I only dealt with the argument (not arguments) which the original poster referenced. I did not deal with any of his other arguments.
Well that’s good, as it’s not an argument in the first place: it’s a series of unconnected assertions.
I see that you are still refusing to substantiate your claim that he did not substantiate his claim.
Are you attempting to adopt the ridiculous principle “fight fire with fire”? Are you attempting to fight what you believe is his non-argument which your own non-argument?
There ought to be a name for this fallacy: “Something has X bad tendency under Statism, so without the State it’ll be even worse.” They assume the State is mitigating the problem, when it is actually the prime exacerbator (or sometimes the sole origin) of the problem.
Show me what Moore has for an argument and for support of his argument. Hint: you can’t. His series of unconnected statements is not an argument. But go on–give it a shot. Show me the evidence HE presents. Which, again, is impossible, as he presented no evidence. And if would be the EVIDENCE which connects his statements.
If you just want to be contrarian for the sake of it, you should have picked a better topic. Being a bloody-minded troll about this isn’t something good for you to have done.
I see that you are refusing to show what he used to substantiate his claims. You believe the claims are substantiated. Show it. Now. Or stop trolling.
Hint: I can keep slapping you around as long as you wish to believe that shifting the burden of proof is not a fallacy. When you finally realize that it is, I’ll stop slapping you around.
I say we call it the State God fallacy.
I already provided my explanation and you ignored it. If you think that my explanation is incorrect, you should either (a) confront it or (b) quit this discussion now.
I see that you are still refusing to substantiate that claim. All you are doing is continuously posting various locutions of the same empty assertion.
Oh, no! I am scared now!
You are very immature.
Parody of this conversation:
A) god exists because banana’s conform pleasantly to the human hand.
B) argument fail. thats a non sequitur assertion. you have shown me no warrant, hence there is nothing to refute. please proceed to actually state your case
A) i have stated my case, please substantiate how i have not !
B) omg.
Do you even know what the original argument is which corresponds to “god exists because bananas conform pleasantly to the human hand”?
private prisons cannot work in a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist society because since private prisons need to make profit they’ll pay off judges to send more people in
If that was the original argument which I was addressing, why did I, on the first page, write that “if […] the judges are a part of a non-monopoly institution, the [original] argument does not hold anymore, because the potential prisoner can indeed, to some extent, choose the person who will be his judge”? In the context of an anarchocapitalist society, each judge (and each other worker) would obviously be a part of a non-monopoly institution and, therefore, I blatantly asserted that the original argument does not apply to the context of an anarchocapitalist society.
your original response to the OP and your response to KoB are not the same thing. and I was only finding fault in one of them. guess which one.
Couldn’t this entire problem be resolved if the insurance companies or courts all just owned the jails and therefor have no insentive to increase the number of prisoners but instead to keep costs at a minimum?
I provided a similar answer on the first page which does not presuppose that the insurance companies own the jails:
Didn’t see that, srry. I just saw some of the massive numbers of comments and immiediatly thought this would be the easiest answer to the problem
Huh?
Is our current system an anarchocapitalist system? No.
No, you did not. You have to show where his evidence is. SHOW IT! You provided what YOU THOUGHT, NOT WHAT HE PROVIDED. SHOW HIS EVIDENCE OR QUIT THIS DISCUSSION NOW.
Have I made myself clear, little immature one?
Yes. So does everyone other than you.