In a truly free market (3 Viewers)

[Lentern]

The government can appropriate the funds it needs to ensure the welfare of orphans.
A charity must necessarily brand its orphan welfare services and thenceforth be at the mercy of the vicissitudes of the market.

Whether competition will result in better orphan welfare services is not immediately knowable. What's important is that it is a transparent operation, involving checks and balances, that ensures a modicum of accountability in its delivery. This will deliver better outcomes for orphans. Such operating conditions could exist in free-market or state-run welfare services (or both). But it's not hard to see that an orphan welfare service that can appropriate funds has its advantages, though this is a pissweak argument for the existence of the state.

Yes the protection of the most innocent and vulnerable members of society is a dreadful argument isn't it?

 

[Lolsmith]

Lentern, anti-statists don't have feelings so they don't care about orphans you should know that

 

[scuba_steve2121]

What scuba steve is trying to do is attack arguments which have not yet been made and claim a higher ground on account of it.

lol your trying to justify the existence of government by using orphans don't deny it. Why choose orphans over vastly more important issues? Because your trying to be a demagogue and everybody can see through your bullshit.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Lentern, anti-statists don't have feelings so they don't care about orphans you should know that

don't ever change

 

[Blastus]

A hypothetical seven year old girl whose family are all dead has the capacity to succeed via sheer will?

What about a child born RETARDED OH NO

 

[cosmo kramer]

the weak boast of their morality

the strong boast of their virtue

 

[abbeyroad]

What did you interpret "free marketeer" to mean other than someone who is opposed to market regulation?

Why not? Free marketeers do it all the time, they tell us that socialism has wonderful ideas and principles about alleviating poverty and helping the less fortunate but it's the actual results that count. Also don't use latin expressions like that unless you want to sound like a crawling first year law student.

seriously are you that daft I said I'm not one of those "free marketeers" you referred to, not tht I don't support the free market. your so called free marketeer is but a straw man as no free market advocate with half a brain would actually bother with logical fallacies they'd just tell you straight up why socialism is fucking stupid see scuba_steve2121 blastus etc etc

k.

 

[Lentern]

What about a child born RETARDED OH NO

The free market would be harmful to a range of innocent and vulnerable groups,yes.

lol your trying to justify the existence of government by using orphans don't deny it. Why choose orphans over vastly more important issues? Because your trying to be a demagogue and everybody can see through your bullshit

Like?

seriously are you that daft I said I'm not one of those "free marketeers" you referred to, not tht I don't support the free market. your so called free marketeer is but a straw man as no free market advocate with half a brain would actually bother with logical fallacies they'd just tell you straight up why socialism is fucking stupid see scuba_steve2121 blastus etc etc

Ok I see it was the reference to "it's the results that counts" with which you took umbrage. That being said you denounce logical fallacies whilst insinuating any sort of welfare state=socialism. I tend to think most of us here are grownup a lot to ignore slight pitfalls in argument structure and actually argue the issue but if you want to be pedantic by all means.

 

[SylviaB]

um couples wait months

years to adopt kids

and gays can't even adopt kids atm becuase of government laws

ie this narrative of masses of abandoned orphans who nobody cares about is a complete fabrication

 

[Lentern]

um couples wait months

years to adopt kids

and gays can't even adopt kids atm becuase of government laws

ie this narrative of masses of abandoned orphans who nobody cares about is a complete fabrication

The demand is high now because we have a moderated economy, in the cut throat anarchic dystopia you want the demand for orphans, or children generally, would dissipate.

 

[Lolsmith]

Um

So did you just try to say that without the State homosexuals will be able to have children naturally?

 

[cosmo kramer]

non kin adoption is fucking creepy

another bad thing about it is that it causes desperate couples to reach out to third world scum cunt holes if they cant get hold of kids here

ban it and raise orphans by the state as a private jannissary like elite military warrior caste

 

[SylviaB]

Um

So did you just try to say that without the State homosexuals will be able to have children naturally?

no, they can adopt the orphans, which they legally cannot now

I really don't understand how that was ambiguous

 

[SylviaB]

The demand is high now because we have a moderated economy, in the cut throat anarchic dystopia you want the demand for orphans, or children generally, would dissipate.

yes in a world with no suffocating regulations, insane tax code, falling cost of living, fewer/less severe economic downturns, more efficient use of resources because of no government spending, and so on, the economy is going to be crap

stop it

honestly how do explain the fact that during the 19th century in america, which was one of the greatest examples of economic freedom in modern history, the greatest period of economic growth in history took place?

your economic views are based purely on ideology

 

[Lentern]

yes in a world with no suffocating regulations, insane tax code, falling cost of living, fewer/less severe economic downturns, more efficient use of resources because of no government spending, and so on, the economy is going to be crap

stop it

honestly how do explain the fact that during the 19th century in america, which was one of the greatest examples of economic freedom in modern history, the greatest period of economic growth in history took place?

your economic views are based purely on ideology

A criss cross of slave labor exploitation, unfettered plundering of the natural environment and a lack of any real monitoring or concern for the abject poor. What was the living standard for indigenous and African Americans? But for all that, never said what you claim anyway. I said that competitive demands of the free market would make luxuries like charity and adoption a lot less popular. Particularly given how much of the burden of the underclass that the Church's took on in the 19th century and how they're influence and popularity has waned so much since.

At any rate I thought you were all about ideology, freedom and right to keep what yours? Which is it, pragmatism or ideological purity?

 

[SylviaB]

A criss cross of slave labor exploitation, unfettered plundering of the natural environment and a lack of any real monitoring or concern for the abject poor. What was the living standard for indigenous and African Americans?

Slavery was actually bad for the american economy, because it reduced investment in capital, plus it's been used all over the world for thousands of years without similar benefit (like africa), this kind of growth wasn't seen in areas with comparable natural resources, and there were greater increases in teh standard of living of the poor than anywhere else. Doy you really think poor countries are poor because they devote so many resources towards helping the impoverished? Lol, you can't "care for the poor" without economic growth in the first place.
Fail.

I said that competitive demands of the free market would make luxuries like charity and adoption a lot less popular.

1. There would be no taxes.
2. State regulations and other interventions like taxation act as barreirs to entry to new firms, which minimises the ammount of competition between firms, which results in higher priced poorer quality goods and services. On a free market, the cost of living would continualy be falling.

Particularly given how much of the burden of the underclass that the Church's took on in the 19th century and how they're influence and popularity has waned so much since.

There would be less poor people on a free market. Amazingly, paying people to be poor...doesn't stop them from being poor (who would have thunk.)

And friendly socities were outlawed for things like healthcare anyway.

[youtube]FHXzAU8_0fg[/youtube]

At any rate I thought you were all about ideology, freedom and right to keep what yours? Which is it, pragmatism or ideological purity?

I never claim to be "ideologically pure". I reject most of the standard libertarian dogmas.

My ideology is based off of my understanding of economics, not the other way round.

 

[Lentern]

Slavery was actually bad for the american economy, because it reduced investment in capital, plus it's been used all over the world for thousands of years without similar benefit (like africa), this kind of growth wasn't seen in areas with comparable natural resources, and there were greater increases in teh standard of living of the poor than anywhere else. Doy you really think poor countries are poor because they devote so many resources towards helping the impoverished? Lol, you can't "care for the poor" without economic growth in the first place.

Oh don't be stupid, the technologies, the farming and mining practices, the plethora of capital creating techniques and methods brought over from the already industrialized UK was the reason it had the explosion of wealth compared to comparable slave driven countries. Not because of some romanticized idea you have of the US being so magical free market which it never was to begin with but certainly it was under regulated on modern standards.

1. There would be no taxes.
2. State regulations and other interventions like taxation act as barreirs to entry to new firms, which minimises the ammount of competition between firms, which results in higher priced poorer quality goods and services. On a free market, the cost of living would continualy be falling.

No, they don't, they make absolute no difference to competition in that sense because, shocking though it may sound, the established firms are bearing the same burdens(generally greater burdens) than the emerging ones. And no, no it doesn't it's a speculative theory based on dodgy modelling and all attempts to act upon the modelling have failed dismally and left a blackhole of moribund economic turmoil for Keynesians to clean up.

There would be less poor people on a free market. Amazingly, paying people to be poor...doesn't stop them from being poor (who would have thunk.)

I accept that's probably true but for the remaining poor it would be diabolic.

And friendly socities were outlawed for things like healthcare anyway.

[youtube]FHXzAU8_0fg[/youtube]

When you first started posting I used to watch your crackpot loony videos, I've wasted enough time on them, I'm not watching that.

I never claim to be "ideologically pure". I reject most of the standard libertarian dogmas.

My ideology is based off of my understanding of economics, not the other way round.

More power to you just spare me any future diatribes about hating freedom then.

 

[SylviaB]

[youtube]Hamdre1_SLM[/youtube]

 

[Funky Monk]

I never claim to be "ideologically pure". I reject most of the standard libertarian dogmas.

Could you rattle off a coupla prime ones and explain why?

 

[SylviaB]

Could you rattle off a coupla prime ones and explain why?

people have inherent inalienable rights

doing x and y (eg initiating force) is immoral

ownership is objective

even in the absense of a state there should be a prescribed "libertarian" legal order

the reasoning to support them is really crappy, and based on stupid things eg. everybody owns themselves therefore doing X is objectively wrong