The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#226
#226
SpaceCoastVol said:
Dude seriously. Do a little research on islam, and radical islam in particular. We are the great unwashed. They want us dead.... dead. dead. There is no hugging these people. They are fanatic and dangerous, and have no qualms about killing anyone that does not buy into their world. Your "we are the world" fantasy is naive at best.
Click to expand...

Did you know that Islam did not talk this way 100 years ago? I have done the research. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam will explain all of that. It was written by a conservative. Not a libertarian. Not a anarchist. He says that all the turmoil in the middle east has led to them turning their religion into something it wasn't.

Islamic terrorist attacks weren't a thing until very recent history....after intervention in the Middle East. Am I really to believe it's about cultural and religious differences when we've been different forever and the attacks have only been going on a few decades?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#227
#227
n_huffhines said:
Did you know that Islam did not talk this way 100 years ago? I have done the research. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam will explain all of that. It was written by a conservative. Not a libertarian. Not a anarchist. He says that all the turmoil in the middle east has led to them turning their religion into something it wasn't.

Islamic terrorist attacks weren't a thing until very recent history....after intervention in the Middle East. Am I really to believe it's about cultural and religious differences when we've been different forever and the attacks have only been going on a few decades?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. The genie is out of the bottle. They will not go back to the old ways.
 
#228
#228
SpaceCoastVol said:
It doesn't matter. The genie is out of the bottle. They will not go back to the old ways.
Click to expand...

What on earth makes you certain of that?

What is the solution? Surely you don't think we can eliminate terrorism with our foreign policy? We're making more enemies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#229
#229
n_huffhines said:
What on earth makes you certain of that?

What is the solution? Surely you don't think we can eliminate terrorism with our foreign policy? We're making more enemies.
Click to expand...

So why are these fanatics killing other muslims that have nothing to do with our foreign policies?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#231
#231
n_huffhines said:
What on earth makes you certain of that?

What is the solution? Surely you don't think we can eliminate terrorism with our foreign policy? We're making more enemies.
Click to expand...

What foreign policy? Bowing and kissing ass of these so called leaders.. Shiite is 1000 times worse since Hussein has taken over and now he's had to put more ****ing troops in Iraq because he jumped the gun.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    54.8 KB · Views: 1
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#234
#234
SpaceCoastVol said:
OK. No. foreign policy will not eliminate terrorism. Now it;s your turn to answer the question
Click to expand...

Your answer to "what makes you so certain?" is "OK"?

SpaceCoastVol said:
So why are these fanatics killing other muslims that have nothing to do with our foreign policies?
Click to expand...

Probably for a lot of the same reasons we have domestic terrorism here in the US.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#235
#235
n_huffhines said:
Your answer to "what makes you so certain?" is "OK"?



Probably for a lot of the same reasons we have domestic terrorism here in the US.
Click to expand...

That is not an answer, and if you read past where I said "OK", I gave you one.

And I see once again, your answers all come back to your hatred of the cops, and your naive beliefs that if we hug everybody it will be alright. John Lennon believed that and he still got killed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#236
#236
SpaceCoastVol said:
That is not an answer, and if you read past where I said "OK", I gave you one.

And I see once again, your answers all come back to your hatred of the cops, and your naive beliefs that if we hug everybody it will be alright. John Lennon believed that and he still got killed.
Click to expand...

Why is it not an answer?

n_huffhines said:
What on earth makes you certain of that?

What is the solution? Surely you don't think we can eliminate terrorism with our foreign policy? We're making more enemies.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to color coordinate your 2 answers to my 3 questions. I think I got the blue right. Maybe you can help me out.

SpaceCoastVol said:
OK. No. foreign policy will not eliminate terrorism. Now it;s your turn to answer the question
Click to expand...
 
#237
#237
n_huffhines said:
Why is it not an answer?



I'm trying to color coordinate your 2 answers to my 3 questions. I think I got the blue right. Maybe you can help me out.
Click to expand...

I am talking about your reluctance to answer. Your little word games are getting tiresome.
 
#239
#239
n_huffhines said:
But the arbitrator has to have a good reputation for fair decisions, or the firm that knows it will show favoritism to the other will never agree to that arbitrating body. Firm C has to be fair or it goes out of business. If it gets caught being bought off, then they're done. Their reputation is forever tarnished and no one will do business with them.

What happens when government judges are bought off? We have no choice but to continue to deal with them.

Just realize that almost every issue you have with anarcho-capitalism is an issue existing with government, but it's arguably worse with government.
Click to expand...

thats what I am saying, what happens when the firms can't agree to arbitration, because of judge, don't believe they are guilty, don't want to risk it etc; and both sides feel they are in the right? without a real way to enforce it's decisions the courts are meaningless.
 
#240
#240
SpaceCoastVol said:
I think Putin is feeling a little pain right now... not a lot.. but it is nipping at his heels. He needs $100/bbl oil to run his economy from what I have read. The Venezuelans need more than that.

As to being a non-interventionist, I suggest you move to Switzerland. We are the defacto big dog on the planet, and with that comes some -responsibilities- which unfortunately we cannot shirk easily. I would however, suggest that we get paid for some of those responsibiities. For example, if the 6th fleet is escorting a Japanese oil tanker around the horn of Africa, the Japanese .gov needs to pay for that. All of it...
Click to expand...

exactly. starting charging for our services. the world isn't paying taxes to the US.
 
#242
#242
LouderVol said:
thats what I am saying, what happens when the firms can't agree to arbitration, because of judge, don't believe they are guilty, don't want to risk it etc; and both sides feel they are in the right? without a real way to enforce it's decisions the courts are meaningless.
Click to expand...

If you don't go with the court's fair ruling then no one will deal with you. You'll be seen as a cheat. Your reputation will be tarnished and you and your business will suffer for it.

Say firm A is found to owe $x and refuses to pay. Firm B and the arbitrator would put a lien on your business and your credit. This is going to look bad in your dealings with others. If it's enough money and firm A wants to confiscate assets as payments, they may choose to forcefully do so. If you try to stop them, just remember you are in the wrong. It will be hard to justify the use of violence to protect your assets when you owe them. If you use violence, you are asking for a costly war with firm B, but all other firms are likely to take the side of the arbitrator too, not to mention individuals (including your own customers who are ashamed to be associated with a business that does not honor their debts).

There is plenty of reason to pay. No, the arbitrator isn't going to put you in jail if you don't respect their ruling, but firm B might incarcerate you, and nobody is going to have a problem with it.
 
#243
#243
n_huffhines said:
If you don't go with the court's fair ruling then no one will deal with you. You'll be seen as a cheat. Your reputation will be tarnished and you and your business will suffer for it.

Say firm A is found to owe $x and refuses to pay. Firm B and the arbitrator would put a lien on your business and your credit. This is going to look bad in your dealings with others. If it's enough money and firm A wants to confiscate assets as payments, they may choose to forcefully do so. If you try to stop them, just remember you are in the wrong. It will be hard to justify the use of violence to protect your assets when you owe them. If you use violence, you are asking for a costly war with firm B, but all other firms are likely to take the side of the arbitrator too, not to mention individuals (including your own customers who are ashamed to be associated with a business that does not honor their debts).

There is plenty of reason to pay. No, the arbitrator isn't going to put you in jail if you don't respect their ruling, but firm B might incarcerate you, and nobody is going to have a problem with it.
Click to expand...

its easy enough to say you don't believe you owe anything because you think the judge is a crook. There will be enough rulings and issues were this is likely an opinion held by many. Since when has a bad rep shut down a big business. How is BP doing after the oil spill, or Mcdonalds after everybody freaked about their cows cutting down rain forests (for pastures) the big guys would be able to spend their way out of it. and they would easily be able to spend their way out of assuming any guilt by using any number of tactics. Point out the judge's history of going against big business, or that he is a Christian, or not a Christian. As soon as you besmirch the judge the hit to your reputation is gone and your losses won't be bad.
 
#244
#244
n_huffhines said:
If you don't go with the court's fair ruling then no one will deal with you. You'll be seen as a cheat. Your reputation will be tarnished and you and your business will suffer for it.

Say firm A is found to owe $x and refuses to pay. Firm B and the arbitrator would put a lien on your business and your credit. This is going to look bad in your dealings with others. If it's enough money and firm A wants to confiscate assets as payments, they may choose to forcefully do so. If you try to stop them, just remember you are in the wrong. It will be hard to justify the use of violence to protect your assets when you owe them. If you use violence, you are asking for a costly war with firm B, but all other firms are likely to take the side of the arbitrator too, not to mention individuals (including your own customers who are ashamed to be associated with a business that does not honor their debts).

There is plenty of reason to pay. No, the arbitrator isn't going to put you in jail if you don't respect their ruling, but firm B might incarcerate you, and nobody is going to have a problem with it.
Click to expand...

Your society would be akin to warlords. You are just arguing that they, along with their members/clients would be rational, logical, and just. I dunno what makes you buy into that dream.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#245
#245
PKT_VOL said:
Your society would be akin to warlords. You are just arguing that they, along with their members/clients would be rational, logical, and just. I dunno what makes you buy into that dream.
Click to expand...

Communism repackaged.
 
#246
#246
LouderVol said:
its easy enough to say you don't believe you owe anything because you think the judge is a crook. There will be enough rulings and issues were this is likely an opinion held by many. Since when has a bad rep shut down a big business. How is BP doing after the oil spill, or Mcdonalds after everybody freaked about their cows cutting down rain forests (for pastures) the big guys would be able to spend their way out of it. and they would easily be able to spend their way out of assuming any guilt by using any number of tactics. Point out the judge's history of going against big business, or that he is a Christian, or not a Christian. As soon as you besmirch the judge the hit to your reputation is gone and your losses won't be bad.
Click to expand...

Actually, BP is a great example for the social incentives that would come into play under anarcho-capitalism. After the Exxon Valdez catastrophe, oil companies lobbied government to regulate more, and manipulated the regulation to cap liability in this sort of instance at like $75M. In case you don't know, BP paid a lot more than what the cap stated. BP chose not to fight it, and I would have to guess the reason is because they were worried about their reputation and were on damage control.

Social pressures on big business are very impactful in the marketplace today.

Again, rulings aren't going to be corrupt, because then they lose credibility and their business is totally reliant on being credible.

Your concern about the big boys being able to spend their way out of it is a bigger concern with government, IMO. It will always be a concern under any system, but government is so easy to buy off/influence. They don't follow constructive incentives like private entities do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#247
#247
PKT_VOL said:
Your society would be akin to warlords. You are just arguing that they, along with their members/clients would be rational, logical, and just. I dunno what makes you buy into that dream.
Click to expand...

When their member clients have to foot the bill of the war directly, they are going to be a lot more rational and logical than they are right now. Our generation won't be paying for our wars. Our kids will. That's why we act irrationally when we support our foreign policy (or fail to oppose it vehemently).
 
#248
#248
n_huffhines said:
Actually, BP is a great example for the social incentives that would come into play under anarcho-capitalism. After the Exxon Valdez catastrophe, oil companies lobbied government to regulate more, and manipulated the regulation to cap liability in this sort of instance at like $75M. In case you don't know, BP paid a lot more than what the cap stated. BP chose not to fight it, and I would have to guess the reason is because they were worried about their reputation and were on damage control.

Social pressures on big business are very impactful in the marketplace today.

Again, rulings aren't going to be corrupt, because then they lose credibility and their business is totally reliant on being credible.

Your concern about the big boys being able to spend their way out of it is a bigger concern with government, IMO. It will always be a concern under any system, but government is so easy to buy off/influence. They don't follow constructive incentives like private entities do.
Click to expand...

and the fact the BP still faced more litigation outside of the fines they paid? people weren't happy that there was only a fine, they won't be happy under your system. Point with the BP is that they paid their dues and kept doing their same thing, and continued to make money.

these judges are selling OPINIONS, that aren't based on anything. They will not be fair and just because there will be no fair or just to gauge them on. what is the base point they base their judgement on? One judge was beat as a child by his dad, so now he punishes dad's harsher. you can't just say that they will always or a vast majority of the time be impartial and unbiased. there is no history to back that up, in fact what history says is the opposite. as soon as one government is gone another steps in, human society needs it.
 
#250
#250
n_huffhines said:
When their member clients have to foot the bill of the war directly, they are going to be a lot more rational and logical than they are right now. Our generation won't be paying for our wars. Our kids will. That's why we act irrationally when we support our foreign policy (or fail to oppose it vehemently).
Click to expand...

Again, I think you have flawed understanding of humans with respect to how they act in large numbers under varying conditions. Your argument, much like Communism, works great if we are talking about Utopian people and conditions.

As long as humans interact on a large scale, there will be some kind of structure there. Whether you want to recognize that structure as "government" or a "state" is totally on you.

About the best you can argue for is an extremely decentralized government/power structure. However, those that have such a structure will be at a great disadvantage if an adversarial rival decides to pool their resources.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top