, what's the equpment of group 1? Will additional mercs have to get substandard equipment? Can another group advertise items such as a grenade launcher that will help with "Crowd control"?
That analogy of yours is just way too simple and fundamentally flawed.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Not really. Once the first group has the five guys, it doesn't really matter what they have, because convincing the other five to join another firm will be too hard and the startup costs too high. Even giving them all the best equipment money can buy leads to increasing returns...their marginal productivity never goes down, so there's always an incentive to keep producing violence.
...because they will be unable to enforce their contracts, strike fair deals, etc. By not participating in the firm, they are doing something that no human being can do, give up their inalienable rights. The only remedy is to force all into the force firm. I have thought this one through, actually. Before you start sputtering out more talking points, give it a think.
@Doodoorump No, it's quite obvious that you haven't even begun to think the mechanics of what you said at all. You seem to be on your last legs, in all honesty.
You don't understand what coercion is, you're clearly ignorant of the Golden Rule/Non Aggression Principal, and you think coercion is the remedy to your outright stupidity.
Sorry, but it's the truth in this case. Come back when you're far less ignorant than you are right now.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Well, you managed to sputter on and on about whatever it is... Again. Maybe you don't think 'either starve or buy MY goods on my terms' is a form of coercion...but if you don't think that's a form of coercion, then why would you think a government monopoly of force is any different? 'either die by my hand or buy MY goods' is what they say, right? Difference, please? But hey, you got to sputter sputter sputter didn't ya...
@Doodoorump Practice what you preach when you go on about debate etiquette. All I see here are an impressive amount of personal attacks and a rather baseless grasp of terminology.
Coercion is the use of force to achieve an end. You're not making the fundamental distinction between a marketer who's simply employing a situation to his advantage(Anybody else can come and compete with him) to someone who uses force to make sure he keeps that advantage.
When you understand what the word 'de facto' means, come back.
When you can give me the honest difference between 'buy my goods or starve' and 'buy my good or be killed by me,' come back.
The results are the same. Now one is far more blatant, true. The other is more subtle.
In your 'answer' as it were, how is the government not using his situation to his advantage, in this case the natural monopoly on force? Others could compete, right?
@Doodoorump The problem lies in how those funds are obtained. When the State brainwashes the masses and employs coercion to stop competition, that's unacceptable. But if they were voluntarily funded and didn't try and gun down the competition? That's fine by me.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Alright, so please, tell me the difference: If one man sells the food in town, how I am I not -forced- to buy his goods or starve? Can't be competition, because time scales and barriers to entry are too high. So, please, tell me...what's the difference?
@Doodoorump Why are these barriers to entry too high? Your little imaginative world that relies on a host of contrivances to make the fanciful argument that voluntary associations=coercion hasn't made the cut yet.
I can always leave if the place is that much of a hellhole. And again, before you try and say "Oho! So you agree with me on the State!" you ignore a rather glaring key aspect... The storeowner acquired his property voluntarily.The State acquires through theft and coercion.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Do you know what a natural monopoly is? Why do you think it comes into existence? If someone is the sole provider of food in your area, chances are there are a ton of reasons no one is competing with him. And actually, you have no idea how the storeowner acquired his property. It's great you assumed that (a weakness you seem to point out in social contract theory yet fail to understand here). So again, what's the difference...?
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Since every soldier needs roughly the same thing: a gun and some clothes, but the damage that you can do as you keep adding soldiers continues to multiply. High barriers to entry, plus neverending marginal benefits from adding soldiers. Seems like a natural monopoly to me...and one that, if it is to arise, should be controlled and be accountable to the people. Hence, the need for a government
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK How is it coercive? The monopoly is collectively owned, or at least as collectively owned as possible, and it now enforces rights that were once purely negative. In order for everyone to receive that protection, there must be -some- degree of coercion. It's not as if market forces aren't coercive themselves...
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Yes, keep saying 'barrel of a gun,' that'll drive the point home. And no, market forces don't have to 'convince' you in all cases. It's de facto coercion if there's one guy in town who sells food, is it not? It's not hypocrisy. If our force firm grows to be a natural monopoly, there will be those who can afford its services and those who cannot. Since it is the sole provider of this service, those who can't afford it are in effect giving up their rights...(contd)
@Doodoorump Uhhh, no. You're clearly wrong here, kid. You've revealed your ignorance of terminologies and are way out of your league.
It's a monopoly, not "coercion", if a guy simply happens to be the only person selling food in town. There's plenty of opportunity for others to sell their own foods and compete with him. If he shoots(or threatens to) anybody who tries to compete, now that is what is called coercion. Learn the difference.
And there are certain inalienable rights. NAP, kid.
You don't seem to know what 'de facto' means. If one guy is selling food in town, you pretty much HAVE to buy it from him. There is no other way for you to survive. You are -effectively- being coerced to buy his food from him...
@Doodoorump No, I'm not. You're ignorant, sorry. You have no conception of coercion and make up bullshit from a Marxian perspective to try and justify your claims. That's just a basic fact of you, sorry.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No, let's spend another month with you just denying the terms I used exist like we've already done, only for you to realize it is you who is actually ignorant of the expansive way these concepts are framed. Just go to a dictionary and look up 'de facto.'
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Yes, just like they have multiple options in dealing with the natural monopoly of government. No, please, tell me how, if you need to eat every day or two, you're going to start a business/grow your own food/to compete with the already established business? You're going to -have- to buy his goods, even if you want to compete... So simple.
@Doodoorump No, not really. As I said, you're really not getting the difference between coercion and voluntarism. You need to overcome that intellectual hurdle before you try and speak to me like you know what you're talking about.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No, you just don't understand that conditions governing a natural monopoly of force can apply to any other basic necessity. If there is one police force in town, if you want any part of your rights to be enforced, you -have- to buy those services. Just like if there is one man selling food, if you don't want to starve, you -must- buy his goods.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK If you don't buy the goods, you will die, correct? How is that not you being all but forced into buying a good? And what's the difference, -again- between that and the government?
No. You are just assuming he acquired it in that way. Just like we are supposed to assume the state came by its monopoly of force through 'voluntary' consent. The fact that someone happens to have a monopoly on good x doesn't speak on the means by which they 'acquired' such a monopoly. If you wish to say the store owner 'must' have gotten his monopoly through voluntary force, then I'd ask what's the difference? The state sells a good and it has the monopoly on that good
@Doodoorump Again, how does he have a monopoly? I show multiple reasons as to why it isn't, and yet you stubbornly insist "It is!!!!". The only one who seems to be bad at being shown the inconsistencies is you.
Yet again, the State stifles and mutes competition. How is that comparable to a storeowner who has to compete with others?
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK If he's the only one selling food in town, you don't understand how he has a monopoly? You didn't show multiple reasons for anything. You just said 'oh well you could compete with him!' and I said, no, not really, otherwise others would be competing with him if the barriers to entry were so low. Even if you still wanted to maintain that position, then it becomes a question of well why can't people simply 'compete' with the government's monopoly on force?
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK They aren't contrivances. If someone has a monopoly, it's likely due to the fact that barriers to entry are high. How else would they have garnered such market share? It's because so few firms can afford to compete, for whatever reason.
@Doodoorump Yes, they are contrivances. You're outright ignoring deductive conclusions to support your contrived claim that some coercion is involved.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Your 'deductive' conclusions are like most liber-thinking 'conclusions,' they just ignore other possibilities. Your scenario of how he came to his position of market dominance is just one of many possible scenarios. Get it? It's not the only one.
"The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:
X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK I didn't ridicule you. You're just not getting where these situations are nearly identical, yet you give preferential treatment to one good over the other.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Yes, because your scenario doesn't have contrivances? For yours to work we'd have to assume that this band of thieves are the only ones in town who have guns/weapons, which is ridiculous. For an entire swath of land to come under their control, they must have acquired substantial consent.
@Doodoorump Mmm, how does my scenario imply contrivances? Again, you're largely ignorant of the founding of "This great country".
The Constitution was ratified by the elite before any substantial opposition could form, and the first attempt at rebellion was quickly put down and the populace subjugated. Believe it or not, Hobbes, most people would rather not die. Since they perceive the State to be mightier than they, they submit to it rather than perish.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Complete misread of the ratification of the US constitution. Substantial opposition in fact did exist, and in fact, the fight was close.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Sound historical evidence: a massive propaganda campaign of pamphlets, articles, etc between federalists and anti-federalists. Literacy rates, even in the South, were over 50%, and they were approaching 75-80% in the Northern colonies. Add this to the word-of-mouth generated, and it's not so silly to assume that most, if not an overwhelming majority, of the people knew about the constitution
@Doodoorump Here's something for you- In 5 states, again, the Constitution was ratified in less than a few weeks. Don't give me that "Word of mouth" assumption. Again, you're relying on your assumptions... I have deductive logic and the historical record on my side.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Yes, just because you keep asserting that you have those things on your side doesn't make it so. The buzz around the constitution had been brewing for quite awhile before it was presented for ratification. Pamphlets had been circulated and the dialogue was intense.
@Doodoorump I have no evidence? Quite to the contrary, young man. I'll have enclosed an article to you in a private message by the time you've read this message.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK The article you sent talks about Hamilton vs Jefferson and the development of the former's ideas in our country, it says nothing about the dialogue regarding the constitution. Next
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No skin off my back, the onus is on you to prove your proposition, since I already rebutted your assertion of 'not many people knowing...' with my own reasons. If you don't 'help' then you lose on this point.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK The fourth paragraph that has no source in reference? The fourth paragraph that essentially is a few sentences of asserted opinion without facts to back it up? I should have known.
@Doodoorump An ad hominem attack like that isn't going to win you many points. Why don't we move this to a slightly more professional setting than YouTube comments? Or is that too much for you?
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK The leap you just made is the same leap you critique in the social contract. Just because he is in a position of market dominance, doesn't necessarily mean he got there by legitimate means. If you want to assume he did, fine, but then don't cast doubt on the state's monopoly on force. Walk yourself through it. If someone didn't -want- this firm's good, what other option would they have? Starve?
@Doodoorump Again, you're ignoring the basic fact of -how- he got such a high market share. Kid, if you can't explain this very clear and simple point, the basic facts of market forces I just stated prevail. It's that simple.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Just because -you- are assuming he got his market share by 'selling a great product' doesn't mean that's how he actually got his market share. Get what I'm saying? Likewise, just because the government has a monopoly on force doesn't mean they acquired their territory/monopoly legitimately. See how that ties in? See how you're making excuses for the firm but not for the government, which is exactly the same save the goods it sells? (violence v food)
@Doodoorump No, I don't. You're begging the question as to how he got to where he is today. Contrary to what you apparently believe, growing your own food isn't that hard to do. What's preventing others from competing with him?
Again, the key difference is the State -forces- you to pay for Police and other "Public services" whether you want to or not. You're still stuck in a bizarre no-logic world.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Growing your food isn't hard to do? lol Sure, guy. Do you know how much land it takes to feed a single family? Do you know how much work that is, in addition to whatever other work you might be doing? You're stuck in a world where a) you don't understand the difficulties inherent to farming, b) you don't understand how a natural monopoly on food -forces- people to buy goods from one seller.
@Doodoorump Again, an appeal to ridicule. Why do you dodge around telling me the contrivances that make your world possible? The only reason the State keeps its monopoly is through force and deception.
By the way, it really isn't that hard to grow your own food.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No, you keep asserting that the state keeps its monopoly is through force and deception. That's it, that's all. I didn't appeal to ridicule---what you're saying is just absurd. It takes 3-5 acres of land to feed an adult. To you maintaining that is 'easy,' I suppose. I'm not dodging around contrivances. You don't seem to understand how hard it is to farm and that certain situations render competition next to impossible.
@Doodoorump What conditions are these? I've provided sound deductions for how the **** the guy could possibly manage to avoid any and all competition(Namely, being Jesus), and you're just sitting there and stubbornly insisting "Nuh-uh!"
Is there a reason you haven't given up, by the way? I assumed you had when you ran away crying for about 5 days.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No, you didn't provide sound anything. It's not that hard to avoid competition...especially when you've gotten a head start in a particular industry. Most people -would- give up with people like you and Quest...and you both seem to be lost causes
@Doodoorump An appeal to ridicule? You've really fallen on hard times, man. Yet again, I provide sound assertions that I ask you to address... Which you end up ignoring in favor of saying my opinion's "Silly" .
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Yes, it does. Your little 'oh they can just compete with him' argument is nullified by the difficulty in competing. You know, the whole idea of a 'natural' monopoly. You want to accept the natural monopoly on its terms with the government, but won't allow it to exist in a private situation with an essential good, because you know that it puts you in a dilemma.
@Doodoorump No, I refuse to accept it because your little situation is inherently bullcrap. Again, what's stopping competition? In the State, it outlaws competition and -forces- people to purchase its "Protection".
That's hardly on the level of an exploitative entrepreneur, who's HELPING to FEED the masses.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK How so? I just told you what's stopping competition---the startup costs are too high, in that case. The same goes for a private defense force natural monopoly. The initial capital cost and human cost is too high to encourage actual competition.
@Doodoorump Again, you're not elaborating on where these higher costs are. Who's making these goods so expensive? How are they maintaining an exclusive right over them? Persuasion, in which case noone is starving... Or force?
You can't seem to think this through all too well.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No, they just own the land. It's -that- simple. I guess you don't know how farming works. See, if I own all of a town's farm land, it's going to be extremely hard---read: almost impossible---for anyone in that town to compete with me. You just don't seem able to connect reality dots. The state does the same thing. They acquire all means of force in an area, and it becomes difficult for anyone to compete. However, anyone not partaking of their good is put at risk-cont
@Doodoorump No, you don't have an inkling of how farming works. The State acquires through theft and deception. You're trying to use a -completely unrelated- example to justify your laughable viewpoints.
Again, the State outright murders anyone who competes. A businessman can not, or else he would be a thug.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK You're just in a dilemma and you don't know how to get out of it save by asserting over and over again that the state does X and this other guy doesn't do X, which is ridiculous. Both leave their buyers with little if any options.
@Doodoorump How that becomes achieved is the key issue here, buckaroo. Again, the market forces guy is subject to competition... The State, on the other hand, murders its competitors.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK But you are just assuming that. Since market forces are always at play, the state also is subject to competition, right? There could be other police forces, why can't there be? Why is it that you think the state somehow can magically do away with all competition, but this other fellow can't? It's ridiculous.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK And tell me what is different if this man has a natural monopoly on food? You are -forced- to buy the good or die. What is the material difference?
@Doodoorump The burden of proof is on -you- to explain why costs would somehow be too high. And again, an aggressive monopoly is -not- the same as a natural monopoly.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK And I already did. The initial investment for real estate and labor required to start a competing firm are too great. Your only response was to state that farming wasn't that hard---an outright lie.
@Doodoorump Why are the resources "Too high"? In today's over-regulated and superinflated economy, yes... But we're talking about a different system, are we not?
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK If someone acquires all of the arable land in town, they gain a natural monopoly on the farming in that town. That's how natural monopolies form, when the capital investment...in this case just acquiring the land. The main point is this: if there was a monopoly on food, and there were some people who couldn't afford the good...is it wrong to force everyone to pay some sort of amount to ensure everyone can eat? Give that question a think.
@Doodoorump No, A isn't making B do anything. B has a choice. There is no threat or gun leveled at his head coercing him. If B chooses to do whatever it takes (voluntary exchange) with A to get a service he wants, then he isn't a slave at all.
@Doodoorump No, it is not. Again... If B chooses to do whatever it takes (voluntary exchange) with A to get a service he wants, then he isn't a slave at all.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Because you're not making any sense. B has no choice but to buy the good. There is no other choice if he does not want to starve. He must buy it on A's terms and at A's price. Literally, what you're saying can be subbed into the natural monopoly of force question. I can say, well, to get the good of 'A's force, B must do whatever it takes to get the service he wants. Does that take away the root problem? No.
@Doodoorump A natural monopoly is, again-NOT the same as a State-enforced monopoly, which is the threat of force. Your refusal to understand this distinction highlights your incredible lack of reading comprehension.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No, you just keep repeating maxims over and over again---we all know you've memorized the Mises playbook. What is the material difference between someone who has goods you -must- buy or starve, and the state's good of force?
@Doodoorump The fact that one isn't coercion, and the other is? You're trying to use two diametrically opposed examples and trying to conflate them together. It just ain't gonna work, son.
@Doodoorump Not in the least, boy. Again, study the action of events taking place. One is, you're shot to death unless you do as he says. The other one, you're free to do as you wish.
One is voluntary exchange, the other is coercion.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Answer the question...what is the material difference? One situation is better because I have the 'choice' to die? Don't I have the same choice in the other scenario...?
@Doodoorump No, you do not. One is absent of the initiation of force. Your refusal to acknowledge this basic difference in human action is incredibly childish at best.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK So, despite the fact that in both scenarios, you die, and you have no way of not dying, you are saying that since the natural monopoly owner didn't expressly say 'buy my goods or I'll...' now somehow differentiates the two acts, on a moral level, despite equivalent consequence? Let's take it a step further then...
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK ...let's say the natural monopoly owner simply 'can't' lower the price of his goods so that the individual can buy them, despite the fact that they need them. What if he forced everyone to pitch in and save this person's life? Does that violate the non-aggression principle? Even when the result of which would be better than any other possible course of action?
@Doodoorump We're discussing the logic of human actions here, not "The moral equivalent" or whatever statist drivel you scrape up.
If he outright forced them at gunpoint or whatever to pitch in, that's a violation of the non aggression principle. You're acting very childish in how you go about this.
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK And you are literally saying that the community where we saved a life, yet violated the non-aggression principle, is worse than the one where we didn't save a life and didn't violate it. In effect, me forcing you to do anything at all is worth more than a human life, then?
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK So then, you are saying that me forcing you to save someone's life at little, if any, prohibitive material cost to your self...is actually worse than someone dying?
Tom Tancredo ...former presidential candidate is a bitter,bitter Buffoon in a Ballon nothing but hot air..simple simon moron.
mikeblack2uk 9 months ago
" He's a one time presidential candidate who served five terms in Congress " - Megyn Kelly, she left out the fact that he's a fucking asshole
kmel5150 10 months ago
@kmel5150 This is the only time I agree with Kelly, and I think she polished on a good point from which I saw. Republicans don't always agree with Obama, but that doesn't mean that he should be impeached for nothing. Being a terrorist, a Marxist, where is that coming from? Really, and I hate to say it, I think it was jealously that led Tancredo's argument.
quickpickandthick 9 months ago
When you propose a term that no one has heard of, not being able to define the term casts serious doubts on your credibility
Doodoorump 10 months ago
@Doodoorump "No one has heard of"? Only painfully ignorant people such as yourself. A mere google search will bring up the necessary .pdf to fill yourself in on what I am referring to.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 10 months ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No, it doesn't. I type in 'Wild West Judging' and it brings up a bunch of unrelated garbage.
Doodoorump 8 months ago
@Doodoorump "Not so wild, wild west". Anyone who has even a basic understanding of Economics will have read that book at some point in college.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 8 months ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK I'm quite sure most people---economics majors included---haven't read that little ode to anarcho capitalism. Thus far everything I read is a rose-colored spin on obvious attempts by private organizations at coercion. I suppose it's easy to see anarcho capitalism as a success when you state that cowboy associations who enforced their rules by way of violence were just 'private security firms' and then explain the larger bad ones as 'adjuncts to government.'
Doodoorump 8 months ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK So, by the time the article I read was done qualifying all clearly bad examples of private associations as either 'selling a different product' or 'adjuncts to government' I guess the Wild West seems pretty nice. What a joke.
Doodoorump 8 months ago
@Doodoorump So this is the best you can come up with after six months...? A simple appeal to ridicule? You disappoint me, libtard.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 8 months ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK The best you've ever been able to come up with are obscure sources with dubious accuracy, at best. The article I read about this was no different.
Doodoorump 8 months ago
@Doodoorump "The article I read about this"? We're talking about a book(Available as a free pdf online, too!) that anyone with even a 2 year degree in economics has read.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 7 months ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Just because you keep repeating this little 'everyone with a 2 year degree in economics' talking point doesn't make it so, and I suspect that just the opposite is true. Anyway, appealing to 'wild west' style judging means nothing, even in the face of your source, which outlines several private firms and the several -different- methods they went about settling disputes, two out of the three firms explicitly discussed using violence.
Doodoorump 7 months ago
@Doodoorump What's wrong with using violence in that context, libtard? Honestly, I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue anymore, considering argumentum ex silentio kinda applies when you disappear for several months, only to return after I bait you multiple times.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 7 months ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK If you're complaining about the state using violence to coerce individuals against their will, a private entity doing the same thing is nothing better than a government. As usual, you're whining about factors extraneous to the actual argument and calling names.
Doodoorump 7 months ago
@Doodoorump Have you never heard of the NAP?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 7 months ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No, I have not heard of the NAP. You still have yet to really counter the basic point that it is eminently rational for individuals to collectively agree to protection by a government. What they have to lose is everything, what they have to gain is an entity increasing productivity by taking a service off their collective hands.
Doodoorump 6 months ago
@Doodoorump Non-aggression principle, you fucking moron. I don't have to "counter" that, because I agree with it. I simply feel the free market would provide better services than the States we have now. There would be hundreds of mini-States when it comes right down to it.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 6 months ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK So then all you are arguing for, in actuality, is 'more' States. You are not arguing against the core concept of government.
Doodoorump 6 months ago
@Doodoorump When was I ever? All I've claimed is that the Free Market will fix or improve it.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 6 months ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK You've been against the concept of the state this entire time. But that's fine. So long as you're now not arguing government is inherently wrong, cool enough.
Doodoorump 6 months ago
@Doodoorump Glad to see we cleared up that misunderstanding.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 6 months ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK We didn't. You either changed positions or forgot your original claim---namely, that a State should not have the monopoly on force. However, you've just admitted several mini-States are acceptable, which would have the same monopoly.
Doodoorump 6 months ago
@Doodoorump "Essentially" Mini-States. By which I mean free market competition from competing forces until one faction got a serious foothold-Others would still be around, but not have nearly as much influence in that area unless the other faction collapsed or something. Make sense?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 6 months ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK You mean how municipalities and counties function? :)
Doodoorump 6 months ago
@Doodoorump Good point Again, I just feel the free market could do those things more efficiently. :)
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 6 months ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK How do you think townships and municipalities form? It's virtually the same process as what you're talking about.
Doodoorump 6 months ago
@Doodoorump Fair enough.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Watch a Pre-January 8th copy of Inception. Listen closely when the actors say imagine, reality, safe, and envelope, or point pistols. You'll hear the words, Loughner, offin' her, part of the word Giffords, and much more. Some even say they hear, do it.
jamestargetedindiv 11 months ago
The only reason that I do not support impeachment against B.O. is because that very act would legitimize him as President of the United States. There is so much wrong with B.O.. I support all popular peaceful moves to remove B.O. from the White House in the most expedicious way possible/
Hagion7206 1 year ago
I have difficulty believing my ears. Megyn is actually defending Obama, Tancredo is a big Moron.
Eyeopener2010 1 year ago
Tom tancredo all day
mattheautomator 1 year ago
Mmmm... Blond in red.
AceOfHeart2012 1 year ago
megyn kelly is brainwashed like so much others.
artregal 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Get some dead pigs,Fly over the property where the mosque is being built and dump the pigs and blood,They will not build where defilement is. simple
sidebarr7 1 year ago
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion - limited excessively by judicial activism 1942 without citing any precedent. All previous cases of same charges overwhelmingly ruled in favor of religious expression in public area, citing numerous precedents.
People (supposedly) elect Presidents
Presidents appoint judges.
Judges interpret the Constitution.
Judges overturn years of precedent, and scorn the will of the people with godless, agenda driven interpretation of the Constitution.
handylandman 1 year ago
Impeach the lying, racist, Muslim Islamic jihad lover, Marxist, communist, socialist progressive, law breaking, utilizer of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, Constitution burning, supporter of Black Liberation Theology, Farrakhan supporting, Black Panther supporting, bankrupting, irresponsible, African Colonial despot wannabe! ALREADY!
Johnftld 1 year ago
I agree with Mr. Tancredo! President Obama is an absolute threat to our American way of life. He hates America and the basic principles we stand for. Not only that, he is not even an American born citizen.
JimPicc 1 year ago
Retarded. Absolutely ridiculous that a) this gets aired on television under the tenuous banner of journalism and b) so many people eat up this bullshit. Bush not a committed ideologue? You mean the same guy who, according to the former chief counter-terrorism advisor, after 9/11 agreed with the reasoning of going into Iraq because 'there were better targets?'
Get a clue.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump
So are you one of those communist in the rino republican and democrat party?
MrTimotheus85 1 year ago
@MrTimotheus85 Oh look, another example of the ad hominem that passes for 'debate,' around these parts.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump
a)I didn't hear anyone say Bush wasn't a problem but Bush is not in office any longer. b)When people voted for BO they thought they were voting for hope and change from what Bush was doing. They had no clue he would turn out to be a Marxist. TT is right on mark!
semprefedele1 1 year ago
@semprefedele1 Oh, I see. Where were you when he -was- in office? Were you agreeing with the fringe loons who said he should be impeached for his actions? Certainly they were on par with whatever Obama has done---newsflash, George Bush presided over the same unprotected border and did NOTHING as well. As for your other 'point'---explain to me what Marxism is.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Pretty much every "Great" President is a dictator, liar, and murderer. Well, EVERY President is, but those guys go the extra mile.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Every 'great' man of history can be construed to be these things. If you think that abolishing the state would lead to 'less' of such men, you are sorely mistaken.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Who said I dismiss the notion of liars, thieves, and murderers still existing in an ancap world? I do believe that it would lead to optimal results, however. Care to say otherwise?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Yes, I am saying otherwise.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Then can you please provide an explanation?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Do you know what the burden of proof is...? You see, there's a thing called the status quo---life with government. You are presenting a claim outside the status quo. The burden of proof is on you to prove somehow that life without government will be so much more 'optimal'
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump I'll give you a simple example: Everyone knows that forced monopolies are bad, right? If we extend that notion to its logical conclusion at the State, we can guess that the State's continued monopoly on violence is a bad thing.
Ignoring doomsday predictions like "Warlords will kill everyone!!!" and other value judgments, it appears to me that competition will help bring prices down and provide better service.
What say you?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Everyone doesn't know that, though. There are some monopolies that are good. And yes, I guess you have to -ignore- those predictions because that's the only way your paradigm can remain tenable. If you think thugs start governments, abolishing the government won't rid the world of them. What's to keep the best private police force from simply acquiring other police forces? Force could rightly be considered to be a natural monopoly. (contd)
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump I agree with some monopolies are good. Key word: "Forced" monopolies.
If a business is just so good that its competitors are fairly negligible, that's a good thing, as it provides a service better than anyone else.
On the other hand, if it's a monopoly backed up with guns, that is certainly not a good thing, as consumers are not free to choose.
You act as if I pretend that abolishing the State will lead to no crime whatsoever. I simply believe that the State is highly inefficient.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Lets say we have 10 mercenaries, and the first group hires five of them. Now, if another group wants to start, they have to convince the other five mercenaries that it's better to join their group than to the other one. However, each mercenary will realize that if they join, it could be them versus 5 people---it'd be much easier to just get a job with the first firm.
There is no point where the marginal product of an additional mercenary is outrun by additive cost (contd
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump That's not a very good analogy, that ignores a multitude of additional possible subjective factors. For one, what's the equpment of group 1? Will additional mercs have to get substandard equipment? Can another group advertise items such as a grenade launcher that will help with "Crowd control"?
That analogy of yours is just way too simple and fundamentally flawed.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Not really. Once the first group has the five guys, it doesn't really matter what they have, because convincing the other five to join another firm will be too hard and the startup costs too high. Even giving them all the best equipment money can buy leads to increasing returns...their marginal productivity never goes down, so there's always an incentive to keep producing violence.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Except, of course, the consumers who supply the firm with money. You haven't really thought this one through. :)
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK
...because they will be unable to enforce their contracts, strike fair deals, etc. By not participating in the firm, they are doing something that no human being can do, give up their inalienable rights. The only remedy is to force all into the force firm. I have thought this one through, actually. Before you start sputtering out more talking points, give it a think.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump No, it's quite obvious that you haven't even begun to think the mechanics of what you said at all. You seem to be on your last legs, in all honesty.
You don't understand what coercion is, you're clearly ignorant of the Golden Rule/Non Aggression Principal, and you think coercion is the remedy to your outright stupidity.
Sorry, but it's the truth in this case. Come back when you're far less ignorant than you are right now.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Well, you managed to sputter on and on about whatever it is... Again. Maybe you don't think 'either starve or buy MY goods on my terms' is a form of coercion...but if you don't think that's a form of coercion, then why would you think a government monopoly of force is any different? 'either die by my hand or buy MY goods' is what they say, right? Difference, please? But hey, you got to sputter sputter sputter didn't ya...
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Practice what you preach when you go on about debate etiquette. All I see here are an impressive amount of personal attacks and a rather baseless grasp of terminology.
Coercion is the use of force to achieve an end. You're not making the fundamental distinction between a marketer who's simply employing a situation to his advantage(Anybody else can come and compete with him) to someone who uses force to make sure he keeps that advantage.
Keep trying, kid.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK
When you understand what the word 'de facto' means, come back.
When you can give me the honest difference between 'buy my goods or starve' and 'buy my good or be killed by me,' come back.
The results are the same. Now one is far more blatant, true. The other is more subtle.
In your 'answer' as it were, how is the government not using his situation to his advantage, in this case the natural monopoly on force? Others could compete, right?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump No, you're quite clearly wrong. Coercion means he's forcing you to buy those goods whether you want them or not.
People have multiple options when dealing with a guy like that:
Become weirdo vegans who think they can live off of the sun
Grow their own vegetables(How the hell did this community exist with no food?!)
Compete with said individual.
Those are just a few options I can think of off the top of my head.
You have a blatant misunderstanding of terminology.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK
lol
If there's one guy selling food in town, who else are you going to buy from?
No one.
If it's a natural monopoly, the barriers to entry are too high for you to compete..duh.
Okay, let's assume all that silly stuff you said were true, then that means people have multiple options in dealing with the government then.
Form their own militia. Get their own guns. Compete with said individual.
So what's the problem?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump The problem lies in how those funds are obtained. When the State brainwashes the masses and employs coercion to stop competition, that's unacceptable. But if they were voluntarily funded and didn't try and gun down the competition? That's fine by me.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Alright, so please, tell me the difference: If one man sells the food in town, how I am I not -forced- to buy his goods or starve? Can't be competition, because time scales and barriers to entry are too high. So, please, tell me...what's the difference?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Why are these barriers to entry too high? Your little imaginative world that relies on a host of contrivances to make the fanciful argument that voluntary associations=coercion hasn't made the cut yet.
I can always leave if the place is that much of a hellhole. And again, before you try and say "Oho! So you agree with me on the State!" you ignore a rather glaring key aspect... The storeowner acquired his property voluntarily.The State acquires through theft and coercion.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Do you know what a natural monopoly is? Why do you think it comes into existence? If someone is the sole provider of food in your area, chances are there are a ton of reasons no one is competing with him. And actually, you have no idea how the storeowner acquired his property. It's great you assumed that (a weakness you seem to point out in social contract theory yet fail to understand here). So again, what's the difference...?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Since every soldier needs roughly the same thing: a gun and some clothes, but the damage that you can do as you keep adding soldiers continues to multiply. High barriers to entry, plus neverending marginal benefits from adding soldiers. Seems like a natural monopoly to me...and one that, if it is to arise, should be controlled and be accountable to the people. Hence, the need for a government
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump But why does this "control" need to be coercive? You're not making this key distinction... Or you willfully ignore it.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK How is it coercive? The monopoly is collectively owned, or at least as collectively owned as possible, and it now enforces rights that were once purely negative. In order for everyone to receive that protection, there must be -some- degree of coercion. It's not as if market forces aren't coercive themselves...
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump ...Except they aren't, Mr. Arrogant Ellipses.
The State employs its monopoly via the barrel of a gun. "Market Forces" have to convince you to use their services.
Why does there need to be any coercion at all? I like to call that hypocrisy.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Yes, keep saying 'barrel of a gun,' that'll drive the point home. And no, market forces don't have to 'convince' you in all cases. It's de facto coercion if there's one guy in town who sells food, is it not? It's not hypocrisy. If our force firm grows to be a natural monopoly, there will be those who can afford its services and those who cannot. Since it is the sole provider of this service, those who can't afford it are in effect giving up their rights...(contd)
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Uhhh, no. You're clearly wrong here, kid. You've revealed your ignorance of terminologies and are way out of your league.
It's a monopoly, not "coercion", if a guy simply happens to be the only person selling food in town. There's plenty of opportunity for others to sell their own foods and compete with him. If he shoots(or threatens to) anybody who tries to compete, now that is what is called coercion. Learn the difference.
And there are certain inalienable rights. NAP, kid.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK
You don't seem to know what 'de facto' means. If one guy is selling food in town, you pretty much HAVE to buy it from him. There is no other way for you to survive. You are -effectively- being coerced to buy his food from him...
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump No, I'm not. You're ignorant, sorry. You have no conception of coercion and make up bullshit from a Marxian perspective to try and justify your claims. That's just a basic fact of you, sorry.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No, let's spend another month with you just denying the terms I used exist like we've already done, only for you to realize it is you who is actually ignorant of the expansive way these concepts are framed. Just go to a dictionary and look up 'de facto.'
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump As I stated, you're simply flat-out wrong. Because the individuals in question have multiple options when dealing with that person.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Yes, just like they have multiple options in dealing with the natural monopoly of government. No, please, tell me how, if you need to eat every day or two, you're going to start a business/grow your own food/to compete with the already established business? You're going to -have- to buy his goods, even if you want to compete... So simple.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump No, not really. As I said, you're really not getting the difference between coercion and voluntarism. You need to overcome that intellectual hurdle before you try and speak to me like you know what you're talking about.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No, you just don't understand that conditions governing a natural monopoly of force can apply to any other basic necessity. If there is one police force in town, if you want any part of your rights to be enforced, you -have- to buy those services. Just like if there is one man selling food, if you don't want to starve, you -must- buy his goods.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Doesn't change the fact that he isn't forcing you to buy it. You can defend yourself with a gun, Mr.Police State enthusiast.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK If you don't buy the goods, you will die, correct? How is that not you being all but forced into buying a good? And what's the difference, -again- between that and the government?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Again- The storeowner acquired his property through voluntary consent, and the State acquired its land through theft and deception.
Stop trying to twist property rights as analogous to the State, and then come back with a proper response.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK
No. You are just assuming he acquired it in that way. Just like we are supposed to assume the state came by its monopoly of force through 'voluntary' consent. The fact that someone happens to have a monopoly on good x doesn't speak on the means by which they 'acquired' such a monopoly. If you wish to say the store owner 'must' have gotten his monopoly through voluntary force, then I'd ask what's the difference? The state sells a good and it has the monopoly on that good
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Again, how does he have a monopoly? I show multiple reasons as to why it isn't, and yet you stubbornly insist "It is!!!!". The only one who seems to be bad at being shown the inconsistencies is you.
Yet again, the State stifles and mutes competition. How is that comparable to a storeowner who has to compete with others?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK If he's the only one selling food in town, you don't understand how he has a monopoly? You didn't show multiple reasons for anything. You just said 'oh well you could compete with him!' and I said, no, not really, otherwise others would be competing with him if the barriers to entry were so low. Even if you still wanted to maintain that position, then it becomes a question of well why can't people simply 'compete' with the government's monopoly on force?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Why are the barriers to entry so high? Can you elaborate on these contrivances? If not, you're on a boat without a paddle.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK They aren't contrivances. If someone has a monopoly, it's likely due to the fact that barriers to entry are high. How else would they have garnered such market share? It's because so few firms can afford to compete, for whatever reason.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Yes, they are contrivances. You're outright ignoring deductive conclusions to support your contrived claim that some coercion is involved.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Your 'deductive' conclusions are like most liber-thinking 'conclusions,' they just ignore other possibilities. Your scenario of how he came to his position of market dominance is just one of many possible scenarios. Get it? It's not the only one.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
"The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:
X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
Therefore claim C is false."
"Get it"?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK I didn't ridicule you. You're just not getting where these situations are nearly identical, yet you give preferential treatment to one good over the other.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump No, the situations are hardly identical. Again, you've yet to address the contrivances that make your world possible.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Yes, because your scenario doesn't have contrivances? For yours to work we'd have to assume that this band of thieves are the only ones in town who have guns/weapons, which is ridiculous. For an entire swath of land to come under their control, they must have acquired substantial consent.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Mmm, how does my scenario imply contrivances? Again, you're largely ignorant of the founding of "This great country".
The Constitution was ratified by the elite before any substantial opposition could form, and the first attempt at rebellion was quickly put down and the populace subjugated. Believe it or not, Hobbes, most people would rather not die. Since they perceive the State to be mightier than they, they submit to it rather than perish.
The state proceeded to brainwash later.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Complete misread of the ratification of the US constitution. Substantial opposition in fact did exist, and in fact, the fight was close.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump In five states, the Constitution was ratified by the Elites when people barely knew it existed.
The Whiskey Rebellion was the beginning of the end.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK of...? Most people knew about the constitution
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Not really. You'll need to provide some sound historical analysis to support your buffoonish claims.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Sound historical evidence: a massive propaganda campaign of pamphlets, articles, etc between federalists and anti-federalists. Literacy rates, even in the South, were over 50%, and they were approaching 75-80% in the Northern colonies. Add this to the word-of-mouth generated, and it's not so silly to assume that most, if not an overwhelming majority, of the people knew about the constitution
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Here's something for you- In 5 states, again, the Constitution was ratified in less than a few weeks. Don't give me that "Word of mouth" assumption. Again, you're relying on your assumptions... I have deductive logic and the historical record on my side.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Yes, just because you keep asserting that you have those things on your side doesn't make it so. The buzz around the constitution had been brewing for quite awhile before it was presented for ratification. Pamphlets had been circulated and the dialogue was intense.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Again, in five of the 13 states, dialogue was next to nonexistent.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Again, you're just asserting that fact baldly. You have no evidence for that.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump I have no evidence? Quite to the contrary, young man. I'll have enclosed an article to you in a private message by the time you've read this message.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK The article you sent talks about Hamilton vs Jefferson and the development of the former's ideas in our country, it says nothing about the dialogue regarding the constitution. Next
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump It most certainly does, your outright lies notwithstanding. "Next".
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Alright, then feel free to point me to the passage you think is so damning...
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump You haven't been showing the best of etiquette, so I think I'll pass on helping you again for now.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No skin off my back, the onus is on you to prove your proposition, since I already rebutted your assertion of 'not many people knowing...' with my own reasons. If you don't 'help' then you lose on this point.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump The fourth paragraph? If you're that lazy and illiterate as to be confused on that issue, I guess there's no helping you.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK The fourth paragraph that has no source in reference? The fourth paragraph that essentially is a few sentences of asserted opinion without facts to back it up? I should have known.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump An ad hominem attack like that isn't going to win you many points. Why don't we move this to a slightly more professional setting than YouTube comments? Or is that too much for you?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Again, the storeowner with total market share has to compete with no one.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Why doesn't he? If he doesn't, then that means he's providing a good to everybody that wants it. Simple deductive logic, leftist.
The consumer wins, so where's the problem?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK The leap you just made is the same leap you critique in the social contract. Just because he is in a position of market dominance, doesn't necessarily mean he got there by legitimate means. If you want to assume he did, fine, but then don't cast doubt on the state's monopoly on force. Walk yourself through it. If someone didn't -want- this firm's good, what other option would they have? Starve?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Again, you're ignoring the basic fact of -how- he got such a high market share. Kid, if you can't explain this very clear and simple point, the basic facts of market forces I just stated prevail. It's that simple.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Just because -you- are assuming he got his market share by 'selling a great product' doesn't mean that's how he actually got his market share. Get what I'm saying? Likewise, just because the government has a monopoly on force doesn't mean they acquired their territory/monopoly legitimately. See how that ties in? See how you're making excuses for the firm but not for the government, which is exactly the same save the goods it sells? (violence v food)
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump No, I don't. You're begging the question as to how he got to where he is today. Contrary to what you apparently believe, growing your own food isn't that hard to do. What's preventing others from competing with him?
Again, the key difference is the State -forces- you to pay for Police and other "Public services" whether you want to or not. You're still stuck in a bizarre no-logic world.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Growing your food isn't hard to do? lol Sure, guy. Do you know how much land it takes to feed a single family? Do you know how much work that is, in addition to whatever other work you might be doing? You're stuck in a world where a) you don't understand the difficulties inherent to farming, b) you don't understand how a natural monopoly on food -forces- people to buy goods from one seller.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Again, an appeal to ridicule. Why do you dodge around telling me the contrivances that make your world possible? The only reason the State keeps its monopoly is through force and deception.
By the way, it really isn't that hard to grow your own food.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No, you keep asserting that the state keeps its monopoly is through force and deception. That's it, that's all. I didn't appeal to ridicule---what you're saying is just absurd. It takes 3-5 acres of land to feed an adult. To you maintaining that is 'easy,' I suppose. I'm not dodging around contrivances. You don't seem to understand how hard it is to farm and that certain situations render competition next to impossible.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump What conditions are these? I've provided sound deductions for how the **** the guy could possibly manage to avoid any and all competition(Namely, being Jesus), and you're just sitting there and stubbornly insisting "Nuh-uh!"
Is there a reason you haven't given up, by the way? I assumed you had when you ran away crying for about 5 days.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No, you didn't provide sound anything. It's not that hard to avoid competition...especially when you've gotten a head start in a particular industry. Most people -would- give up with people like you and Quest...and you both seem to be lost causes
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump An appeal to ridicule? You've really fallen on hard times, man. Yet again, I provide sound assertions that I ask you to address... Which you end up ignoring in favor of saying my opinion's "Silly" .
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK They pretty much are. It takes five acres to feed someone...and you say that this 'isn't difficult.' Just silly on its face
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump That has -nothing- to do with what I'm saying.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Yes, it does. Your little 'oh they can just compete with him' argument is nullified by the difficulty in competing. You know, the whole idea of a 'natural' monopoly. You want to accept the natural monopoly on its terms with the government, but won't allow it to exist in a private situation with an essential good, because you know that it puts you in a dilemma.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump No, I refuse to accept it because your little situation is inherently bullcrap. Again, what's stopping competition? In the State, it outlaws competition and -forces- people to purchase its "Protection".
That's hardly on the level of an exploitative entrepreneur, who's HELPING to FEED the masses.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK How so? I just told you what's stopping competition---the startup costs are too high, in that case. The same goes for a private defense force natural monopoly. The initial capital cost and human cost is too high to encourage actual competition.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Again, you're not elaborating on where these higher costs are. Who's making these goods so expensive? How are they maintaining an exclusive right over them? Persuasion, in which case noone is starving... Or force?
You can't seem to think this through all too well.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No, they just own the land. It's -that- simple. I guess you don't know how farming works. See, if I own all of a town's farm land, it's going to be extremely hard---read: almost impossible---for anyone in that town to compete with me. You just don't seem able to connect reality dots. The state does the same thing. They acquire all means of force in an area, and it becomes difficult for anyone to compete. However, anyone not partaking of their good is put at risk-cont
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump No, you don't have an inkling of how farming works. The State acquires through theft and deception. You're trying to use a -completely unrelated- example to justify your laughable viewpoints.
Again, the State outright murders anyone who competes. A businessman can not, or else he would be a thug.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK You're just in a dilemma and you don't know how to get out of it save by asserting over and over again that the state does X and this other guy doesn't do X, which is ridiculous. Both leave their buyers with little if any options.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump How that becomes achieved is the key issue here, buckaroo. Again, the market forces guy is subject to competition... The State, on the other hand, murders its competitors.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK But you are just assuming that. Since market forces are always at play, the state also is subject to competition, right? There could be other police forces, why can't there be? Why is it that you think the state somehow can magically do away with all competition, but this other fellow can't? It's ridiculous.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump The state forces you to pay, in the form of taxes. You are not "Allowed" to reject their "Protection".
You're using fundamentally alien examples and trying to compare them directly to one another.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK And tell me what is different if this man has a natural monopoly on food? You are -forced- to buy the good or die. What is the material difference?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump You are -not- forced to buy his good or die. Again, your example is without basis or merit.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK
And -why- not? I've explained to you how 'competition lol!' isn't a good answer to the question.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump The burden of proof is on -you- to explain why costs would somehow be too high. And again, an aggressive monopoly is -not- the same as a natural monopoly.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK And I already did. The initial investment for real estate and labor required to start a competing firm are too great. Your only response was to state that farming wasn't that hard---an outright lie.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Why are the resources "Too high"? In today's over-regulated and superinflated economy, yes... But we're talking about a different system, are we not?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK If someone acquires all of the arable land in town, they gain a natural monopoly on the farming in that town. That's how natural monopolies form, when the capital investment...in this case just acquiring the land. The main point is this: if there was a monopoly on food, and there were some people who couldn't afford the good...is it wrong to force everyone to pay some sort of amount to ensure everyone can eat? Give that question a think.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
Comment removed
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@Doodoorump No, A isn't making B do anything. B has a choice. There is no threat or gun leveled at his head coercing him. If B chooses to do whatever it takes (voluntary exchange) with A to get a service he wants, then he isn't a slave at all.
That's it in a nutshell.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK There's no gun, but if chooses not to buy the goods, he starves. The material result is exactly the same...
Doodoorump 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Doodoorump No, it is not. Again... If B chooses to do whatever it takes (voluntary exchange) with A to get a service he wants, then he isn't a slave at all.
You're not getting this at all.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Because you're not making any sense. B has no choice but to buy the good. There is no other choice if he does not want to starve. He must buy it on A's terms and at A's price. Literally, what you're saying can be subbed into the natural monopoly of force question. I can say, well, to get the good of 'A's force, B must do whatever it takes to get the service he wants. Does that take away the root problem? No.
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump A natural monopoly is, again-NOT the same as a State-enforced monopoly, which is the threat of force. Your refusal to understand this distinction highlights your incredible lack of reading comprehension.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK No, you just keep repeating maxims over and over again---we all know you've memorized the Mises playbook. What is the material difference between someone who has goods you -must- buy or starve, and the state's good of force?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump The fact that one isn't coercion, and the other is? You're trying to use two diametrically opposed examples and trying to conflate them together. It just ain't gonna work, son.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK And how is the other not coercion, again? The choice is 'buy my good or death.' The material result is exactly the same...
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Not in the least, boy. Again, study the action of events taking place. One is, you're shot to death unless you do as he says. The other one, you're free to do as you wish.
One is voluntary exchange, the other is coercion.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK Answer the question...what is the material difference? One situation is better because I have the 'choice' to die? Don't I have the same choice in the other scenario...?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump No, you do not. One is absent of the initiation of force. Your refusal to acknowledge this basic difference in human action is incredibly childish at best.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK So, despite the fact that in both scenarios, you die, and you have no way of not dying, you are saying that since the natural monopoly owner didn't expressly say 'buy my goods or I'll...' now somehow differentiates the two acts, on a moral level, despite equivalent consequence? Let's take it a step further then...
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK ...let's say the natural monopoly owner simply 'can't' lower the price of his goods so that the individual can buy them, despite the fact that they need them. What if he forced everyone to pitch in and save this person's life? Does that violate the non-aggression principle? Even when the result of which would be better than any other possible course of action?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump We're discussing the logic of human actions here, not "The moral equivalent" or whatever statist drivel you scrape up.
If he outright forced them at gunpoint or whatever to pitch in, that's a violation of the non aggression principle. You're acting very childish in how you go about this.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK And you are literally saying that the community where we saved a life, yet violated the non-aggression principle, is worse than the one where we didn't save a life and didn't violate it. In effect, me forcing you to do anything at all is worth more than a human life, then?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Yes. I don't -care- about that other individuals life, so why should you FORCE me to "Care" against my will?
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago
@KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK So then, you are saying that me forcing you to save someone's life at little, if any, prohibitive material cost to your self...is actually worse than someone dying?
Doodoorump 1 year ago
@Doodoorump Yes.
KawaiiDesuNekoBCSK 1 year ago