Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Miscellaneous General
41

Is there an effective way to getting people interested in the idea? And no, I dont think she does.. I mentioned privatizing the military once and she seemed to think I was crazy. I haven’t really read into that myself, but apparently the private military was tried in Italy. The companies just call up their competitors and agrees to cut corners when patrolling the neighborhoods so that they save money.

So if another poster could help me out on that, either with Youtube video, an article, or whatever… go for it.

/1/2010 6:29:37 PM Kelly Carl Privatized military has proved over and over and over to be a horrible idea
4/1/2010 6:29:40 PM Kelly Carl throughout history
4/1/2010 6:29:41 PM Carl Kelly Where?
4/1/2010 6:29:56 PM Kelly Carl everywhere!
4/1/2010 6:30:01 PM Kelly Carl all hired soliders
4/1/2010 6:30:13 PM Kelly Carl money is not as good of an incentive
4/1/2010 6:30:23 PM Kelly Carl because they don’t care about what they’re fighting for
4/1/2010 6:30:28 PM Kelly Carl they care about who is paying them
4/1/2010 6:30:40 PM Kelly Carl any countries history
4/1/2010 6:30:43 PM Kelly Carl has shown that
4/1/2010 6:30:46 PM Carl Kelly I dont know of any examples where they have been completely privatized
4/1/2010 6:30:57 PM Carl Kelly privatized would mean that where would be competing military companies
4/1/2010 6:30:58 PM Kelly Carl we have them right now
4/1/2010 6:31:05 PM Carl Kelly not just giving the entire countries military to one private owner
4/1/2010 6:31:12 PM Carl Kelly thats a monopoly, I’m against monopolies
4/1/2010 6:31:28 PM Kelly Carl I would never want to live in your world.
4/1/2010 6:31:35 PM Kelly Carl It would be corrupt

Oh and we talked about Health Care as well.. I think I got her to agree with me at one point :stuck_out_tongue: though, I fell apart again after that.

/1/2010 6:31:39 PM Carl Kelly I want health care costs to be low, and for prices to be low they need to compete, why dont they compete?
4/1/2010 6:31:58 PM Carl Kelly Because theres a monopoly, so i want to break the monopoly being enforced by the government, and the AMA
4/1/2010 6:32:04 PM Carl Kelly and HMO’s
4/1/2010 6:32:14 PM Carl Kelly so that we can have cheap quality health care again
4/1/2010 6:32:21 PM Kelly Carl Never going to happen
4/1/2010 6:32:38 PM Kelly Carl If you’re for capitialism, you realize the point isto profit
4/1/2010 6:32:38 PM Carl Kelly Yeah but, ideally if it did
4/1/2010 6:32:42 PM Carl Kelly it would be the best right?
4/1/2010 6:32:43 PM Kelly Carl nobody will give up profit
4/1/2010 6:32:52 PM Kelly Carl If things worked on ideals
4/1/2010 6:32:56 PM Kelly Carl I would support communism
4/1/2010 6:33:00 PM Kelly Carl but the fact is, it doesn’t work
4/1/2010 6:33:03 PM Kelly Carl so why talk about it?
4/1/2010 6:33:21 PM Kelly Carl it wll never be what it should be or could be
4/1/2010 6:33:32 PM Carl Kelly well lets establish a definition here
4/1/2010 6:33:38 PM Carl Kelly I dont suppor tthe current “Capitalism”
4/1/2010 6:33:44 PM Carl Kelly Which is corporate state fascism
4/1/2010 6:33:58 PM Carl Kelly I support a different “Capitalism”
4/1/2010 6:34:32 PM Carl Kelly State Capitalism is evil
4/1/2010 6:34:50 PM Carl Kelly I support Capitalism with property rights
4/1/2010 6:35:12 PM Carl Kelly and a market that is free of coerced monoplies
4/1/2010 6:35:17 PM Carl Kelly monopolies*
4/1/2010 6:35:46 PM Carl Kelly Do we have free capitalism now? hell no we never did not since 1860
4/1/2010 6:36:12 PM Carl Kelly The Oil companies charge outrageous prices because Halliburton lobbied with the world governments to make it illegal to drill in places like Southern, CA and Siberia
4/1/2010 6:36:28 PM Carl Kelly So that they could have a monopoly
4/1/2010 6:37:13 PM Kelly Carl grumbles oil needs to go
4/1/2010 6:37:23 PM Carl Kelly Yeah, and if we stop subisdizing it
4/1/2010 6:37:34 PM Carl Kelly Stop giving companies damn subsidies to use oil
4/1/2010 6:37:43 PM Carl Kelly Companies will look for alternative energies
4/1/2010 6:37:49 PM Carl Kelly because oil will be too expensive
4/1/2010 6:37:53 PM Carl Kelly and will look for something cheaper
4/1/2010 6:38:18 PM Carl Kelly But before that could happen, you ahve to let oil rise to its natural price, when its high enough people will want to stop using it
4/1/2010 6:39:04 PM Kelly Carl we should be looking for alternative energies
4/1/2010 6:39:06 PM Kelly Carl or more, not looking
4/1/2010 6:39:17 PM Kelly Carl we need to stop being afraid to crash the oil industry
4/1/2010 6:39:19 PM Carl Kelly We SHOULD be
4/1/2010 6:39:28 PM Carl Kelly But the government has barriers set up
4/1/2010 6:39:28 PM Kelly Carl and just start actually working on a solution
4/1/2010 6:39:30 PM Kelly Carl yes
4/1/2010 6:39:32 PM Carl Kelly thats preventing people from doing it
4/1/2010 6:39:34 PM Kelly Carl it’s annnooooying >_<

42

when asked why we should increase the minimum wage :

“Because it is an instrument, one of many, which helps to build a fairer, more equitable, society. More equitable societies are safer, healthier and generally better places to live than less equitable ones.”

“I believe that it has helped to stop people being exploited. The latest measure being to stop restaurants and bars using customer tips to “top up” wages - of course the down side is that the more unscrupulous owners will simply keep the tips for themselves to claw back the extra they are now having to pay. I am about to benefit from another form of “minimum wage” in the form of the SRA’s trainee solicitor minimum salary. Basically it means that my firm cannot exploit my inexperience for the benefit of their profits by paying me peanuts. I believe the introduction of this was in some part influenced by a national minimum wage, as it seemed incongruous that someone who has spent 3-5 years training for a job could then be paid less than the national minimum wage per hour.”

“I think bob and h5s make good points. We live in a society where we are sold the dream of owning your own home. If that dream is beyond a couple who are both working and on the minimum wage then what incentive do they have to work?”

“Joe, perhaps you misread the thread title, and instead of quoting yet more US based stuff you could perhaps stick to UK based research”

"I heard all the same arguments when the minimum wage was first introduced and none of the doomsayers predictions came to pass. Everything will be slightly more expensive but the people at the bottom end of the working population will be better off and i think it’s an all round good thing for society that whatever work you do you are paid a wage you can live on and not just scrape by on.

We are in a society that must push the value of a “work ethic” as a priority. I don’t think you can install work ethics in people without paying them a living wage, it just doesn’t work.

You may have done your share of part time shite jobs but you did them knowing your education was going to take you to better places. It’s a different mindset entirely to those without decent educations who are stuck in low level employment who go from one job to another not giving a shite about their work as they money they are paid is so shite. Why bother working when you can claim the dole and sell a bit of weed on the side and earn more than someone working a full time job on the minimum wage.

If even low level jobs are seen to be “worth it” then work will become more valued and society as a whole will reap a whole range of rewards from better service from better paid staff, lower crime levels and crucially lower numbers of people on long term benefits."

43

Please tell me you responded, “What if people got together and made a law that private property is moral? Sort of like they do now (with various inconsistencies).”

44

I want a T-shirt with that motivational poster on it.

45

If folks start talking about the poor not being helped or government funding of health care, education etc then two responses will at least shut the other guy up

  1. “Put your money where your mouth is. If you believe that the poor need help then reach into your own pocket and give it to them yourself.”

  2. If they somehow make the argument that the vote lends legitimacy to an action that violates the NAP then " So if I and ten of my friends convene and decide to beat the s*** out of you you’d accept that as being legimitate because there was a vote?" If they say that’s ridiculous then ask them why they think it’s ridiculous.

46

In response to the “government-needs-to-give-people-self-esteem” argument, how does working for wages at the lowest possible legal level inspire self-esteem? For those who are unemployed, how does that inspire self-esteem? Does this not tell them, “You are almost useless,” and “You ARE useless” respectively.

Moreover, if this is how people are supposed to be treated in the real world, why not start training them on this mentality earlier. I think B’s, C’s, D’s, and F’s should be made illegal. (the grades, not the bubs)

47

How about this:

"The composition of the current economy has very little relation to the Austrian perspective. Again, what did Schiff and many Austrians (to this very day) claim about US hyperinflation following the housing bubble? How about the “looming market crash”? To this day it is a most brooding topic on Ron Paul forums. They have been repeating the same garbage for three years.

Stocks: Market Crash Looming - Liberty Forest
Stocks: Market Crash Looming - Liberty Forest

Quote:

Are you trying to say that there will be no inflation now?

Are you claiming the Fed has abandoned the

Taylor rule
Taylor_rule

? If so, where is your proof?"

48

Again, they don’t understand time nor do they understand ceteris paribus.

AFAIK, Schiff hasn’t given a specific date as to when hyperinflation will occur. Certain events must occur for hyperinflation to happen; it could occur in a year or it could happen in ten years.

Also, Schiff’s argument has to taken in consideration with “under the current conditions.” If conditions change, say, the Fed raises interest rate to 50%, then conditions have changed.

49

I don’t really need help with this, but I thought it was pretty interesting.

"Originally Posted by phattonez

Are you denying that minimum wage is creating higher unemployment?

Assuming the minimum wage caused anything more than marginally higher instances of unemployment, policy (and its externality) is still within the realm of determination.

In 2006, the US was operating at near full capacity."

And it gets really good here.

"Quote:

I didn’t claim that.

Show me inflation (and not monetary aggregates).

Quote:

When you have multiple claims to the same dollar, it’s inflationary. It ends with a bank run. You’ll inflate the money supply, loans can’t be paid back, and that institution will fail.

Citi, BoA, and JP failed? Or is this another “prediction” because something has to give?"

50

There are plenty of perfectly good private roads. Florida Turnpike for example. There is at least one private road with only houses less than a mile from my house. New communities and housing developments are booming all over the country, with their houses on private roads and even underground utility lines.

Infrastructure? I was under the impression that infrastructure IS privately provided. The question is to whether one or more service of the infrastructure is monopolized within a given area. I know for a fact that in my town of Bethel, CT, I can choose from more than one private electricity provider.

Don’t know about the choices of water in my area, but I could swear that there are places where you have more than one choice.

Cable TV? Maybe back in the day, you only had one choice, but nowadays, there are many places where you have multiple choices of providers. This does not even take into consideration Satellite TV.

Ditto for phone and DSL. Virtually anywhere, you have a list of cell phone providers.

Virtually anywhere, you can choose between one or more oil and/or gas heat providers.

Many people still use their own septic tanks as opposed to public sewers. I do not know if there are private sewers.

Railroads for the longest time were quite an effective form of transportation in private hands. They became more and more strangulated with regulation, and gradually lost the ability to fight with trucks and airplanes. In fact, the trucking lobby was one of the biggest players in the whole fiasco. Freight and industrial rail is still privately owned and operated (and still profitable after all the regulatory chainballs). They even provide the lines for Amtrak passenger rail to use.

Private garbage disposal is actually pretty common. There is always enough market demand for it. Only in dumbass places with control freak mayors like Nanny Bloomberg is it a public service.

And, yes, there are even private courts! Businesses increasingly are settling their matters in these courts.

Maybe when you actually learn a thing or two as to how these things actually work and are distributed in society, then you can lecture the rest of us. Even the status quo is more anarcho-capitalist than you are.

51

The response to any arguments of poverty is the fact that the free market lifts people out of it. Start with that, and not an apologetic argument.

52

More nonsense from my friend.

"What… the **** are you even talking about? Even if the minimum wage had a more than substantial impact on unemployment, it still would fall under the realm of natural unemployment. Europe has a higher natural rate of unemployment for that very reason.

The summation of frictional and structural unemployment is the natural rate of unemployment."

I don’t even know what to say to this.

53

Tues. 10/04/06 18:58 EDT
.post #46

How about this one:

Yes we are all part of the state. Unless you are posting from prison for standing up for your principles.

It’s not very sophisticated, but I’ve encountered it on this forum, as well as other forums and even in “real life.”

It’d be interesting to invite Southern into this thread, where he could play “statist’s advocate” and let libertarians compete with various responses.

Capitalism & Poverty: Where is the data?
54

I would much prefer any meaningful discussions to get their own thread. This is sort of meant for a bit of shock and/or laugh

‘statist said what?!!?’

couple more:

“I’m English by the way, so enjoy (wince at) watching how the US media works and its apparent lack of serious regulation. Just makes you appreciate just how good the BBC is by comparison - it also shows you what Sky News would be like if we didn’t have the regulations in place relating to balanced journalism.”

“I do think the minimum wage is a good thing it’s certainly helped me out in the past - and as long as the increase doesn’t occur in one hit, it shouldn’t be so much of an issue. I presume the £7 figure quoted is also for over 21s, with lower minimums for younger age groups? (Although how that can be justified in the light of age discrimination legislation is beyond me.) A slow, steady increase should help to offset any issues that the increase may cause in terms of increasing costs for employers being passed onto consumers. It should also give time for public services to find the necessary extra cash (although christ knows where from as I thought we were all strapped for cash these days).”

would certainly cause more ‘discrimination’ if there wasn’t an exception, and I don’t understand how implementing a bad idea over time, suddenly makes it a good idea.

55

I’ve got a doozy here. It’s gotten kind of complicated for my tastes.

Quote:


Originally Posted by phattonez
So if less employment then less production. Well obviously. It doesn’t mean that full employment is your most efficient outcome either. Not all production is equal.

Exactly, and that is why it can increase unemployment.

| | This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized 728x658. |
| - | - |

As you can see, output to unemployment has deviated from okun’s law. It has moved to a percentage higher than okun’s law would predict given our output gap.

A large amount of people are leaving the labor force,as you can see in Q4 2009 the amount of people leaving the labor force was lower than the trend. This should work to lower unemployment percentage.

You can also see hours worked has fallen, and this should reduce the unemployment/output gap. Therefore, I would not think this could be causing the deviation from okun’s law.

Finally, we have productivity, which you can see increased relative to the trend. This is something that could explain at least some of the deviation from okun’s law.

Some of the increase in productivity is structural, but no doubt some of this is also due to cyclical effects such as laying off less productive workers, increased work effort, etc. So I halfway agree with you that this could go into the same category as unemployment benefits type structural unemployment. Of course, I am not sure if an increase in productivity is really bad, since it is something that eventually leads to an increase in quality of life. We can work less and get more.

Of course, this may also show why money is not always neutral, as says law would imply. Wages don’t fall or rise quickly. Despite the large increase in productivity, I doubt you are seeing a large amount of people getting a raise, at least right now. If wages could rise and fall instantaneously according to the economic conditions, I am not sure there would even be a problem.

56

found this gem today:

When we write about libertarianism, most liberals feel compelled to say something like, you know, I disagree with that viewpoint, but I respect that it’s principled and intellectually consistent.

I say balderdookey. Libertarianism is kookoo. There can be no such thing as a basically stateless society (except for national defense and barest administration of law, I think are the exceptions they typically allow for). It’s just ridiculous. Civil society would collapse without the state.

I’ve written this before, a few months ago. Conservatives, and libertarians, seem to think that we have regulations in this society because we have a bunch of underemployed pencil pushers sitting around dreaming up ways to make small business people’s lives miserable.

It’s ridiculous. We have regulations because throughout history people in various pursuits did really sleazy and unethical things. They swindled investors, they dumped toxins into bodies of water, they made children work long hours for slave wages. Et cetera. And so laws were passed and regulations were written.

And unfortunately such is man’s endless capacity for sleaze and unethicality that this process will never end: as technology presents new ways to be sleazy, we’ll always need to invent new ways to prevent sleaze from happening.

Yes, fine. Some regulations are onerous. Liberals should always be sensitive to legitimate concerns along these lines.

But you need a state. Time and history have proven no one else will perform these tasks.

So there’s nothing in the least inellectually respectable about libertarianism. Intellectually consistent? Great. So was Goebbels. That doesn’t mean much to me.

We all support a few libertarian-ish principles; we all agree that the state should have some limits. For example, I think it’s perfectly fine for the state to make fast-food joints post nutrition information. But I would oppose the state having the right to ban the Quarter Pounder. So we all get that kind of thing.

But big-L Libertarianism is vapid. I hope in the next few months it is properly exposed as such.

57

I’ve argued with statists in too many comment threads to count. Mostly on Digg.com as Rothbardosaurus. Mention that you’re an an-cap, and someone immediately brings up the US interstate highway system.

I guess the assumption is that only a coercive state could have brought highways into being.

Starting this kind of argument on the Internet is a bit like Jesus’ analogy of “throwing pearls before swine”, because the rest of his analogy is exactly what happens next. They “trample [the pearls] under their feet, and then turn to attack you.”

58

I’ve argued with statists in too many comment threads to count. Mostly on Digg.com as Rothbardosaurus. Mention that you’re an an-cap, and someone immediately brings up the US interstate highway system.

Yes, people inevitably bring up government built roads as if they’ve brilliantly found the flaw in your position.

59

came across this one today that actually came from a ‘libertarian’:

“People that write articles for mises, always denote some superficial effect of the Federal Reserve on interest rates… but that isn’t what caused this crash. The lack of equity, and loss of social stigmatism to default, is.
The world went from 20% down payments w/closing costs and absolute fear of default… to no money down w/ seller covering closing costs and default is the result of the lender trying to defraud you.”

60

"Here is our conversation on the Drug War. At least she agrees that Marijuana is not a “drug” or harmful at all..

4/2/2010 4:05:29 AM Kelly Carl Legalizing them tells people it’s okay to do them."

The thing you failed to bring up is the element of choice. She’s assuming that if you make every dangerous drug 100% legal, people will think ‘oh, cool, these must be good for me!’ and will become drug addicts. She’s ignoring the fact that anyone who would become a drug addict just because it became legal is probably already a drug addict. The war on drugs doesn’t stop anyone from taking drugs if they really want to, lets be honest, it just makes it harder and more expensive.

I personally believe that most people with a small modicum of common sense would still not do hard drugs even if they were legal. I’m one of them, and I know plenty of others! It’s not as if cocaine and meth are shrouded in mystery as to whether they’re harmful or not, the average person has probably got at least some second-hand knowledge concerning their effects, be it from pop culture, education or society. Were drugs to become legal, I would still advocate for education on the aftereffects of all substances to encourage thoughtful decisions, hopefully put out by a private third party.

I did really like how you pointed out that if they were legal you could actually punish people for commiting crimes, not just possessing something illicit.