[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 61 KB, 539x669, 1310143595295.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3445505 No.3445505 [Reply] [Original]

what, are we not allowed to discuss economics here?

>> No.3445508

>>3445505
Well it's not science, and its maths are suspect, so I'd say it's more religion and sociology.

>> No.3445511

>>3445505

Economics intelligence on this board is usually huur derp the gubbmint needs to do it.

>> No.3445512

>>3445508
>maths are suspect
That's why people make billions using algorithms they develop on the stock market.

>> No.3445517

>>3445508
religion and sociology seem to be allowed even in the context of trolling, though
they seem to allow philosophy, or at least there are two philosophy threads here, which is pretty similar

shame, i was enjoying that thread
much better than the two homework threads on the front page that are explicitly not allowed by the rules

>> No.3445518

It's funny, because everything you were saying was, "Hurr durr markets fix everything, and any social program is unconstitutional" which honestly the second point is even more derp then the first.

>> No.3445520

>>3445511
>Implying people don't understand his religion

>> No.3445522

>>3445511
come on, you can do better than that! surely /sci/ isn't trolled that easily!

>> No.3445523

>>3445518
was meant for >>3445511

>> No.3445526

>>3445512
Thats why people lose their homes because people lose billions on the stock market.

>zero sum game.

>> No.3445527

>>3445512
Really? Name one person who has actually used an accurate algorithm to make billions on the stock market. I bet you can't.

>> No.3445530

>>3445522
evidently i'm wrong
>>3445518

>> No.3445531

>>3445522

I think it's what he actually believes. Dude should get a job and read less Ayn Rand.

>> No.3445533

>>3445518

Supply and demand is not a conspiracy, it just is.

>> No.3445535

>>3445523
Why do you try to argue with religious fundamentalists? They obviously have nothing but irrationality backing up their belief system.

>> No.3445540

>>3445535
>Citation needed.

>> No.3445541

well then, pick up where we left off?
discussing the application of the gold standard as a solution for our modern economic problems, as well as the definitions of "liberty" and "freedom", the difference between the two, and how they apply to government

>> No.3445542

>>3445531

I don't read Rand. I have not read one word by her.

I have a job, that is why I support keeping the full product of my labor.

>> No.3445544

>>3445540
see:
>>3445533
>>3445511

>> No.3445546

>>3445533
If you think supply and demand are the only thing ruling the economy you have a thoroughly outdated worldview.

>>3445535
I obviously don't value my time very highly, that's why.

>> No.3445547

>>3445542

I hope you're self-employed, because the company is taking much more of your labour than the evil government ever will.

>> No.3445548

>>3445542
And you believe that you are getting the full product of your labor from your boss?

>> No.3445550

>>3445535

> implying I am buddhist

>> No.3445552

 

>> No.3445556

>>3445531
oh god, he's pathetic. it's fairly obvious he doesn't believe what he's saying at all, just intending to get a reaction out of liberals
the ones that are serious can be god damn scary at times, but they do make excellent points

>> No.3445560

>>3445550
Sir, I understand you are obtuse, but boy do I wonder how I could define poe's law around your meta-stupidity.

>> No.3445561

It was once the people started to argue over a certain group that is supposedly greedy. A group that rhymes with mews.

>> No.3445563

>>3445548
>>3445547

YOU WON'T GET FAR IN THE FREE MARKET BEING SLOW LIKE THAT. BETTER KILL YOURSELF NOW BECAUSE YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY UNSUCCESSFUL WHICH MAKES YOU A WORTHLESS SUBHUMAN.

>> No.3445566

>>3445526
LOL XD I LOVE HOW YOU POINTED OUT THE FLAW OF YOUR ARGUMENT IN GREENTEXT

>> No.3445567

>>3445546

Any market is supply and demand. Supply and demand requires no government, it just is.

>>3445547

The company I work for pays me well. I work for them because they pay me well. I am not some silly person that claims I am forced to work for a company I can leave at anytime.

>>3445548

More so of course. Contractual agreements are only made when both sides think they are getting the better deal.

>> No.3445571

>>3445535
oh cool, a blanket statement about the rationality of the libertarian viewpoint, no claims nor evidence to back up said nonexistent claims, then an analogy to religion. how intelligent of you

>> No.3445572

>>3445563
>successful
>posting on 4chan

Pick 0.999...

>> No.3445573

>>3445552
Nor are sages considered science but we're allowed to do it anyways.

>> No.3445582
File: 11 KB, 200x150, costanza.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3445582

>>3445548
>2011
>believing in the labor theory of value

>> No.3445587

>>3445556

> citation needed

>>3445560

I understand that your emotional wants drive you to regard those that argue logically are wrong.

>> No.3445592

>>3445547
see
>>3445582
any validity for the labor theory of value died with the command economy of the USSR

>> No.3445593

>>3445566
The flaw is that someone can make money but someone will lost money all from a supposedly neutral algorithm?

Geez whiz, lets figure out how science works again.

>> No.3445601

>>3445592
why, sure!
let's go and check out
>>3445511
do you really want to break down this troll post, or should we leave it at that?

>> No.3445607
File: 8 KB, 316x177, keyeseyes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3445607

>>3445593
gee whiz, we'd better figure out how english syntax works first

>> No.3445608

>>3445601

Do you believe the majority of people on this board believe the gubbmint is needed (like I said), or do you say otherwise?

>> No.3445611

>>3445592
>USSR
>Representing Labor side economics
Laughingmarxists.jpg

>> No.3445618

>>3445571
See:
>>3445508

>> No.3445621

>>3445607
Gee whiz, we better figure out how much fuck I give about typing.

>> No.3445623

>>3445618
Is sociology a science?

>> No.3445626

>>3445593
Numerous people are losing money over the span of a year or so. A billion dollars isn't instantly taken from the pocket of a single person. Thus the consequences of someone gaining some much money so fast are mitigated. Also who gives a fuck who is fucked over if you just made a billion dollars.

>> No.3445632

>>3445567
>Any market is supply and demand. Supply and demand requires no government, it just is.
>it just is

And it just was in the early 19th century, but fuck all if I want to go back to a time without food or drug standards, and without worker protection.

You seem to think that somehow the individual and the corporation are on a level playing field, and ignore the fact that corporations have vastly more resources and power in order to force the individual's hand. In fact the only source of power for the individual is the fact they have recourse through the government, but you seem to dismiss this balance as evil, even though the only reason the government fails delivering most of the time is because it has been swayed enough by those with money to not deliver.

If you look at history at times with less government intervention and regulation (late 1800's through the labor movement of the 1900's) it is invariably worse for the average man.

>> No.3445635
File: 201 KB, 489x500, catherinecat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3445635

>>3445608
not the point of that. the point was to play the role of a stereotypical libertarian the statists on /sci/ hate, throw down a simple strawman and then let em have at it. pretty lacking in subtlety, really
the biggest problem, though, is that you don't appear to actually understand the libertarian view very well. you understand it in the context of things that make /sci/ liberals mad, but as far as the philosophy goes, you don't have a very good grasp of it. having argued with real libertarians, you're lacking
pic related

>> No.3445652

>>3445611
alright, let's go ahead and show all that evidence for the labor theory of value to be a practical, working ideology!

>>3445618
touche

>>3445621
i don't understand a god damned thing you were trying to say

>>3445623
only if you consider pseudoscience bullshit to be "science"

>> No.3445653

We really need a philosophy/humanities/religion/politics board (or boards), get all this shit off /sci/ and into its own cesspool. Give it a different name, /new/ has too many things weighing it down.

There are a lot of boards that deserve to be made, but moot is too busy with canv.as to bother.

>> No.3445659

>>3445653
>We really need a philosophy/humanities/religion/politics board (or boards), get all this shit off /sci/ and into its own cesspool
GEE IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE HAD ONE OF THOSE BACK IN JANUARY

>> No.3445660
File: 28 KB, 640x400, 6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3445660

>> No.3445666

>>3445632

In anything, the state has excluded more people from doing what they want to do. A state only does a few things. A state increase barriers of entry and a state regulates and punishes labor. The biggest states have the poorest people. North Korea is a huge state.

Corporations are here only because of the state.

>>3445635

I made no strawman. so...

> citation needed

>> No.3445678

>>3445666
>I made no strawman. so...
>Economics intelligence on this board is usually huur derp the gubbmint needs to do it

yep, you're right, no strawman there
maybe you need some remedial trolling lessons on /v/?

>> No.3445672 [DELETED] 

>>3445626
Eh? The point is that your so called magical algorithm garnering a billion dollars doesn't mean economics is a science. Just the same way a nigger with a gun stealing your money isn't science.

Now learn something useful.

>> No.3445685

>>3445522

You must be new here. You can literally post a single picture of anything vaguely controversial and leave for two hours and successfully troll /sci/.

>> No.3445687

>>3445672
i think he's referring to the algorithms involved

>> No.3445688

>>3445623

Yes, although some fields of sociology are clouded in complete unscientific bullshit. There are proper scientists in this field out there as well, though it's a lot less obvious.

OP, the reason why discussing Economics on this board doesn't work is because practically nobody here has studied Economics and can only spout the nonsense they learn(ed) in high-school; it always just ends in endless moaning about capitalism and how it's "broken", even though people don't even really seem to understand what capitalism is about. As much as I'd like to talk about Economics, I wouldn't really want to do it here.

>> No.3445689

>>3445652
Here read this first.
http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/marx/works/download/manifest.pdf
Then look up Venezuelan, French, and Indian economics.

>> No.3445694

>>3445666
>In anything, the state has excluded more people from doing what they want to do.

Yes, publicly financed roads, education (in all forms, libraries, lower education, and college) have stopped people from doing what they want to rather then aiding them in achieving their goals. Somehow I think you are possibly the most blind person I have ever met.

>Corporations are here only because of the state.
wtf am I reading?

>> No.3445695

>>3445659

You'll notice that I did bring up /new/, so your sarcasm falls flat on its face.

>> No.3445698

>>3445678

Do you see the word usually in there?

The statement was simple to understand and factual. Usually, or the majority of the time,, economics on this board is simply huuur derp the gubbmint needs to do it.

>> No.3445699

>implying the current economic conditions exist entirely because of discretionary spending in social safety net programs

>implying total disregulation of financial markets isn't the cause of a massive bull market in housing that everyone sank their money into (much like the panic of 1893) and is the real cause of the current recession

>implying that the explosion in debt is because of discretionary spending and not actually because of a combination of low tax revenue and higher dependence on social safety nets due to an outstandingly long lasting weak economy.

>implying a total abolishment of these essential safety nets wouldn't result in widespread rioting (see: Greece)

>implying that not raising the debt ceiling would eventually result in exactly that

>implying that while spending cuts do need to be made (see: defense, unnecessary pork and salaries of republicunts) now is not the time when investment in the public in the form of education, infrastructure, energy and health are so important to recovering from the recession, i.e. 'tossing the baby with the bathwater'

>implying that republicants and conservatards actually understand anything about the economy

stay classy liberty and the rest of you

>> No.3445705

>>3445694
Corporations are only here because of the state.
Corporations require state protection, laws protecting corporate owners from being sued directly, and treating corporations to the same rights individuals have.

>> No.3445711

>>3445699

holy shit DUBS

so in an effort to keep this thread from becoming /new/ material (why it was deleted in the first place) we just talk about economics?

i recant my earlier statement of 'republicunts and conservatards' and shall now consider them republiCANs and conservaDIDs to show my lack of partisanship

>> No.3445712

>>3445689
>communist manifesto
read it. i'm asking for a real life case where the labor theory of value functions, not for the inane ramblings of a whiny jevv
and you'll have to do better than "oh just go and look up Venezuelan, French, and Indian economics"
specifics, kneegrow

>> No.3445718

>>3445695
fuck you, i'll be sarcastic if i want to

>> No.3445719

>>3445694

No, taxation and increased regulation have increased the barriers on entry into the market. Everything costs more than supply and demand would decide. Instead of opening their own business, they work for another already created business because it simply costs too much.

The corporation is state backed, state secured, and state loving.

>>3445699

> the problem is not enough gubbmint

So the gubbmint needs to do it? I told you, strawman.

>> No.3445722

>>3445672
There are repeatable exploitable patterns. This means it can be approached using a scientific mindset.

>> No.3445723

Someone made a point that social spending far outweighs defense spending, but keep in mind that "defense" spending isn't limited to the "defense" department, you can find it hidden in almost every cabinet department, and there's also the black budget. Suffice it to say, defense spending is bigger than what's plainly stated.

>> No.3445724

>>3445712
>Jew
>Communist
WTFamireading.jpg

>> No.3445727

>>3445705

Yeah, no. Corporations have existed for centuries - well before any precise laws about them, such as those mentioned by you, were established.

>> No.3445730

>>3445723

Still less.

>> No.3445733

>>3445705
Yes, because without a government, you wouldn't have powerful individuals pooling their money and influence to take control of the economy. And in this ideal world you have in your head, the powerful don't have access to the best lawyers, and can't corrupt or buy judges. No, it's the government (which has anti-monopoly laws mind you, which are the best example of precisely why government is needed to keep a 'free market' in any sense free) that we still have abuses. And any time we try to close corporate loopholes and regulate corporations such that they can't screw the average man, republicans and conservatives balk at the regulation. You are an idiot.

>> No.3445736

>>3445727

gubbmint has been here longer, and has been backing them since day one.

>> No.3445737

>>3445722
By everyone? how nifty! We all gonna be rich guys! Listen up! Theres repeatable patterns we can all exploit!

>> No.3445746

>>3445733
That wouldn't be what I was referring to then.
I was not talking about Monopolies, but stock-based corporations that exist today.
You are talking about Rockafella era corporations. Today GM, Microsoft, Ford and the United States Government are one and the same.

>> No.3445747

>>3445737
There are no free-gans on an island.

>> No.3445749

>>3445727
>Corporations have existed for centuries.
WTFamireading.jpg
So there were corporations even during FEUDALISM?

>> No.3445750

>>3445733

The state loves monopolies. Well, they love their own monopoly.

Also, the emotional dislike of monopolies is based entirely upon emotion. Natural monopolies exist. In some cases they are ideal.

The more regulation, the stronger they get. Any new company that wants to offer the same product for less would have to get past the massive cost of the regulations. More regulation prices out competition, or in other words, CREATES AND MAINTAINS UNNATURAL MONOPOLIES.

>> No.3445769

>>3445719
>No, taxation and increased regulation have increased the barriers on entry into the market. Everything costs more than supply and demand would decide. Instead of opening their own business, they work for another already created business because it simply costs too much.

Yes, because it isn't simply a case of people not having enough capital, or technical knowledge to open their own business. Or the fact that an established corporation has brand recognition, a highly talented legal team, orders of magnitude more money that they can use to drive out competition, or any other slew of benefits and power that keep an individual from having an ability to have a hope of winning a fight. You live in an extremely skewed world. Also, how exactly is the government taking money from those who have been successful, and appropriating it to a new generation so they can receive an education that they otherwise would be unable to afford creating a barrier to entry? (Protip: education is one of the most powerful tools in this world of advancing oneself, which is why you are just plain wrong and delusional)

>> No.3445796
File: 432 KB, 1179x1398, alankeyes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3445796

>>3445699
>implying the current economic conditions exist entirely because of discretionary spending in military programs

>implying the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 didn't create inherently toxic mortgages which ended up ruining the market

>implying that the explosion in debt is not because of discretionary spending, further implying we should not consider increased social welfare spending as problematic

>implying anyone except trollberty here was arguing for that

>implying the only solution is to keep up social spending and expanding entitlements indefinitely

>implying that while spending cuts do need to be made (see: social security, medicare, unnecessary pork and salaries of demotards) now is not the time when getting the financial problems that caused the recession and continue to plague the nation under control are so important to the recovery of the nation, i.e. 'tossing the baby with the bathwater'

>implying that demotards and libruuuuuls actually understand anything about the economy

>implying that hurpadiddily do da derp

stay classy 55555 and the rest of you

>> No.3445797

>>3445769

Capital is very important in a discovered state-ruled world. Capital helps overcome massive regulations.

The corporations use any and all laws (barriers of entry) to deny access to the market to start-ups. The laws and regulations you cream about, stop the individual from advancing, or doing what they want.

Unused knowledge is worthless. I would never support theft of labor to pay for anything.

>> No.3445803

What makes economics not a science is that its theories are based on ideological convenience and fictional scenarios instead of evidence and facts.

>> No.3445810

>>3445796

mahnigga.jpg

>> No.3445819

>>3445724
taken from wikipedia:Karl Heinrich Marx was born on 5 May 1818 at 664 Brückergasse in Trier, a town located in the Kingdom of Prussia's Province of the Lower Rhine.[11] His ancestry was Jewish, with his paternal line having supplied the rabbis of Trier since 1723, a role that had been taken up by his own grandfather, Merier Halevi Marx
don't tell me you didn't know that...
many notable commies were, i believe
one of the many reasons hitler hated them, along with the whole not getting into art school thing

>> No.3445830

>>3445819
"Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
Yea no he was an atheist, agnostic at best.

>> No.3445831

>>3445723
still no where near social spending, and that's increasing due to the nature of social security and medicare
we absolutely have to reform those two programs for the good of our financial future

>> No.3445840

>>3445830
>he doesn't know judaism is an ethnic group as well as a religion
there are atheist jews who maintain their jewish heritage while simultaneously not believing in god, my friend

>> No.3445844

>>3445831

What does reform actually mean to you?

>> No.3445851

>>3445840
Who is a jew?
It seems like everyone is a Jew if you define the term loosely enough,

>> No.3445856

>>3445797
>The corporations use any and all laws (barriers of entry) to deny access to the market to start-ups.

Yes, that's why anytime new regulations are proposed, the corporations don't lobby heavily against them because it will hurt their bottom line. This idea that corporations love regulations because it stops start-ups from happening is bullshit. If anything government the government should tax and use the money to create incentives for innovation, and to ultimately discourage older technology and strategies. For example, the carbon-credit scheme creates opportunities for new knowledge and technology to flourish, by punishing the users of existing infrastructure. This world where corporations are using regulations to keep out new-players simply isn't in touch with reality. Corporations oppose new regulations because it means they have to find and adopt a new strategy, and really one of the reflections of human beings is a want for ones current strategy to remain the best. People hate having to devise new strategies, thus is why corporations wan't things to stay the same (generally falling back on old strategies is also acceptable-hence repealing regulation).

>Unused knowledge
No such thing.

>I would never support theft of labor to pay for anything.

Then you are a first class idiot. It's simply a fact that proper central planning has its place in certain key areas, the publicly financed roads are a key example. If they were privately owned and maintained it would become a fucking nightmare. A real example of how government creation of infrastructure impacts and helps further society would be our highway system, and the trucking industry it allowed to exist, and thus cheaply shipped products available anywhere. Again, your views are simply not grounded in reality.

>> No.3445859

>>3445797
>>3445769
protip: egalitarianism and freedom are inherently opposed. anyone who claims to support both is a fucking idiot. sadly enough, the world isn't fair, and attempting to right any perceived injustice through some statist program will abridge upon freedom, as well as cause unintended consequences
one of the few things liberty here has been right about is corporations using capital to overcome regulations. more often than not, laws intended for corporations end up fucking individuals over in a much bigger way

>> No.3445869
File: 12 KB, 501x585, upsidedownjew.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3445869

>>3445851
identity as a jevv is passed on matrilineally. if your mom was a jevv, you're one too
fuck, i'm not going to go into semetic geneology in this thread, it's completely beside the point, and only really fun with a good dose of antisemetism thrown in
i mean, because who doesn't find big jevv noses funny?

>> No.3445875

>>3445844
no one wants to say it, but benefits will have to be cut in some way, as we simply cannot afford them. in addition, the age for SS should be raised, and some financial restructuring. it was a stupid, irresponsible move for clinton to group the SS funds with the general budget
the problem with this is it'll be wildly unpopular, so we'll see what happens, i guess

>> No.3445878
File: 61 KB, 362x600, 362px-Napoleon_in_His_Study.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3445878

>>3445859
Which is why the world needs a strong federal leadership.
You say the world isn't fair, so what?
A great man doesn't look at the world and see only what is but how it should be.
“Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.”

>> No.3445891

>>3445859
In what way would providing an education to those who want it abridge freedom? Ultimately I think that's all that's needed. A more educated society leads to people making better decisions, and understanding how they're being manipulated and what they can actually do about it. Right now you have the vast majority of people simply acting as cogs in a machine, mindlessly wasting their lives and consuming and generating wealth for those above them, only being given enough to keep them passive. Furthermore environmental regulations are of necessity if we want to have any chance of sustaining our society into the future, this isn't a question of freedoms, simply a fact that if we let business exploit the planet unrestrained, nothing will be left.

>> No.3445916
File: 112 KB, 319x500, blacknazi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3445916

>>3445878
>Which is why the world needs a strong federal leadership
go fuck yourself. the one element present in every centralized subjugation of Man, not class struggles, not nationalism, not even religion, though you scientism faggots on this board love to scapegoat it for all of mankind's ills, has been a strong central authority
the belief that you know what's good for your fellow man better than he does has led to more death and bullshit than any other ideology. and people like you are present in every ideology imaginable. fuck the false dichotomy of modern politics. there are men on each side of the divide that would take the people and subjugate them to their ideology, which is why i find myself so passionately hating both sides. people like you are the root of literally all problems in society, and if you had any sense of morality or self-worth you would kill yourself right now

>black nazi because why the hell not

>> No.3445930

>>3445891
that's when you get into the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. ideally the government should provide the same services to each citizen regardless of any outlying factor. this of course is impossible to achieve, but should be strived towards as ideal
i probably should have specified there

>> No.3445937

>>3445916
How else can my "fellow man" have any rights without a strong national government to uphold those rights.
Without the government we would all be in a state of nature were people would be raping and killing each other whenever they felt like it.
Your human rights are nothing but a social contract made between those with the largest guns (The US government) and you(handguns pfft)
"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao

>> No.3445961

>>3445930
Well then I agree with you. Equality of outcomes is stupid, I don't pretend to want absolute equality. But equality of opportunity, and in particular giving people a way out of poor conditions, is what I think is needed. I just tend to think that we need both a floor and a ceiling to failure and success respectively. This should cover a wide range, but basically we should always allow people a way out of their conditions at the bottom, and put a cap to the excesses of success of those at the top.

>> No.3445965

>>3445937
>How else can my "fellow man" have any rights without a strong national government to uphold those rights.
the government doesn't fucking uphold rights, you naive retard. any government at all inherently abridges on freedom anyway, if you're going by our friend liberty's definition of "freedom"
you making a retarded appeal to emotion. "OH BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE THE GOVERNMENT IT WILL BE SCARY AND WE'LL ALL KILL EACH OTHER!!!"

>Your human rights are nothing but a social contract made between those with the largest guns (The US government) and you(handguns pfft)
and with that statement, my friend, you made one of the most powerful arguments for gun rights i've ever heard

people like you are cancer on the human race. kill yourself now you disgusting faggot

>> No.3445972

>>3445961
>put a cap to the excesses of success of those at the top
you can't do that because of the subjectivity of what defines "excessive success."
punishing success is destructive to a society...
and out of curiosity, what do you mean by "we should always allow people a way out of their conditions at the bottom?"

>> No.3445984

>>3445965
You are wrong, your rights don't mean anything to me or anyone else without the governments protection.
The only thing that is keeping someone from stealing all the money that you have in your bank account right now is the police.
Actually I don't even understand your arguement well enough please explain. What do you mean that without the government men wont do harm to other men when it is convenient for them to?

>> No.3446003

>>3445984
>>3445984
>The only thing that is keeping someone from stealing all the money that you have in your bank account right now is the police
that's not how banks work, my friend... but let's assume you said something tangible, like my home getting robbed
well, in that situation, the only thing stopping my home from getting robbed is the 12 gage shotgun sitting 5 feet away from me. police are ineffective at the best and corrupt assholes on a power trip at worst. complacently believing in their power to protect you will get you fucked over; they don't give a shit about you. but that's beside the point...
my argument? right here
>>3445916
centralized power over the people results in their subjugation; that is, the attitude that the person in authority knows what's best for the person under their authority results in gross abuse of power. that being as such, steps should be taken to limit the authority of the federal leadership.
then you constructed a strawman argument claiming i wanted no government at all then made both an appeal to emotion and appeal to authority. pretty shoddy work there
though i wouldn't expect much better from someone of your ideology, people like you seek anything and everything to justify their statism

>> No.3446024
File: 55 KB, 725x291, 1302305051472.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3446024

Oh how did I miss this thread.

>> No.3446030

>>3445972

>you can't do that because of the subjectivity of what defines "excessive success." punishing success is destructive to a society...

Granted it may be subjective, but that's why it would be a high cap, something in the equivalent range of what today would be 10-30 million dollars a year. Honestly, I don't think this would be destructive to society. It's a high enough cap that everyone has something to aim for, but doesn't encourage the insane tactics employed by those at the top to keep trying to win a game without a win condition. What point would there in trying to have a 50 million dollar golden parachute if you couldn't keep it? It's precisely because our culture encourages unlimited success that you have people trying to screw everyone over to get more money that really doesn't make them any happier. Far better than having one person sacrifice everything to earn a billion, that you have 20 people working simply hard to earn 50 million. Again these numbers are subjective, but I honestly think it would be healthier for society as a whole, and the people at the top if there was a certain point where you no longer have to put in additional effort, but still have a life of extravagance that anyone should be satisfied by.

And by allowing people a way out I mean that people should be provided with the means to better themselves should they choose it. Welfare and such is a poor method because it allows one to simply subsist as they are, we need job training programs that allow someone who currently has a poor (or no) occupation to gain the skills for a job that will be better for them, and better for society. I'm not entirely sure if job training is all that is needed, but essentially if you have the drive to better yourself, society should provide some help to do it.

>> No.3446036

>>3446003
I am only trying to defend my position that rights do not come from the bottom up.
You do not give yourself rights, that is meaningless.
You say that you are strong enough to protect yourself, but that is not true, because no one is strong, smart, or pretty enough overcome everyone else. You can beat some people back from trying to get into your house, but you can't defend against an entire gang for example.
You NEED the government, if you think you don't then spend 1 day in the outskirts of a Somali pirate town, ill even let you bring your shotgun.

>> No.3446055

>>3446003
Also, just curious, are you arguing your actual beliefs? because based on your name and earlier comments in the thread I thought you were trying to present a strawman of extreme libertarian ideologies.

>> No.3446065

To the libertarians slugging through this thread, a gentle reminder:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3z1AaUFbcc

>> No.3446143

what the fuck, is there some word filters i didn't know about?
"part of your comment isn't allowed to be posted :("
anyone care to fill me in about that?

>> No.3446151

>>3446055
haha, no, my name was a joke from a tiiiiny chaaaaat thread on /old/ last summer. if you think what i've been arguing for is extreme libertarian philosophy, you've got no idea at all what libertarianism is at its core. politically i consider myself a moderate, by which i mean i have both stereotypically conservative and liberal views depending on the issue at hand, while also disliking the core of both sides of the modern political dichotomy. i believe i'm to the right of most posters here, while to the left of actual conservatives and most of /new/
basically, i hate almost everyone on the political spectrum. so call me what you will, i don't care

>>3446036
>emotional appeals, emotional appeals everywhere
the core of your argument, if i can take a moment to paraphrase, is "if you dislike powerful centralized authority then you must want no government at all and government is all that guarantees our rights so go live in somalia"
is the government the sole thing that dictates one's rights? by that logic, it is the sole thing that infringes upon them. you've made my argument for me, all you have left is to argue for the infringement upon them based on whatever justifications you feel like scrounging up

to go back to this post:
>>3445878
unless i am mistaken, you are specifically advocating forcing upon the people whatever specific ideology you adhere to, i don't care what it is. that philosophy that "i know better than you do" is the at the core of my disagreement with the two parties, as from its very nature it involves the infringement upon rights

>forgot a certain web site is censored for some reason

>> No.3446153

>>3446143
Government censoring you would be my guess.

>> No.3446166

>>3446151
No, you didn't seem like an extreme libertarian or anything, but I was confused by what you said in this post
>>3445635
> the point was to play the role of a stereotypical libertarian the statists

>> No.3446185

>>3446153
haha, oh you

>>3446166
my point was liberty is a liberal trying to be a libertarian troll. he doesn't understand the ideology very well; that is, he understands it insofar in the ways it is offensive to liberals, but that's where his understanding stops. i've had experience arguing with actual, hardcore, nogubmintatawl libertarians, and they're completely different animals. liberty is just a pretty pathetic troll

well, i'm off to make a late night drunken taquito run. i'll be back after a while

>> No.3446217
File: 12 KB, 190x225, Alexander_Hamilton_portrait_by_John_Trumbull_1806.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3446217

>>3446151
I don't get where you are getting these "Emotional Appeals." If I am using them, it is not on purpose.
I am using thought experiments, at least that is what I have been trying to use.

My arguement has always been for a strong federal government for I am a federalist. I am not for a dictatorship or a totalitarian government. Now who is putting words in who's mouth?

"Unless your government is respectable, foreigners will invade your rights; and to maintain tranquillity you must be respectable; even to observe neutrality you must have a strong government." - Alexander Hamilton

>> No.3446557

back from getting taquitos, smoked a joint, it's all good
but i digress...
>>3446217
one example is such
>You NEED the government, if you think you don't then spend 1 day in the outskirts of a Somali pirate town, ill even let you bring your shotgun.
that is not a thought experiment in any way, shape, or form, my friend. it was an appeal to emotion.
backtracing now? by your own admission, a strong federal government inherently involves submission unto it's authority by the people, as well as infringement upon the people's rights thereof.
Until then, you made no mention of foreigners. the first post you made with napoleon suggested those ruling know better than those being subjugated, which therefor justified abridging their rights, the justification thereof being an emotional appeal to authority, and i quote, "You NEED the government, if you think you don't then spend 1 day in the outskirts of a Somali pirate town, ill even let you bring your shotgun." that's the whole of your justification of the suppression of rights by federal authority. "we NEED the government to keep us safe!" i'm not arguing for the abolition of government, but rather that a strong, centralized federal authority tends to infringe upon the rights of the people; you went from saying that was a good thing to justifying it by saying we NEED that infringement.
excuse me if i find an issue with that

>> No.3446585

>>3446557
>edit: backtracking
>also fuck captcha

>> No.3447403

>>3445856

Nothing helps the bottom line more than the state driving out competition.

You cannot punish to create. If the market (people) want "greener" energy they would show that with what we call profit.

The private sector simply does everything more efficiently, and that is proven with profit. Profit is the literal proof that people (the market) support and want their product or service. And not to mention private roads exist now, in spite of the government monopoly.

>>3445891

Theft for good, or theft for bad is still theft. The idea that any product or service should be paid for through theft of labor is hilarious.

>>3445937

Rights have nothing to do with government. Nothing at all.\

>>3445961

The best way to help the poor is to stop giving them a reason to not work, and take away any and all barriers of entry to the market.

The cap should be at the bottom, if you refuse to find a job and pay for your own way, you will not be helped at all.

>>3445984

The police very rarely stop crime, we know this because every second people are raped, murdered, stolen from etc.

>> No.3447416

>>3446030

Job training programs are pointless and do not work (see the great depression), you cannot make the Private sector take on people that supply nothing to the company.

Cap the bottom, cut them out from everything.

>>3446036

Rights (if they exist, which they don't) do not come from the top down, the only thing a state does is remove rights through regulation and punishment.