Do you know any Communists?

Grolschevik

Clandestine wrote: »

Point out how they are these things... its not enough to generalise like this

Some things are prima facie evident. No-one needs to construct an argument to support their belief that George Washington was a man who became a president.

Likewise, you don't really have to construct an argument to refute someone who denies that fact.

So with regard to Sin City's posts:

• Read his responses.
• In this thread.
• Over the last few days.
• With a relatively open mind.
• Exercise your critical faculties.

I am not going to do a systematic critique of one poster's shifting arguments in a thread this long. Either you've been following it, or you haven't.

Shaw. Pig. Wrestle.

sin_city

You might have an issue with how I portray the facts but you cannot deny them.

No one ever replies to my questions...rather only my responses are critiqued.

This is easy to do. No system is perfect but some are more perfect than others.

sin_city

This soundbite is to all you socialists:

Skip to 22:35

And this is using historical data up to the 1970s...amazing how in 2014 some people still dont get it

karma_

sin_city wrote: »

You might have an issue with how I portray the facts but you cannot deny them.

No one ever replies to my questions...rather only my responses are critiqued.

This is easy to do. No system is perfect but some are more perfect than others.

Facts, fatcs??

sin_city wrote: »

This soundbite is to all you socialists:

Skip to 22:35

And this is using historical data up to the 1970s...amazing how in 2014 some people still dont get it

Ahh the noble Friedman, the poster boy for libertarians. It's a shame he royally messed up Chile ain't it?

Iwasfrozen

karma_ wrote: »

Ahh the noble Friedman, the poster boy for libertarians. It's a shame he royally messed up Chile ain't it?

Any comment on the video at all?

KyussBishop

sin_city wrote: »

No, all that is asked is for private property to be respected and non aggression.

People that don't respect private property are simply breaking the principle. I don't have to force them to do anything.
I could deal with the matter using common law and using common sense.

'Common law' doesn't exist in an anarcho-capitalist society, because there is no authoritative legal system - neither does private property (which I've had to repeat a number of times).

sin_city wrote: »

No, I said I don't know whether or not people would accept anarchy so respecting the non aggression principle it is only right not to force it upon anyone.

People have accepted a small government republic in the past and this seems like an acceptable balance. We could use lotteries and so on to raise money but as I said I have not seen this in the past and I prefer personally to base what is possible on history...don't you? Like how many millions can crazed leader like Stalin and Hitler kill? Well, we can look at history and see that Communism/Socialism is a great killer...Small government republics tend not to be as punishing to the local population.

All it takes is for one person to refuse to accept anarchy, and it very quickly becomes unmanageable, because then that one person can (legitimately) refuse to accept anyone elses claim of authority over any property.

It's odd really - Libertarians consider human self-interest as a prime motivator, but don't seem to ever put even the smallest amount of thought, into how people might self-interestedly exploit the systems they support - it's almost like on one hand, self-interest is said to be a prime motivator, yet on the other hand, everyone is magically supposed to respect each other and live in harmonious equilibrium.

In any case: This shows that all of your arguments about the unjust nature of tax, are completely redundant, because you can't show a working political/economic system (one that isn't an impossible theory), which works without a state and taxes.

sin_city wrote: »

I know many people who invested with Schiff's Europac in 2003 and 2004 and are up over 400%.

How did the lose 70%...Can you provide the amount and time of investment? I sounds like bullsh!t unless you can provide these details.

And was Schiff making hyperinflation claims in 2003/2004? No.

You're deliberately ignoring, that I am pointing out, Schiff causing people to lose 40%-70% of their investments, because of his false hyperinflation claims - backed by an investor who spent the time both deconstructing Schiff's claims, and in contact with people who have invested with him:

I have talked with many who claim they have invested with Schiff and are down anywhere from 40% to 70% in 2008. There are many other such claims on the internet. They are entirely believable for the simple reason Schiff's investment thesis was flat out wrong.

sin_city wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

The law isn't decided by conspiracy theorist tax protesters - it is decided by courts (you know, the entities responsible for interpreting and upholding the law), and they say it is legal - end of.

What law? Did you find the law on Income tax?

Please answer this at least...did you find the law...you ignore my questions and ramble...just answer this one....Did you find the income tax law?

What you're replying here isn't even referencing anything I've said, just taking that I mentioned the word 'law', then trying to warp it around into rhetorical point-scoring, by going on as if I was talking about a specific law.

The courts - the institutions that interpret and lay down the law - have shown again and again, that income tax is legal; they have a lot more credibility, than Freeman-esque tax frauds.

KyussBishop

Clandestine wrote: »

If the road is too expensive to drive on, people won't use it. Its in his best interest to remain competitive and keep the cost low. If he keeps his costs down, he won't have to worry about another individual setting up shop.

It's really not hard to think up examples to very effectively exploit people, in ways they can't avoid, such as:
I build a road that completely encircles a town, then if anyone wants to get in or out, they have to pay me.

I mean really, why is it that people espousing these views never bother considering how easy it is to exploit such a system.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's really not hard to think up examples to very effectively exploit people, in ways they can't avoid, such as:
I build a road that completely encircles a town, then if anyone wants to get in or out, they have to pay me.

I mean really, why is it that people espousing these views never bother considering how easy it is to exploit such a system.

In that case someone else would build a road that intersects yours and you woudn't be able to stop them.

KyussBishop

Grolschevik wrote: »

Some things are prima facie evident. No-one needs to construct an argument to support their belief that George Washington was a man who became a president.
...

I agree, but the issue is, if you let them spout their nonsense unchallenged, all you get is an echo-chamber of soapboxing.


As an aside (not a reply to you but a general statement), that word (soapboxing) is one many posters seem to misuse:
Soapboxing is a poster deliberately proliferating views they either know are wrong or are unwilling to address criticism of, and who avoids engaging in any real challenge to those views (but who will put up a superficial challenge, to make it look like they are engaging with criticism), and will keep persisting with those views even when they have been thoroughly debunked.

Many posters try to pin the 'soapboxing' charge on someone, just for holding a minority view, even if they always respond to challenges, with direct counterarguments (not just a superficial appearance of argument); that's not soapboxing, that is debating.

Those posters throwing the soapboxing accusation, even when the person always directly counterargues instead of evading, are actually putting forward a kind of ad-hominem/smear - without backing it in any kind of argument or quotes giving an example of what they accuse of.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Any comment on the video at all?

If he can't be bothered even paraphrasing the argument, or putting it into his own words, can't really expect anyone to bother replying to it; pretty sure 'argument by YouTube' is frowned on by mods.

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

In that case someone else would build a road that intersects yours and you woudn't be able to stop them.

Not really, they'd be violating your private property by building over your land - creating a contradictory mess of whatever semi-voluntary legal system you have in place, making it totally impractical and eventually requiring a single authority (a state), to settle the disagreement.

Iwasfrozen

KyussBishop wrote: »

Not really, they'd be violating your private property by building over your land - creating a contradictory mess of whatever semi-voluntary legal system you have in place, making it totally impractical and eventually requiring a single authority (a state), to settle the disagreement.

They're not building over you property, they're building another road and connecting it to yours which must be legal or it would never have been possible for you to build your road connected to the roads in the town in the first place.

coolemon

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They're not building over you property, they're building another road and connecting it to yours which must be legal or it would never have been possible for you to build your road connected to the roads in the town in the first place.

Putting two concrete barriers at ether side of where the intersection joins would make the other road unusable. And I could do that, because it would be my property. I could also stipulate that nobody using my road could enter from that road on to the other via my property. And I could do that, because it is my property.


Id also leave it until the very last minute to put the concrete barriers up so my would-be competitor has invested his money in something redundant, thus eliminating the competition.

sin_city

karma_ wrote: »

Facts, fatcs??



Ahh the noble Friedman, the poster boy for libertarians. It's a shame he royally messed up Chile ain't it?

Did he really? I know people from South America and they are flocking to Chile....It wasn't him...it was the Chicago school.

I suppose socialist Venezuela is doing good???....unless you need to take a sh!t and can't get your hands on bog roll

I know latins...y ellos me dicen que Chile es la economía mejor de todos los países en América Latina......

You should speak to people instead of sticking your arse in your bullsh!t...where do you get that??? Mierda.

All you guys keep saying where I am wrong....well get this....As wrong as I am...I am way less wrong than you or Joe Stalin or any Communist.....

If you studied history and facts you'd know this but it can be hard to see in the dark passage of your own anus

Clandestine

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's really not hard to think up examples to very effectively exploit people, in ways they can't avoid, such as:
I build a road that completely encircles a town, then if anyone wants to get in or out, they have to pay me.

I mean really, why is it that people espousing these views never bother considering how easy it is to exploit such a system.

Do you honestly think anyone would actually do this? Do you know how much a road costs to build/maintain? I highly doubt an individual would built a road to make a profit when he is facing so much potential scorn.

Not to mention, if you were to build such a road, the locals wouldn't stand for it.

Clandestine

sin_city wrote: »

You should speak to people instead of sticking your arse in your bullsh!t...where do you get that??? Mierda.

If you studied history and facts you'd know this but it can be hard to see in the dark passage of your own anus

That kind of talk is hardly necessary man....

KyussBishop

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

They're not building over you property, they're building another road and connecting it to yours which must be legal or it would never have been possible for you to build your road connected to the roads in the town in the first place.

Uhm, that doesn't stop you requiring a tariff on everyone using your road, that encircles their town?

sin_city

KyussBishop wrote: »

'Common law' doesn't exist in an anarcho-capitalist society, because there is no authoritative legal system - neither does private property (which I've had to repeat a number of times).

All it takes is for one person to refuse to accept anarchy, and it very quickly becomes unmanageable, because then that one person can (legitimately) refuse to accept anyone elses claim of authority over any property.

Ok, you convinced me...I think its better to be Libertarian than Anarchist....now what?

KyussBishop wrote: »

And was Schiff making hyperinflation claims in 2003/2004? No.

Yes he was...type in Peter schiff 2003, 2004 or 2005 or so on...even an idiot could do that.

KyussBishop wrote: »

You're deliberately ignoring, that I am pointing out, Schiff causing people to lose 40%-70% of their investments, because of his false hyperinflation claims - backed by an investor who spent the time both deconstructing Schiff's claims, and in contact with people who have invested with him:

More words...no stats....but one blog....great...Like Marx quoting Engels...what a can of sh!te.


PETER SCHIFF IN 2002

sin_city

Clandestine wrote: »

That kind of talk is hardly necessary man....

Sorry dude but Communists are responsible for mass murdering in many parts of the world....to defend it or say we need to do it again but better is hard to take.....

The real workers of the world just want freedom and the abilty to own their own land.....

This socialist garbage is responsible for the deaths of millions.

KyussBishop

Clandestine wrote: »

Do you honestly think anyone would actually do this? Do you know how much a road costs to build/maintain? I highly doubt an individual would built a road to make a profit when he is facing so much potential scorn.

Not to mention, if you were to build such a road, the locals wouldn't stand for it.

Sure people would do this - they get to extract endless rents from the town they encircle, and then if everyone wants to leave as a result of this, buy up the entire town on the cheap.

Why care about anyones scorn when you can just exploit the crap out of them, without them being able to do a thing - since they have no legal recourse?

Clandestine

KyussBishop wrote: »

Sure people would do this - they get to extract endless rents from the town they encircle

How the hell would they be able to claim rent on the land?

KyussBishop

sin_city wrote: »

Ok, you convinced me...I think its better to be Libertarian than Anarchist....now what?

Well, all of the arguments about taxes being theft are no longer applicable now, because by supporting any kind of state, you can't criticize taxes without contradicting yourself.
You can also forget about 'free markets', because now they are impossible: The very existence of the state, makes free markets impossible.

So you can't use any Libertarian arguments about the 'unjust' nature of taxes, or about the 'benefits' of free markets anymore - because that would make you contradict yourself.


Basically, you have very little left to defend Libertarianism after ceding these points, because they are what most of their rhetoric is based upon - you now have to forget about these ideals, and present evidence/studies, about why you think certain policies are better than others.

The entire Libertarian think-tank network, in among building upon the rhetoric you just ceded, also manufacture false studies/propaganda/'evidence', to try and justify their policies - this is what you have left to pick from, and then it's only a matter of time before people pick apart the holes in those studies (or more likely: point out how the studies authors are routine frauds, who aren't worth taking credibly), and leave you with nothing to defend your desired policies.


If you apply a bit of skepticism, you will quickly see there is nothing defensible left.

sin_city wrote: »

Yes he was...type in Peter schiff 2003, 2004 or 2005 or so on...even an idiot could do that to.

And this alleged 400% investment increase was a result of his hyperinflation predictions....?

sin_city wrote: »

More words...no stats....but one blog....great...Like Marx quoting Engels...what a can of sh!te.

He's a prominent investor, who has enough credibility to override your dismissals.

redbaron_99

Everyone in the Irish government.

KyussBishop

sin_city wrote: »

Sorry dude but Communists are responsible for mass murdering in many parts of the world....to defend it or say we need to do it again but better is hard to take.....

The real workers of the world just want freedom and the abilty to own their own land.....

This socialist garbage is responsible for the deaths of millions.

The US is responsible for the best part of a century of murders all around the world, with the root of such actions involving various forms of corporate exploitation/imperialism of other countries.

The US is one of the most blatantly murderous countries on the planet, and all you have to look at to see that, is their foreign policy and the activities their secret services have been up to over the years.

Clandestine

KyussBishop wrote: »

The US is responsible for the best part of a century of murders all around the world, with the root of such actions involving various forms of corporate exploitation/imperialism of other countries.

The US is one of the most blatantly murderous countries on the planet, and all you have to look at to see that, is their foreign policy and the activities their secret services have been up to over the years.

I have to agree... American/British neo-conservatism is one of the greatest threats to the world today imo.

KyussBishop

Clandestine wrote: »

How the hell would they be able to claim rent on the land?

There are many kinds of rent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_rent

sin_city

KyussBishop wrote: »

And this alleged 400% investment increase was a result of his hyperinflation predictions....?

Do you struggle with Maths?

Gold was around $350 in 2003...it went to $1900 but around $1400 (now) it is 400%

$350 X 4 = $1400

If you require further help with history or maths let me know.

sin_city

KyussBishop wrote: »

The US is responsible for the best part of a century of murders all around the world, with the root of such actions involving various forms of corporate exploitation/imperialism of other countries.

The US is one of the most blatantly murderous countries on the planet, and all you have to look at to see that, is their foreign policy and the activities their secret services have been up to over the years.

I don't recall any of this happening under small government systems...Did Jefferson invade?

If you think the US is capitalist now, you trully are lost

karma_

sin_city wrote: »

I don't recall any of this happening under small government systems...Did Jefferson invade?

If you think the US is capitalist now, you trully are lost

Jefferson, the wealthy slave owner? That one?

sin_city

karma_ wrote: »

Jefferson, the wealthy slave owner? That one?

You should be working for a The Sun..

yes, him:

During his lifetime, Jefferson attempted twice to legislate the emancipation of slaves, one time in 1769 at the Virginia General Assembly, and another in 1784 at the Continental Congress. Jefferson also railed against King George III of Great Britain and the slave trade in his draft copy of the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776.