Quag
-
Posts
1701 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Everything posted by Quag
-
Ok le’ts start with monopolies, you may not buy what I am saying but the fact is that is what DOES happen, It has happened over and over again. Your belief in what would happen in a monopoly situation has NEVER happened. So you may not agree but then you would simply be wrong. The point you are ignoring again is that govts set up laws that prevent the monopolies from happening in the first place. Sometimes they are too slow and the monopolies form, sometimes they make the laws wrong and the monopolies form. However if you look at what actually happens in a monopoly situation, not the fantasy version you have tried to put on us, It is the monopolies that do harm to everyone else. Example forcing other peaceful businessmen out of business, charging exorbitant fees, creating indentured servants (your actual slave rants actually come into effect here), etc. You seem to think that the state has a monopoly on violence and that all and every action of the state is violence. This is naive and wrong. You are making assumptions on what the govt does and what a monopoly does. By your definition of violence the monopoly as it actually works not as your misconstrued view of economics thinks it works, is the one initiating the violence. Your question is therefore backwards, it should be do I agree that monopolies should use force to force me to buy their products or services. The point on the fire dept. was that you were oversimplifying a situation, fires can jump huge distances in the right conditions. the moving of people far enough away from each other is unrealistic and unworkable except in a small town setting, even then with a strong wind you could still end up losing your home. I was not trying to make a defense of taxation on this point I was merely trying to point out that once again you were using a naive belief in how your system would work, ignoring reality. Seriously how would you deal with real criminals? I have no guess except that judging from your previous posts I can only assume you think the criminals would be obvious and easily identifiable, of course they are not and would not be. DRO’s: Ok I’ll try and explain why they WON’T work before I’ll deal with why they WILL becoem corrupt if they were instituted. Lets use your 10000$ example, you owe me 10k$ according to me, why have you not paid yet? 3 possibilities 1. You don’t have the money 2. You don’t want to 3. You don’t think you owe me the money. • note could be a combination of some or all of the above. Case 1 doesn’t matter what system you use I won’t get my money Case 2 Why on earth would you even agree to go to a DRO? You could only end up a loser and would still ignore the judgment, without enforcement of laws there are no laws. Case 3 Perhaps you would go to a DRO to explain your side but if the DRO sides with me you may still feel you are in the right and say screw you and not pay. The DRO example fails utterly in these scenarios. Now lets look at one where it might work: I want to build a fence between us. I go talk with you about it and discover we disagree on where the property line is. It is possible since we have a disagreement that we could go to a DRO to settle the matter. This is the only type of scenario where a DRO might work (notice the might as one may disagree with the judgment and ignore it). However ATM I could if we lived in a municipality just go down to the town hall and check the records, no fuss no muss, problem solved. Now why they will become corrupt if they do exist? Remember there is no law and no one can remove a DRO from existence only lack of clients (where any clients would come from I have no clue as I see no reason any sane person would pay for a DRO as it’s judgments would routinely be ignored.) So a DRO would require private security firms to enforce their judgments, or as I like to call them the mafia Do not think for one second that criminal organizations would not rapidly create so called private security firms, it would be the natural outlet for them in your Dystopia. The after all already “provide” protection to many individuals and businesses on a system very similar to what you have proposed. So basically what WILL happen is that criminal orginzations WILL take over the security and will force the DRO’s to do what they want. In your system the only organized group that wields any force would be these security companies. Now you can say but I’ll just go to another non criminal company for protection. Sorry dude once again reality will slap you ion the face. What WILL happen is that the security companies will form Cartels (notice I use words like cartel, warlord, mafia for things you call free enterprise and private security, it is not an accident) These cartels WILL divide up the landscape and only let you buy service from the one in control of whatever region you live in. Oh sure there will be occasional (perhaps continual) WARS between these Crime Families (read security companies) but in general each will control their own little region. This WILL be a form of Tyrannical govt. IMPOSED on you because you have no one to defend yourself from it. Why did I use caps for the WILL in the last paragraph? Was it to be loud and try to browbeat you? Nope It was because Human History is replete with examples of such systems happening over and over and over again. Not once has any system such as the one you are proposing ever not turned into what I have outlined for you. Why? Because of human nature that is why. If person A steals from person B and there are no consequences person C eventually decided it’s ok to steal as It seems patently unfair for Person A to get ahead of him so unfairly. Remember crime and corruption are not always visible and easily detected often the sneak up on you and before you know it they have taken over. Actually the criminal organizations are already there, it is the forces of order that are keeping them in check. You may say it with sarcasm but it is still true. Hmm just rebutted your earlier statement Ok schools I assume you want them to be pay as you go. Great so poor people can’t afford school they stay illiterate and poor. Tough bananas for them, But you ignore the fact that an educated work force allows you to be more competitive and make better products. In fact every govt has recognized the inherent benefit for all of its citizens by having them educated. Only those who do not have the means or fear that their populations will revolt if educated, do not educate their people. Yes there was a police strike here in Montreal but I was a baby and have no direct memory. Yes it showed people at their worst. What I want to know is why you are convinced that a slow transition would make any difference? What do you base this on? Do you have any historical reasoning? Or is it based on some psychological insight to human nature? All I see happening is what I have described but in a more orderly and slower fashion. I.e. warlords, mafia cartels loss of freedom etc… Ok another stab at taxation again you do not need to leave North America to stop paying for roads you merely need to live outside of municipal boundaries. This is not hard and is an option taken by many of your fellow citizens, In fact one of our richest (read uber rich) citizens has done just that and built up his own private estate outside of all municipal borders accessible only by helicopter and thus he avoids property taxes. Also a recent report stated that 45% of Americans pay no income tax. So please explain to me why you are forced to pay taxes? Simple fact is you are not you choose to. There are benefits to living in society one of them is better chance at gainful employment. This is a result of clean water/public roads/educated population/sanitation etc… all of which you benefit directly or indirectly and to say you shouldn’t have to pay for them is to claim the right to the benefits of society without any obligation to that society. Thinking that you have rights without obligations is morally and intellectually wrong.
-
CLAD
-
lol I cant show my face without scaring 90% of the online public I tried to respond yea/nay to your topics but i'm tired and kept getting them mixed up. so be brief, If what you do doesnt harm others (being a jerk isnt harming in and of itself its just being a jerk) then its ok, if it does then not ok.
-
Basically what Dawh said, taxation is not violence. Though you do not have to move to Mogadishu to avoid taxes, you can easily live in the USA. Only thing is that you UTF, want to have the benefits of living in a society without the obligation of paying for those benefits. You can move somewhere outside a municipality and not pay for roads. You will find that in all likelihood you will not be paying income tax as your employment possibilities will be very limited. You want those advantages living in society gives you and take exception at SOME govt spending and thus come to the conclusion that taxation = theft = violence = slavery. You don’t seem to realize the hypocritical stance you have of claiming the right to take advantage of society and denying any obligation to that society. Please reread the last sentence as that is where you are completely off. Now onto health care, yeah I agree the Obama care is an abomination. Seem you guys looked around the world and said hmm how can we make a health care system even worse than everyone else’s? Instead of looking at what works and what doesn’t then trying to implant the good parts while avoiding the bad you seem to have gone the opposite way. Biggest problem I see with the US system atm and why health costs are going through the roof is your silly tort laws. You live in the most litigious society on earth and every part of the medical establishment from the company who makes the band aids to the person applying it has to have insane insurance to guard against lawsuits many of which are frivolous but often settling is cheaper than going to court, thus increasing the desire of Lawyers (liars?) to bring suits against those in the medical field. Of course a patient who is injured or sick makes a very sympathetic witness against the evil uncaring doctor/pharmaceutical company/surgical instrument company/nasty nurse etc. Now do I think our health care system is perfect? Of course not it could/should be overhauled and improved. I can tell you that whenever I hear Americans talking about our health care they do not seem to understand it at all. We have universal coverage on basic health care, that is emergency room, doctor consults (not all types) and certain procedures. We do have a strong private health insurance industry here for medications, dental (young children are covered) prosthetics and even doubling of services offered by the govt health care, e.g. my x-rays (I’ve had lots, I think my left hand and foot are only parts of my skeleton I haven’t seen, yet never actually broken a bone) have been about 80% done in private clinics. I wish I could explain it better but it generally works ok, something like cancer often causes delays with our system that could be life threatening but that is usually during the diagnosis and only those who do not have private insurance and cant/wont pay for private clinics on certain tests have problems (remember I said our system wasn’t perfect) Surprise UTF I disagree with Dawh here, forcing a poor person to buy insurance they cant pay for is silly and pointless It is one of the main failing points of Obama care, but thanx for thinking of me Nope monopolies do not require govt intervention to be created and govts have always created laws to break them up, except those that were created by the govts. The bit about the incentives, all I can say is read a bit of history and find out that you are 100% wrong. Here is what will and has happened, company A has gotten to say 80% market share company B 20%(make is simple only 2 but add C,D,E,F if ya want). Now Company A can sell product at 9$/unit and make profit, say company B being leaner and meaner can sell it for 8$/unit. What has always happened without govt stopping it is Company A sells product at 7$/unit, being larger they can withstand the losses for longer than company B eventually company B goes bankrupt or sells out and company A raises the price to 11$/unit. Remember start up companies rarely make a profit in first year due to start up costs so even if company B starts up at 7$/unit they will still get bankrupted by company A. And if you live in an apartment? Get real not everyone lives in Mayberry in fact the vast majority do not. Now back to main issue and Mogadishu What do you do with actual criminals? People who rob/murder/rape? Who will identify them if there isn’t an actual witness? If there are no police then there is no police investigation. If you sneak into my house and kill me and no one sees it, they may suspect you but that can’t know for sure or should in this case my family (i.e. the victims family) pay for an investigation including the forensics to try and catch a killer who may just be a psychopath that has already left for another town and will never be seen again? Or will DRO’s head this up? If so who pays them? Individuals? So its pay as you go for justice? Collectively? I.e. a tax and were back to a govt system? I will try and explain what will happen in your anarchistic society should it ever evolve. First off the DROs will become corrupt. Who is paying for them and how? What will stop DROs from taking bribes and who will check to see if they are? I know in your utopia that wouldn’t happen or if it did the people would move to another DRO but first you have to have the suspicion of bribery before you would even think of changing, plus if you are doing the bribery well duh! of course you stay with them. Eventually there will be private security firms to uphold the DRO justice. It is the only way it could work. These private firms will become corrupt. Why well why not? There is nothing to stop them there is no govt of any kind to oversee them. Now the Mogadishu link, these private security firms exist there, their CEO’s are called warlords, same name used in Afghanistan. In Italy and USA they call them the Mafia, Japan Yakuza etc. Somalia is a perfect example of an anarchistic society. All govt has broken down and now warlords run their little corner of Somalia. I know you will say I am talking nonsense because that is all you have ever said. But please look at human history there is not one example of anarchy leading to anything other than some form of dictatorship. It doesn’t even have to be violent to start. Often smooth talking political types get people to follow them without the use of violence. Cults are also an example; they will just form their own little hell on earth err... I mean paradise and eventually there will be no more Anarchistic system, just plain anarchy. I know you said you don’t read much, a shame you should especially if you want to have more coherent arguments, but here is another book for you. Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond, I especially recommend the chapter on the Chatham Islands, very illuminating, kinds funny too in a very very Black humour sort of way.
-
Well normally I think this kind of petition is silly I mean what does Cowboys Football have to do with gay rights? But then the thought of a Texan sports team making a gay rights video seemed amusing to me. Still I was on the fence but I gotta say after reading Dej Mar's post I felt I had little choice but to sign. Dej, since when is it not a right for 2 people to be in love with each other?
-
good job Wb Np yodell i just pointed it out so it wouldnt get skipped on the next posting but wb won so dang it all i cant host as i gotta go out in a few minutes. will wait till 2morrow
-
hey ya missed me my crates
-
CRATES
-
HOMING
-
GARDEN
-
GANG
-
Much better explanation Izzy, Still don't think it would work, as you said there is no world govt yet and none in sight. Cultural differences make agreeing on even broad principals very difficult to achieve. Like you said with the state system you basically have what you are asking for. It is just a matter of degrees as I see it. I compeltely agree with you on the healthcare bit, both sides want the best system possible they just differ on how to get there. BTW from what I understand of obama care I am not impressed. Seems confusing and heavily bureaucratic, Here in Canada we have universal health care which isnt that bad, not that great either, but the bureaucracy eats up about 50% of the cash which is why they are always short. BTW we do have private health care here in Canada as well. Most people dont know this, but we do. Here in Quebec we have the most Private health care in Canada, we laso have the highest % of people against private health care. Most people dont like the idea of the word private but when you talk to them you find out that most people have used the private system at some point. When they talk about closing the specific private clinics people get up in arms so it never happens. Seems the terms have become more powerful in the minds of many people that the actual meaning. I must take exception with your remarks on economics, There is a right(ish) and a wrong(ish) approach and an even larger ambigous grey area. Certain economic ideas are compeltely unworkable others create huge unfair disparities. Conservatives and Liberals, like healthcare actually have the same objective and liek ,see a different way to get there. Conservatives believe less govt creates wealth and builds a stronger country, liberals believe government does so. Same goal different approach. History shows has shown that going extreme either way ends up really really bad for the vast majority of people. UTF btw the advocating anarchy or the lack of any political system which from what i can tell is the exact opposite of what you are saying.
