The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#328
#328
Danl said:
So if you choked Eric Garner to death did you use force?
Click to expand...

I see where you're going with this. Thanks for letting me know early that it's not worth discussing any of this with you. :good!:
 
#329
#329
n_huffhines said:
Government is a vehicle through which the rich and wealthy businesses achieve and maintain their market/monopoly power.

I can prove it to you. Name fortune 500 companies that supported Ron Paul or Gary Johnson (de-regulators). Now name the fortune 500s who gave money to Romney and Obama (regulators).

Are these companies stupid? Why give money to the regulators? Remove government, and the marketplace becomes a king of the hill competition where the best business wins. Fortune 500s don't want that. That's why they need government. That's one reason you should want to get rid of government. Your heart is in the right place in making this point, but you are ignoring the reality of what the relationship is between government and big business.
Click to expand...

the market place already knows about these corporations and their bought politicians. it doesn't stop the pubs that the MIC is paying for their guys and the democrats don't care that 'sustainable' companies are buying off theirs. all you are doing is removing the middle man and one barrier we have. sure some companies would fall under but overall big business would just rule more openly and it wouldn't matter that they lose .05% of their buyers because they don't pay their workers a fair wage. people are going to take the cheapest option. While do you think Whole Foods and others aren't main stream? they are too darn expensive.
 
#330
#330
n_huffhines said:
Conquering to convert sounds more like what early Christianity did.

Name any organization ever that didn't want to expand influence?

Sure Barbary Pirates had some things in common with modern day terrorists. I'm sure they had some things in common with you and I.

Modern day Islamic terrorism against the west is all about blowback. Not slavery. Not dividing and conquering (I'm sure they'd like to). It's about utilizing the only method they can to fight a superpower who intervenes in their part of the world.
Click to expand...

Then why are they fighting each other?

Do you live in a bubble?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#331
#331
n_huffhines said:
When Christians took slaves, did you call it terrorism? Religious terrorism?
Click to expand...

First, it was way before my time when Christians were enslaving people. Gramps might be able to recall that time.

Second, Slavery was just part of it.
 
#332
#332
LouderVol said:
the market place already knows about these corporations and their bought politicians. it doesn't stop the pubs that the MIC is paying for their guys and the democrats don't care that 'sustainable' companies are buying off theirs. all you are doing is removing the middle man and one barrier we have. sure some companies would fall under but overall big business would just rule more openly and it wouldn't matter that they lose .05% of their buyers because they don't pay their workers a fair wage. people are going to take the cheapest option. While do you think Whole Foods and others aren't main stream? they are too darn expensive.
Click to expand...

No. If you remove government created barriers to entry, and government subsidies, your choices will look a lot different. Company A, who was doing well with government regulation when there was only companies B thru D to contend with, no longer gets subsidies that allowed them to keep prices down no longer has much market power. They are now contending with companies E thru Z, and their prices/offering suck in comparison.
 
#333
#333
n_huffhines said:
No. If you remove government created barriers to entry, and government subsidies, your choices will look a lot different. Company A, who was doing well with government regulation when there was only companies B thru D to contend with, no longer gets subsidies that allowed them to keep prices down no longer has much market power. They are now contending with companies E thru Z, and their prices/offering suck in comparison.
Click to expand...

you think Corporation A gives a crap about the mom and pop start ups E thru Z?
 
#334
#334
hog88 said:
Then why are they fighting each other?

Do you live in a bubble?
Click to expand...

I don't understand what the first question has to do with anything. I'm talking about Islamic terrorism vs the west. What are you talking about? Why Muslims fight each other? Probably the same reasons Christians fight each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#336
#336
LouderVol said:
you think Corporation A gives a crap about the mom and pop start ups E thru Z?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why they lobby for more regulation. That's exactly why. Big companies can handle the burden of the large fixed cost that is regulatory compliance. Mom and Pops cannot. Any individual Mom and Pop shop is not likely to become a major player, but with thousands of them, it is likely that quite a few of them do become major players. Enough that it threatens company A's long term market power. Make it really difficult for them to enter the market, and you don't have to worry about those guys.

There is no arguing this.
 
#337
#337
Grand Vol said:
Sure. I'll call a spade a spade. (no racist)
Click to expand...

To me there is a big difference between someone who says "death to infidels" and "I want to make my life more comfortable by selling infidels or making them my slaves".
 
#338
#338
n_huffhines said:
I don't understand what the first question has to do with anything. I'm talking about Islamic terrorism vs the west. What are you talking about? Why Muslims fight each other? Probably the same reasons Christians fight each other.
Click to expand...

The reasons for Islamic terrorism are virtually the same today as they were 150 - 200 years ago.
 
#339
#339
hog88 said:
The reasons for Islamic terrorism are virtually the same today as they were 150 - 200 years ago.
Click to expand...

It's so weird that that statement can be true and that we only became a target a few decades ago. Something doesn't add up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#340
#340
n_huffhines said:
It's so weird that that statement can be true and that we only became a target a few decades ago. Something doesn't add up.
Click to expand...

A few decades ago? We became targets shortly after our first Navy ship entered the Mediterranean. The English, Spanish, French, Dutch and Italians dealt with them for hundreds of years prior.

You really don't know **** about history do you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#341
#341
n_huffhines said:
Yes, that's why they lobby for more regulation. That's exactly why. Big companies can handle the burden of the large fixed cost that is regulatory compliance. Mom and Pops cannot. Any individual Mom and Pop shop is not likely to become a major player, but with thousands of them, it is likely that quite a few of them do become major players. Enough that it threatens company A's long term market power. Make it really difficult for them to enter the market, and you don't have to worry about those guys.

There is no arguing this.
Click to expand...

right they want more legislation :glare: while i would agree the large corporations can deal with it easier to say they want it is a bit of stretch.

and when those few mom and pops get big they will be just as bad as the others.

you have to remember these large corporations are already embedded in the market, they don't have to expand into new geographic areas to be successful, they already are there.
 
#342
#342
LouderVol said:
right they want more legislation :glare: while i would agree the large corporations can deal with it easier to say they want it is a bit of stretch.

and when those few mom and pops get big they will be just as bad as the others.

you have to remember these large corporations are already embedded in the market, they don't have to expand into new geographic areas to be successful, they already are there.
Click to expand...

It's not a stretch at all. Follow the money. Who do they support? Regulators. They help write the law. Of course they want more of it.

Reading your last two paragraphs indicate we are at an impasse. If you don't get why the 2nd paragraph is a problem improved by the absence of government, there is nothing more I can say that will make you understand or agree. If you don't know what my response would be, you're not getting anything I'm saying. If you do know what my response would be, then you disagree with it, and there is no point in responding.
 
#343
#343
n_huffhines said:
It's not a stretch at all. Follow the money. Who do they support? Regulators. They help write the law. Of course they want more of it.

Reading your last two paragraphs indicate we are at an impasse. If you don't get why the 2nd paragraph is a problem improved by the absence of government, there is nothing more I can say that will make you understand or agree. If you don't know what my response would be, you're not getting anything I'm saying. If you do know what my response would be, then you disagree with it, and there is no point in responding.
Click to expand...

they support them so the government has a cap and trade system instead of a complete ban or limit on carbon. they work with the regulators so that they can influence the loopholes.

i understand where you are coming from on my second paragraph. You say there would be nothing inherently wrong with the corporations and that they would lead us to the Promised Land or they would crumble and fall. yet you have been saying all along that such corporations would not exist without the government. in a start from scratch situation I can see how corporations could be limited in size. But in reality they are already monsters who can handle a challenge or twelve, since they already handle these every day.
 
#344
#344
hog88 said:
A few decades ago? We became targets shortly after our first Navy ship entered the Mediterranean. The English, Spanish, French, Dutch and Italians dealt with them for hundreds of years prior.

You really don't know **** about history do you?
Click to expand...

Instead of being condescending, you could do the constructive thing and post a link to what you're talking about. I like to learn, and I'll admit when I'm wrong, but I cited a source from a conservative author whom I expect most in here would agree with if they read his book. I stand by what I read until I read something that convinces me otherwise.

If I google "history of islamic terrorism and the us" and look at the SERPs listings, guess where it starts?

Even this article that has a "long history" bend to it talks about Islam poo-pooing the west a few hundred years back, but it mentions no attacks until after "Today’s terrorist movement started in 1928 with the founding of Ikhwan al-Muslimun, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt".

Please educate me.

The Long Bloody History of Islamic Terrorism - (Must read! history doesn't lie! It's us or them!)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#345
#345
n_huffhines said:
Instead of being condescending, you could do the constructive thing and post a link to what you're talking about. I like to learn, and I'll admit when I'm wrong, but I cited a source from a conservative author whom I expect most in here would agree with if they read his book. I stand by what I read until I read something that convinces me otherwise.

If I google "history of islamic terrorism and the us" and look at the SERPs listings, guess where it starts?

Even this article that has a "long history" bend to it talks about Islam poo-pooing the west a few hundred years back, but it mentions no attacks until after "Today’s terrorist movement started in 1928 with the founding of Ikhwan al-Muslimun, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt".

Please educate me.

The Long Bloody History of Islamic Terrorism - (Must read! history doesn't lie! It's us or them!)
Click to expand...

pirates, just not Orlando Bloom. You can also go back to the days when the European countries were colonizing everywhere including Africa. While most Africans weren't Islamic at the time there were some that suffered underneath the European boots and it is easy to see that hate carrying over.
 
#346
#346
n_huffhines said:
To me there is a big difference between someone who says "death to infidels" and "I want to make my life more comfortable by selling infidels or making them my slaves".
Click to expand...

And the ones that didn't want to be slaves and resisted? Yeah, they were killed.

My, my how the Islamic religion has progressed. They've gone from giving folks a choice to just death.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#347
#347
Grand Vol said:
And the ones that didn't want to be slaves and resisted? Yeah, they were killed.

My, my how the Islamic religion has progressed. They've gone from giving folks a choice to just death.
Click to expand...

We are so far off topic you are now making points that support my original claim. I started with "radical islam as we know it is kind of a modern-day invention" and now you are arguing that it IS different today. So I guess we agree.
 
#349
#349
n_huffhines said:
We are so far off topic you are now making points that support my original claim. I started with "radical islam as we know it is kind of a modern-day invention" and now you are arguing that it IS different today. So I guess we agree.
Click to expand...

No, the original claim was Islam got radical and violent because of US intervention. I'm saying it has been radical and violent from the start. A point which you deny.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top