Topic: Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism? - page 11. (Read 30791 times)

You don't like the message, so you keep bang the messenger!
You want to solve things without resource violence? Great! I really would hope and enjoy the World to be like you. But, flashnews! It isn't. You don't use force, someone will and you will be forced to comply against your will with whatever he says.
Right, there is not a central one point solution to anything, libertarian or not, but when something already bundles with construction flaws it will never fix itself. And your answer above about how "you will hurt yourself economically if you source violence" is just the long version of "just because". If you come to someone starving today saying that rob you may prove a wrong decision tomorrow, he won't listen for the very simple reason that if he doesn't he won't see tomorrow anyway.

Poverty will be forever

Yeah, No.

I gave a coherent answer for every problem you proposed and you have no response other than 'me and ma crew will take your shit y0 l0lz'.

You fundamentally fail to comprehend that there is no requirement for a central, single solution to any problem posed to a libertarian society, people are pretty switched on (well, some of them) and will solve any problem without the use of force against one another.

So.......... yeah, no.

Sorry, requirements for libertarians remains unmet. Your fantasy world has no value around and you still can't figure on how to do anything about that essential requirement.
Bitcoin at least sorted one of your old requirements, the issuing of currency. But that's just one of the many requirements libertarians would need to become viable.

I give up, I can't communicate with Happy Jack.

When I say "me", "I", "you" or "we" that's figurative for the example... I'm assuming you can read that.
It doesn't mean ME robbing YOU where me and you are exactly "you and I". You can understand it, right?

But even with the current police forces we have robbers... now imagine without.

EDIT: Now that I look at it... you don't understand it. When I said that if you nag people enough they will kill you, you think that it means "I would kill him" and started to call me a psycho...

BCEmporium, you never go full retard.

Law in the paper != Law in the field. You can't enforce law unless you overcome the outlaws' might.
And sometimes you even have the outlaws to overcome the law and make themselves law, like Muhammad and Islam.


Slavery is a good display of what happens when the might meet the weak.


Loooooooooooooooooolllll! You will "ostracize" them for the other World? Karma? I believe there is a very considerable % of the people that will not care for your "ostracization" to takeover what's yours. Stop being childish! This is the REAL world, not Disney's.

To not mention you are assuming an 1-on-1 World.
I could take what's yours, share a bit with a bunch of thugs, who will become my friends (or gang), and it's you who will end up robbed, scared and alone.

No law?

The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier (Stanford Economics & Finance) Hardcover – May 4, 2004 by Terry L. Anderson (Author), Peter J. Hill (Author)

What law? I'm English, so the law of the colonies ( jk) isn't my strong suit But I'll give it a go.
How about the constitution of the US?
Sheriffs were just private citizens? What about US Marshalls? What about Texas Rangers? What about the court system established by The Judiciary Act of 1789?


I wrote a derivation of property rights from the first principle that I own my self. Are you saying that my derivation is incorrect or are you saying that a person does not own themselves and you believe in slavery?

and here is a correction for you

REQUIREMENT: People need to respect property by their own will
QUESTION: How
YOUR ANSWER: Errrmm... they will just because... is the right thing to do...
Because we will economically ostracize anyone who does not comply with respect for private property. Do you have any idea what this means?!
If you violate anothers private property, you will be forced hide in your home as streets are private and you will be forcibly removed if you try to use them.
In you home you will in short order die, because your water and power will be shut off and you will run out of food and stave.
No one will bring supplies to you because they will suffer the same economic fate.
You could make a run for it into the wild and live like a cave man, but you will invariably contract and illness or bug and no one will treat you medically.
You could try run to another portion of society and start anew but cities will have reciprocal agreements with one another, you will be discovered.
Basically if you violate property rights, you forfeit the ability to economically interact with other free people, and this, is a death sentence.

Elegant solution isn't it?

Law in the old west? What law? You can't fire someone in the back? The sheriff was someone with a good aim/fast trigger and/or low life expectancy.

This is the biggest flaw/ideology shortcut about libertarian ideas:

REQUIREMENT: People need to respect property by their own will
QUESTION: How
YOUR ANSWER: Errrmm... they will just because... is the right thing to do...

And here you've the Communist version:

MAIN OBJECTIVE: State will vanish
QUESTION: How
MARX's ANSWER: Errrmm... it will just because... is the right thing to do...

Like you never met a basic requirement, communists never met their main objective.
You see, for a thing to work all pieces have to work in synchrony. This is basically to create a car without a bunch of pieces in the engine and then expect it to work somehow.

And the "37 ninjas" isn't a fallacy, it's just an inconvenient statement for libertarians.

No, redistribution is a negative sum game.

This implies there were no laws and authority in the wild west.

Is this true? Were there no laws or sherrifs in the wild west or are you talking out you arse again?

 

New argument vector.

Anything you subsidise you get more of.

Socialism subsidises peasants. (Unemployment benefit)

Socialism subsidises shit schools. (13 years of education/training and you can't get a job?! fucking lololol)

Socialism subsidises single mothers. (Welfare and/or Alimony)

Socialism subsidises fascism. (Bailouts)

Socialism subsidises mercantilism (Licences, for example, 3/4G phone operation licences)

Socialism subsidises retarded life choices. (Such as university courses through the creation of guaranteed loans)

Socialism subsidises fat and unhealthy people. (Socialised medicine)

So socialism grows the number of fat retarded fascistic peasants in a society. Yay!

Chime in guys, what other horrors does socialism subsidise?

This is true for socialism! In free market benefit will only the creator of this wealth.

When they create wealth for themselves, they also by definition of the free market, also create wealth for everybody.

Capitalism.

"under capitalism everyone is free to create wealth for themselves and those that are poor remain so as they choose to be poor."

socialism is for mediocre gimps, you gotta create wealth before you can redistribute it
Capitalism with a humane face is what's needed but the balance is tricky to get right

Have you asked yourself how piece of land on earth were privatized ? I advocate the same thing for seas.
Government would sell it to the highest bidder. Sea is not different from land.

Replace Exxon by the name of the biggest real estate company you know. Fisher by farmers. (Farmers pay rents to nourish cows)
If your american real estate company is invaded by mexican farmers without authorization, your country will consider it an act of war and kick them for violation of property.
Nothing would be different between land and sea.

The fact that individual chooses the choice that benefit himself the most does not necessarily mean that they should not cooperate, only the prisoner dilemma problem explains such condition.
This type of problem means the creation of an entity apart from individuals (an union) should be created to arbitrate decisions and choose collaboration for better outcome, but both individual should have free will to dissociate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium#Prisoner.27s_dilemma

The term "nationalization" means putting something under state ownership and control, not declaring it nobody owned.

As technology advances more and more people will become "useless" in capitalism, even those who recently were libertarians and hated socialism!