Just thought I’d share this little conquest. I was in the Obama section of the link-sharing/discussion site Reddit trying to explain natural law to a bunch of Obamabots when someone named “mschy” wrote this anti-libertarian rant:
I really, really wish that the pathetic, idiotic, greedy cunts like yourself would borrow a pair of balls, and go start a nation.
Because it would be fucking HILARIOUS to see how fast your nation would get taken over as soon as it had any wealth worth mentioning.
And then we’d get to see you all vote for a military… and then you’d get pissed off that some people weren’t paying their fair share of the military bill, so you’d vote for taxes…
it’d be fucking LOLtastic if any of you idiotic dream-land libertarians would just live according to your principles.
Too bad, you’re all a bunch of pathetic keyboard-bound pussies who won’t ever try to live the way you claim you want to anyway.
Wimps.
I could have wrestled with his argument, such as it was. But he was obviously not the type for reasonable discussion. So, instead I decided to make him feel ugly and small…
I’d carefully respond to the tiny morsel of an argument you have if it wasn’t coated with so much excrement.
Instead, I’ll just ask you to slip back into whatever misogynistic frat-house shit-hole you swaggered out of, turn on the game, and leave the political philosophy to grown-ups.
That’s all it took. Next I checked, he had deleted his entire comment (luckily I still had it in my cache).
I’d be interested to read anybody else’s debate victories over statists. So please do post them here.
I’ve had some small successes - I find it easier convincing people of these truthes than it would be, say converting people between the two parties. We have arguments that aren’t well known talking points and we also have an aire of non-partisanship. I’ve made the case for Fraudulent Reserve Banking to an older PhD (of course, he’s market receptive) who came back to me 30 min later and said “i was thinking about what you said.. you’re right.”
I’m currently on the fence about one guy. A retired educator. I had him admit that “A little bit of might makes right.” All he has is emotion and Democratic talking points like “Bush started with a budget surplus! Failed to stop the banking meltdown” etc…
(This leads me to attack his double standard - Clinton should have stopped the .com boom/bust, and he never would have had a surplus according to this logic)
His one question to me is “Do teachers create wealth?” I haven’t answered. I first need these supposed teachers in a context - and to do that I have to destroy his whole system.
I’m torn between continuing the dialog which is going nowhere and dropping it all. The psychic cost of giving up a lifelong belief system and betraying the ideology of your community is often too great.
He seems like the paradigm case of an e-person with an e-problem, so talk straight to his e-face! In a few words, he sounds like an idiot, and anyone who uses the word “LOLtastic” is likely to be a “keyboard-bound pussy”. No more need be said.
Talk about the subjective nature of value, and explain that the parents/tuition payers are the ones qualified to answer that question. They are the ones bearing the cost, so they are the ones to decide if the cost is worth it.
If free markets are so horrible, then why does Singapore have a higher GDP per capita than the United States and why do the poorest 10% in Singapore have higher living standards than the poorest 10% in France?
Oh, I didnt’ realize British Comonwealth’s qualified as Libertarian paradises. I also wouldnt have thought you could add a country fighting a drug war. You might also want to refer to Singapore’s Goods and Services Tax instituted in the early 90s. Or required education provided by the public if you dont have the means to find it yourself.
First though. I would like to refer to your source. Nation Master has Singapore at 25. It has Norway, a model of a modern mixed economy at 2
This person would make excellent material for today’s police forces. At least when I was young they were expected to refrain from using coarse language… [;)]
It’s becoming increasingly common for statist parasites to respond with profanities or simply by using the same old cliches (“who would fight the terrorists?”, “who would pay the pensions?” etc). Remember that this is not a Platonic discorse but, as the Global Warming issue shows, a matter of faith.
Personally I’ve found that in the present situation fuel and foodstuff prices are the most powerful weapons you can use to win a debate. Start by showing how raw material prices are a fraction of last year, how wages have remained the same, how an increase in unsold stocks (ie more houses waiting for a buyer) does not correspond to a drop in prices. When the usual argument (“speculation”, “greed” etc) is brought up respond by pretty much every country in the world has a price control system in place to insure people “pay the fair price” (hey, I want an Aston Martin but the price isn’t fair so why doesn’t government do something about it? Just kidding of course) or how this or that “cartel” was fined for price fixing. That’s when you can hit them harder by explaining in simple words (yes, even to people with degree in economics) what inflation is and how people is being scammed by being shown a much watered down CPI. From there on it’s a downward fight. Just keep more extremist opinions (ie anrchy) to yourself until the time is ripe. You cannot simply say “public roads are full of potholes hence anarcho-capitalism is the answer”. You’d be taken for a crackpot.
Nothing like a good straw man to start off, eh? I never said that any old British colonies or commonwealths, including Singapore, were ever libertarian paradises.
Or the extremely lax labor regulations. Or the nearly non-existent trade barriers. Or the second freest regulatory environment for businesses in the world. Or one of the lowest taxes all-around in the world.
NationMaster has data for 2006. Norway has had hundreds of years to develop an economy in a resource-rich area. Singapore has been a rock with a relatively small trading post and then a small but growing city until the mid 20th century when it became independent and began deregulating and detaxing. Considering that the most recent data from the IMF and World Bank have Singapore’s real GDP per capita at fourth and third, respectively, both right below Norway’s real GDP per capita, is VERY impressive for such a small, resource-deprived nation. How can a rock like Singapore or Hong Kong develop into one of the most prosperous nations in under 100 years? Free markets.
As for Norway, it’s no surprise that Norway itself has some relatively free aspects to its markets, like a lack of trade barriers similar to Singapore and greater financial freedom than Singapore. Now imagine what would happen if a resource rich nation with an educated population like Norway could accomplish if it freed up other sectors of its economy moreso than Singapore.
Maybe you would also find it interesting that the CIA has Liechtenstein as the country with the world’s highest GDP per capita. But it couldn’t possibly be because they have a 1.2% personal income tax and a relatively deregulated economy, could it? The IMF has Qatar as the country with the highest GDP per capita, while the CIA has it in second. But this couldn’t possibly be because of a complete lack of any taxes besides custom duties and corporate taxes on foreign-owned companies, could it? Luxembourg has the highest GDP per capita according to the World Bank, the second highest according to the IMF, and the third highest according the CIA. But this couldn’t possibly be because it is a tax haven with lax banking regulations and low inflation, could it?
I think you did a good thing. As evidenced by the fact that he deleted his post and learned a lesson in not being abusive to people.
I don’t think it’s a good idea to agitate the Obama people, though. It’s probably the case that after they see that his promises are just lies that they will just attack themselves. Right now they are just using Obama to manage their personal frustrations in life. Once they realize that Obama is looking out for number 1 and that policy is basically revolving around people who sent more than the fifty bucks he did to his campaign (like big banks and corporations), then they’ll come around.
I don’t think this is true of all Obama supporters or of people who don’t really give that much of a crap, but it’s certainly true of people who are basically on the internet looking to defend Obama’s honor. That’s a really sad state to be in. And you get what you’re looking for.
Wait, doesnt Luxemborg provide free education and healthcare to its citizens? Would it still have the same wealth if it wasnt a tax haven? (Meaning if all the countries around it had as low taxes, dont you think they would stop hiding their money in Luxemborg?)
But I must say, if Luxemborg is able to provide basic services for its people with those tax rates… good. I applaud them for that. I want to see tax rates as low as they can be as long as we first assure a stable foundation for our citizenry.
No. They have highly inefficient and expensive education and health care, like all other nations with state control in these two sectors.
They’d be richer since a richer France, Germany, and Lowlands would mean more trade, greater innovation, and increased rates of capital accumulation.
I also find it quite sad that the government of Luxemourg has decided to rob its citizens just to provide for the short term greed of a few of the nation’s citizens.
see look at your argument. First Luxemborg doesnt provide its citizens. Then they do and theyre robbing their citizens.
To understand where Im coming from you have to understand that poor is not always a personal fault. Sometimes you just dont have the knowhow. Of course there are people who are just leeches. And we should work to minimize that. But my family personally used the public assistance and advanced to a point where it wasnt so necessary. One day, we hope that our descendants will have the resource to not need assistance at all.
I never said that Luxembourg does not provide for its citizens. What I said was that low taxes and low amounts of regulations have allowed Luxembourg to propser and become one of the wealthiest countries in the world, despite its size and lack of natural resources.
I understand that. I come from a lower middle class family. My dad never even graduated high school. My mom was an illegal immigrant for the first three years of my life. I used to live in the ghetto in Detroit until we moved to a slightly nicer Polish community in Hamtramck (a separate city within Detroit boundaries), then to a house on the outskirts of Detroit, and finally to the Canton and Livonia (when my parents divorced). I understand perfectly that it wasn’t my dad’s fault that he was born in a poor country ravaged by socialism and that he couldn’t finish high school for fear of being drafted. I understand that it wasn’t my mom’s fault for being born in a poor country ravaged by socialism and wasn’t even legally allowed in the United States for a whole three years.
The not enough knowhow is solely the fault of government. Without the existence of punitive taxes and regulations, cruddy public schools, greedy unions, labor regulations, and minimum wages, apprenticeships and on-the-job training would allow the poorest of the poor to move up in rank much easier. Less taxes and regulation would speed up capital accumulation, allowing greater economic growth to improve the lives of everyone. Privatization of schooling would allow lower cost and higher quality schooling to become available to the poor. In addition, greater wealth would increase the charity going toward schools that serve the poor, making them more affordable. The removal of greedy unions, labor regulations, and minimum wages would allow employers to create apprentice-like programs for their unskilled employees. These employees could then learn marketable skills which would help them increase their future wages while being paid by employers for doing some minimal work.
My father, without so much as a high school diploma, moved up the social ladder by working one of the lowliest jobs in a casino. Now he works as a pit boss, making a decent living. My mother waited tables just so she could pay for the schooling to get a Bachelor’s and then a Master’s degree in Computer Science. Now she earns about $55,000 a year with minimal hours and good benefits. Even in today’s world of closed opportunities due to government intervention, my parents managed to turn themselves into something and provide me with a better starting point than before.
Now imagine the opportunities they, and I, would have had if government were not putting brakes everywhere we go. Imagine what would have been accomplished with no corporate tax or capital gains tax slowing investment, capital accumulation, and technological innovation! Imagine what would have been accomplished had it not been for income, payroll, and sales taxes diminishing the incomes of the poor! Imagine what would have been accomplished had greedy union bosses not caused so much unemployment across the country by raising wages above their market clearing price!
Did your mother go to a private university? I dont mean anything by that Im asking for educational reasons.
There is a time and a place for rolling back government. But Im arguing that this ideal that if we abolish government totally all will be well is not only dellusional, its dangerous. The state should not be a controller, anyone with logic can understand that. But it should be an insurer and facillitator. And until everyone is willing to take responsibility for everyone elses welfare, we will need a state to step-in to protect the little guy.
To argue that becuase rich people will always have the education to decieve the state into helping them is a reason to disband the state is ludicrous. It should be call to install the Jeffersonian principle of auditing and rewriting the system for every generation.
Yes. I find it rather sad that she was forced to pay thousands of dollars more for an education which included topics completely irrelevant to her major. But, you got to do what you got to do, right? Even if the state is holding you back, as it did my mother.
The problem is that when the state steps in to “protect” the little guy, it inevitably hurts the people that it attempts to help. For example, when the government steps in to raise wages via minimum wages and labor union control, it inevitably causes businesses to lay off the least skilled workers who do not contribute enough to the company for the company to be able to pay for their employment. As another example, when the government creates welfare, it forces some poor workers to pay for others who choose not to work at all.
How is it ludicrous? Would you not agree that only the wealthiest are able to truly able to control the state? In an anarchist society, the richest actually have less power, since they can no longer bribe or lobby those in power to use other people’s money for their own benefit. Surely auditing and rewriting the system for every generation would be a great idea, but those in power would still be able to use the current government to their advantage in shaping the future government. They could use those regulations which restrict radio and T.V. to whatever channels to be able to lobby the public to their advantage. They could lobby and bribe those who were changing government.
And so we should work to ferret out those systems of control. Seperation of powers, dividing authority throughout many bodies; these are all designs in response to the tyranny of monarchies. Now we need a response to the tyranny of capitalists. (And we will need to ferret out the tyrannists of any system, be it democracy, socialism, or libertarianism. They will always be there. And they will find a way to use your system as well.
Wait, did she go to a private or public college? Sounds like public with her having LERs. And do you really think she could have afforded the real price of college (what you pay at private univs) on a waitress’ salary? Public assistance makes the price at least nominally affordable.
How exactly do you propose we create a society without influence from the wealthy? As long as government exists, the wealthy will be able to lobby and bribe the government officials for their own benefit, since government officials use other people’s money. In a statist system, I can bribe a bureaucrat $5 million to do something which will cost the taxpayer $10 million. Under a voluntary system, this would be impossible, since no government would mean that if I wanted to do something worth $10 million, I would have to pay the $10 million out of my own pocket, giving me substantially less power.
Anarchism is ultimately superior because there is no monopoly on force. Power is truly equally distributed since everyone is able to make use of cheap, efficient, and PRIVATE court services and police agencies. Protection agencies (“private police”) would compete for your dollar. Economies of scale and competition would allow these agencies to service the poor at much lower cost than government does. As for non-criminal instances of property infringement, it would be possible for poor individuals to sell off their rights to sue a property infringer as they did in ancient Iceland, or they could divide the spoils of the lawsuit up with the lawyers.
Thus, a system of private protection and law would be superior to one of public government raiding the private coffers of everyone. Let’s get rid of public government and go to private government, also known as self governance.