The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#903
#903
n_huffhines said:
Free markets make things cheaper. Food will be cheaper. Government subsidizes certain types of food, but it also makes every kind of food more expensive with regulation, tariffs, etc.

Food will be cheaper if you remove government. Everyone will be fed if you remove government. We don't let people starve because we are good, not because government is the only body that cares. Government is a reflection of us, and it's a lazy answer for helping the poor. There will be societal devices in place for taking care of the poor, with or without government. They exist in the face of government, so why wouldn't you expect more?
Click to expand...

hog88 said:
Holy shizz batman. Poor people were starving for centuries before strong central governments. We humans are not inherently good when it comes to sacrificing for others.

History is a good lesson.
Click to expand...

Let's keep everything in perspective.

People were starving BEFORE strong central governments. People are starving with strong central governments. In short people will starve regardless.
 
#904
#904
hog88 said:
Let's keep everything in perspective.

People were starving BEFORE strong central governments. People are starving with strong central governments. In short people will starve regardless.
Click to expand...

When is this period before strong central governments? You talking like 6,000 BC or something?
 
#908
#908
hog88 said:
Who will maintain it? For profit companies? What happens if I-40 isn't profitable?
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it be profitable? People need to get around. Also, food doesn't have to travel I-40. If we start doing things other ways, it's because there are better ways of doing things. I believe business is very good at finding new and better ways to do things. I think government is awful at that. Business is driven by profit motive, and that means they need to improve on the current state of things in order to get your money. Government tries to maintain the status quo, because change means more work, and they don't have the profit motive.
 
#911
#911
n_huffhines said:
Why wouldn't it be profitable? People need to get around. Also, food doesn't have to travel I-40. If we start doing things other ways, it's because there are better ways of doing things. I believe business is very good at finding new and better ways to do things. I think government is awful at that. Business is driven by profit motive, and that means they need to improve on the current state of things in order to get your money. Government tries to maintain the status quo, because change means more work, and they don't have the profit motive.
Click to expand...

What's more efficient than our agriculture of today? Community gardens?

You have yet to detail how food and other necessities could be transported alternatively.

I-40 could very well be a losing proposition with required maintenance and upkeep. Without proper maintenance it would become a safety hazard where people wouldn't want to pay the tolls to drive on it.
 
#912
#912
hog88 said:
What's more efficient than our agriculture of today? Community gardens?
Click to expand...

I don't know. That's like asking me what's a better software solution than excel? I don't know, but I do know that somebody can come up with a better solution.

You have yet to detail how food and other necessities could be transported alternatively.
Click to expand...

I would assume roads would be used until something better comes along. I am not operating under the assumption that the roads are going to be nuked under Ancap. I operate under the assumption that if there is demand, the market will find a way to supply it. That device never fails. You can grow rice in the desert, if there is a profit incentive.
 
#914
#914
n_huffhines said:
I don't know. That's like asking me what's a better software solution than excel? I don't know, but I do know that somebody can come up with a better solution.



I would assume roads would be used until something better comes along. I am not operating under the assumption that the roads are going to be nuked under Ancap. I operate under the assumption that if there is demand, the market will find a way to supply it. That device never fails. You can grow rice in the desert, if there is a profit incentive.
Click to expand...

Precisely! And with global instability caused by AnCap profit would be a challenge.
 
#915
#915
hog88 said:
Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

hog88 said:
Holy shizz batman. Poor people were starving for centuries before strong central governments. We humans are not inherently good when it comes to sacrificing for others.

History is a good lesson.
Click to expand...

hog88 said:
Let's keep everything in perspective.

People were starving BEFORE strong central governments. People are starving with strong central governments. In short people will starve regardless.
Click to expand...

hog88 said:
As late as the 1800s here, in Africa today.
Click to expand...

If people will starve regardless...if people starve in the face of strong central government, why make the point you originally made? You made a silly point that you tried to evolve into something less silly, but it evolved to the point that it makes no sense to say under the original context. I'm not an idiot. I know what you're doing.

55RF3VI.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#916
#916
hog88 said:
Precisely! And with global instability caused by AnCap profit would be a challenge.
Click to expand...

You just say stuff. There is no basis for making this claim. Global instability? Profit would be a challenge?

What I don't get is the conservative mind that acts like government is completely inept, but then when people mention a world without government, suddenly they act like government is the only thing holding the world together.

Either government is inept, or it isn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#917
#917
n_huffhines said:
If people will starve regardless...if people starve in the face of strong central government, why make the point you originally made? You made a silly point that you tried to evolve into something less silly, but it evolved to the point that it makes no sense to say under the original context. I'm not an idiot. I know what you're doing.
Click to expand...

You made a ridiculous statement about 6000BC, I pointed out some facts and you lulzed without a rebuttal.

None of my points are silly, if they were then you should easily be able to crush them with facts and examples. Still waiting for any of those.

You have the habit of sidestepping inconvenient points all the while making outrageous statements without backup.
 
#918
#918
n_huffhines said:
You just say stuff. There is no basis for making this claim. Global instability? Profit would be a challenge?

What I don't get is the conservative mind that acts like government is completely inept, but then when people mention a world without government, suddenly they act like government is the only thing holding the world together.

Either government is inept, or it isn't.
Click to expand...

Government is not inept, the people we continue to elect are!

Humans need leadership, in a leadership vacuum things tend to go to shizz quickly. I personally think I would do well under AnCap, but of course I've been known to ruthless and do not have the reputation of playing nice.
 
#921
#921
hog88 said:
Government is not inept, the people we continue to elect are!

Humans need leadership, in a leadership vacuum things tend to go to shizz quickly. I personally think I would do well under AnCap, but of course I've been known to ruthless and do not have the reputation of playing nice.
Click to expand...

Government leadership? Examples of humans without leadership and things going to shizz quickly?

Basically, the old west was anarchy. A lot of towns went periods of time without any law at all.

You probably hear that and think, "See, the old west was crazy." It really wasn't that crazy. Hollywood makes you think it was a lot nuttier than it was. First of all, you're judging through today's lens, but you have to consider that in those days congressmen used to fist fight each other on the reg. It was a different, crazier time.

Battle at OK corral? 4 people died. Dodge City, Kansas? Never had a murder until there was a sheriff and law.

Think about it like this...the old west was as close to anarchy as we've had, and people were willing to go through hardships just to move there. People today won't move from TN to GA for a good job, and people were willing to ride a horse across the country for a little taste of anarchy.
 
#922
#922
n_huffhines said:
Thanks for the play by play and the new lulz.
Click to expand...

n_huffhines said:
Government leadership? Examples of humans without leadership and things going to shizz quickly?

Basically, the old west was anarchy. A lot of towns went periods of time without any law at all.

You probably hear that and think, "See, the old west was crazy." It really wasn't that crazy. Hollywood makes you think it was a lot nuttier than it was. First of all, you're judging through today's lens, but you have to consider that in those days congressmen used to fist fight each other on the reg. It was a different, crazier time.

Battle at OK corral? 4 people died. Dodge City, Kansas? Never had a murder until there was a sheriff and law.

Think about it like this...the old west was as close to anarchy as we've had, and people were willing to go through hardships just to move there. People today won't move from TN to GA for a good job, and people were willing to ride a horse across the country for a little taste of anarchy.
Click to expand...

You lulz at my statement that we did not have a strong central government as late as the 1800s yet post this?

The old west and the settlement of is one of my favorite history subjects and yes you are correct it was as close to AnCap as any part of the US has been since early colonial times. No it wasn't a shoot 'em up outlaw riddled environment although that element existed.

Now, what did western settlers do once congregated into communities? Formed governments and enforced the rule of law!
 
#923
#923
hog88 said:
The old west and the settlement of is one of my favorite history subjects and yes you are correct it was as close to AnCap as any part of the US has been since early colonial times. No it wasn't a shoot 'em up outlaw riddled environment although that element existed.

Now, what did western settlers do once congregated into communities? Formed governments and enforced the rule of law!
Click to expand...

And did that really change things for them? Or was the wild west basically just as dangerous? Communities got safer as they became more civilized. It had nothing to do with the introduction of government, otherwise, government would have made things notably safer, upon arrival.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top