Half the world's wealth now officially in the hands of 1%

[SakuMemories]

Literally the only thing that has kept most owners/managers/bosses healthy and alive is that is sucks getting caught by the police.

I know for an absolute fact that some people would be missing teeth if the police had not arrived. If there was no police, some kids would be fatherless right now.

Frankly, the idea that you're condemning the system that looks to provide people with the most liberty possible while raising their standard of living more than any other system we know of and the history to prove it shows me you're either a sociopath or a fool. But I guess you could continue whining like a twat and not substantiating any real counter.

I like how you view my cynical and pragmatic understanding of the system as a "condemnation". Its telling. Anyway what you quoted was me commenting on your childlike behavior, nothing more.

 

[James Keith]

Yeah. And, boy, do they stick together.

Couldn't help noticing the irony of you "banding together" with the above posters meanwhile...

 

[kahiljabroni]

Oh God, you've got me agreeing with Jack.

Oh fuck, you got me saying Oh God...



If you're not producing any "stuff" and are merely consuming "stuff" you either are consuming stuff that you saved up from a time that you were productive or you are consuming stuff that other people are producing. What you consume doesn't appear from thin air.

Right its called wealth. The accumulation of stuff in the form of currency. Like you said, some people live off their wealth and some just get a free check. Big difference.

 

[SakuMemories]

Couldn't help noticing the irony of you "banding together" with the above posters meanwhile...

Couldn't help noticing the double irony of you "banding together" with the above posters meanwhile...

 

[James Keith]

Couldn't help noticing the double irony of you "banding together" with the above posters meanwhile...

where's the irony in pointing out irony exactly? Maybe I agree with your stupid politics, how would you know?

 

[Jack V Savage]

where's the irony in pointing out irony exactly? Maybe I agree with your stupid politics, how would you know?

Maybe you weren't reading the thread. But it was like this really embarrassing, middle-school girl kind of thing going back and forth (not like a single post thing), talking about me while I'm right here reading the thread. That's something you do tend to see a lot with right-wing libertarians. I guess they tend to be unpopular in school and stuff and so they don't grow out of those types of games.

 

[SakuMemories]

where's the irony in pointing out irony exactly? Maybe I agree with your stupid politics, how would you know?

Its ironic because you are banding with them just as I am allegedly "banding" with JVS. I probably disagree with you and JVS on most things, but its pathetic how some people react when they are confronted.

I mean one literally came ITT to comfort the other. Libertarians are like a fucking delusional cult. They suck.

 

[Greoric]

You're still not getting it. In fact, property ownership is due to gov't force. People who are not working and living off rents (land or otherwise) and capital are benefiting from gov't assistance. You think that absent a gov't, nothing would change with regard to that (either people would bizarrely choose to give the products of their labor to self-proclaimed owners or they'd find some other way to force it which you think shouldn't be called "gov't"). I understand that. That has nothing to do with the reality of the situation, which is what I'm talking about.

Ok, Private ownership isn't due to government because people recognize ownership without them. There's clear examples of that. This phenomenon isn't even unique to humans. Primates inside and outside of a community recognize boundaries of other primates. There's no government involved with that observance.

Modern governments just give an extra stamp of insurance to varying degrees to act punitively towards someone that breaches a contract, but it's myopic to suggest that's the only modality of enforcement.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Ok, Private ownership isn't due to government because people recognize ownership without them.

Sigh. You're saying that property isn't due to gov't because people would recognize it without gov't. In addition to that being false, it's not relevant. Surely you can agree that property is due to gov't in our actual reality, right?

There's clear examples of that. This phenomenon isn't even unique to humans. Primates inside and outside of a community recognize boundaries of other primates. There's no government involved with that observance.

If that's what you get when you look to evidence to support your view, I understand why you don't generally think that works. Are you aware of any examples of non-human primates engaging in wage labor or paying land rent?

Modern governments just give an extra stamp of insurance to varying degrees to act punitively towards someone that breaches a contract, but it's myopic to suggest that's the only modality of enforcement.

Gov't determines the means by which property is transferred, and enforces and recognizes claims.

 

[Awesomesauce]

Wealth generated has a functional lifespan in a market system. When you generate wealth and store that wealth as currency without consuming you change the value balance of goods produced. When those goods are consumed, and you have stored the wealth for x years, you are now taking goods out of a completely differently balanced pool. You are effectually stealing from future generations. Particularly from generations where production value and consumption are so well balanced.

The only real long term solution to the issue is a wealth tax. Maybe around 10%, it would re-balance almost everything really but would never be implemented for ideological reasons (ironically because its to fair).

 

[Greoric]

Literally the only thing that has kept most owners/managers/bosses healthy and alive is that is sucks getting caught by the police.

I know for an absolute fact that some people would be missing teeth if the police had not arrived. If there was no police, some kids would be fatherless right now.


I like how you view my cynical and pragmatic understanding of the system as a "condemnation". Its telling. Anyway what you quoted was me commenting on your childlike behavior, nothing more.

I comment on someone's intellectual dishonesty, but then even compliment his use of rhetoric. Then you jump in with ad hominems and no actual rebuttal to the argument at hand and I'm the one that's child like? Yeah, right on buddy.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Also Zeke and Greoric are like acting like fucking 10 year olds. Its so stupid when people get frustrated with someone and then band together like a bunch of ****s and talk shit about him.

Being a solitary poo-slinger such as you are here is nothing like that at all?

 

[James Keith]

Its ironic because you are banding with them just as I am allegedly "banding" with JVS. I probably disagree with you and JVS on most things, but its pathetic how some people react when they are confronted.

I mean one literally came ITT to comfort the other. Libertarians are like a fucking delusional cult. They suck.

Banding with them on what? The topic of others banding together? Because that's the one and only topic I have contributed to. Have they even provided opinions on said topic? That's only what you two are doing. Together, amusingly.

But I was just teasing anyway, whenever you give Jack support in a thread you will get a bro-hug back. It's pretty much guaranteed from what I've seen. His idea of professionalism I guess. You on the other hand might well hate him for all I know.

 

[SakuMemories]

I comment on someone's intellectual dishonesty, but then even compliment his use of rhetoric. Then you jump in with ad hominems and no actual rebuttal to the argument at hand and I'm the one that's child like? Yeah, right on buddy.

Just take it easy and read the previous post, the one before you quoted.

Ok, Private ownership isn't due to government because people recognize ownership without them. There's clear examples of that. This phenomenon isn't even unique to humans. Primates inside and outside of a community recognize boundaries of other primates. There's no government involved with that observance.

Primates do not have the institution of private property. They don't know what the fuck private property is. They hold onto something until they are too weak to defend it, at which point the run the fuck away. That is absolutely nothing like private property.

God damn that was a bad example.

 

[panamaican]

I think you need to revisit the social contract idea. Even if I were to personally agree to everything in the "contract" you can't just implicitly involve someone, a group, or 320 million people into a contract without their consent. That's not a contract. That's a mandate.

Further, property rights has its origin in biology, or if you're the religious sort from your creator, not in some ethereal agreement no one has ever seen. We observe property rights because we acknowledge individuals claim territories before they recognize their community's territory.

Lastly, I fully agree with everything you were writing about tech, until you make the leap without any explanation why it then requires governance. Again more tech requires less. For instance, take the classic snake oil salesman who would go from town to town selling his nonsense potions. Once the people of a town started catching on that his stuff wasn't doing what he claimed it would, he moved on. He could continue his con in so long as he stayed ahead of the controversy. Fast forward to today, and that type of scam is near impossible with the easy dissemination of information. Once the snake oil salesman is caught in one town in 2015 that information is out there for everyone and the world to be aware of his shenanigans.

There's this thing out there called "implied consent". In short form, it says that if you reap the benefits of the arrangement while fully aware of them then you're consent is implicit.

So, if you know that taxes are used to pay for roads and you make use of those roads then you are implying that you have consented to the taxes. If you know that the government provides law enforcement services as part of it's services and you file a police report, report a crime, etc. then you are implying that you consent to government's contract with it's citizens.

Now if you make use of the court system, which is predicated on the laws passed by the government, to assert some personal grievance (like suing the guy who hit your car) then you are consenting to governance by those laws. You have every opportunity to opt out of the system...but if you don't then you're consenting. That's not a mandate. It's the difference between people are really don't agree and people who want the benefits of government without the responsibility.

Again, you're limiting the role of technology to communication. When you sell a product to a person in India and they steal your credit card information - what do you do about it? If someone kills a person in North America and hops on a plane to be in Europe in less than 12 hours - what does society do about it?

 

[SakuMemories]

Banding with them on what? The topic of others banding together? Because that's the one and only topic I have contributed to. Have they even provided opinions on said topic? That's only what you two are doing. Together, amusingly.

But I was just teasing anyway, whenever you give Jack support in a thread you will get a bro-hug back. It's pretty much guaranteed from what I've seen. His idea of professionalism I guess. You on the other hand might well hate him for all I know.

I contributed to the topic of them banding together and you contributed to the topic of us banding together. This is why its ironic. Please lets not keep repeating this shit.

 

[Kitafuji]

If only the government would take away their guns then we can just take their money.

 

[James Keith]

I contributed to the topic of them banding together and you contributed to the topic of us banding together. This is why its ironic. Please lets not keep repeating this shit.

One more time at least. Because I care about the youth of today.

The above is not irony, beyond of course the irony that I was pointing out. You see because I actually did not band together with anyone on the specific topic of whether you two were banding together on the topic of libertarians banding together. In fact I didn't band together with anyone at all, I quoted Jack and mocked him right to his face. I realize it's complicated, but you're the one who wanted to investigate this additional level of depth and assert things about it.

 

[SakuMemories]

One more time at least. Because I care about the youth of today.

The above is not irony, beyond of course the irony that I was pointing out. You see because I actually did not band together with anyone on the specific topic of whether you two were banding together on the topic of libertarians banding together. In fact I didn't band together with anyone at all, I quoted Jack and mocked him right to his face. I realize it's complicated, but you're the one who wanted to investigate this additional level of depth and assert things about it.

OK man. Say it one more time if it makes you feel better. Me, I don't care about the youth of today so I won't repeat myself any longer.

 

[Greoric]

Sigh. You're saying that property isn't due to gov't because people would recognize it without gov't. In addition to that being false, it's not relevant. Surely you can agree that property is due to gov't in our actual reality, right?

If that's what you get when you look to evidence to support your view, I understand why you don't generally think that works. Are you aware of any examples of non-human primates engaging in wage labor or paying land rent?

Gov't determines the means by which property is transferred, and enforces and recognizes claims.

To expand on the primate example, yeah there actually are forms of wage labor. Male chimps gathering and giving females fruit for sex is not only an example of an exchange taking place without government, it also demonstrates that cooperation and observance of property precedes even human beings. Just because we have beta monkey expansion packs on our brains that allows us to organize more sophisticated arrangements doesn't refute the principle at hand.

Why is observance of property without government irrelevant or false? You don't substantiate that. You're supposing that absent government intervention cooperative trade wouldn't exist and therefore a mutual understanding and observance of someone else's property wouldn't either, right?

All it takes to completely destroy this nonsense is any instance that people would trade anything or cooperate in any way with government present and to have been accomplished in the same manner as without them.