 
|
This board is closed to new users and new posts. Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years. Details here.
|
|
The Free Talk Live BBS
Profile of The Muslim Agorist
Show Posts Topics
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
61
General / What about the Poor?!
« on: June 29, 2009, 09:46:05 PM »
I’d like to take some time to talk about the poor. Solving poverty was the state function that was the hardest for me to give up. So, for those who still think that the best way help the poor is to elect a class of unaccountable people, who fleece our wealth at gunpoint, I’d like to tell you about Larry Moore.
For six years Larry was a homeless drunk, living under a bridge and begging on the street. Last September Larry acquired his own shoeshine stand, got himself a nice looking suit and starting earning $7 a shine. Business was so successful that the SF Chronicle called him, “the best-dressed shoeshine man in the city” last March (1). When they interviewed him he said, “I used to push a shopping cart in this town. Now I have my own business. I feel blessed every day!” You see Larry was on his way to earning the $600 he needed to rent an apartment.
Then some bureaucrat from the Department of Public Works saw the article and sought out Larry to inform him that he needed to purchase a $491 sidewalk vendor permit. A spokesbureaucrat from Public Works, said the department’s contact with Larry was meant to be, “educational.” Bollocks! So, Larry, this saint, dutifully handed over almost every penny he’d saved. Just one problem, Larry doesn't have a valid California ID, and had to send away for a replacement birth certificate from Kansas (2).
When news of this bureaucratic SNAFU reached the public hundreds of people lined up for blocks with shoes in hand. After earning nearly $1,000 Larry was able to pay off the state, and pay his way into some temporary housing (3). Mabruk Larry!
Larry's story exemplifies perfectly exactly how the state (A monopoly on coercive violence) fails to help the poor, and the fair market (the aggregate of all voluntary economic exchanges) absolutely succeeds. Let me explain.
America has one of the most bloated federal welfare programs in the world. California is likely the most socialist state in the union. San Francisco is the most lefty pinko city in the state. If the state was going to solve poverty anywhere it would be here. But the state did nothing for Larry, while well intending strangers did. At the very bottom, it is voluntary interaction, not coercive redistribution, that kept Larry fed for 6 years. So, despite the ever increasing taxation, the market is still providing for the poor. And, a coercive tax takes money out of the safety net that works and puts it into the safety net that fails.
And now the statist is screaming, “but without the government the poor will starve in the streets!” To which I respond, “Is there some reason why you think people wouldn't give money to the charity, but would vote for a bureaucrat to take it from them by force?” The fact that nearly every person instantly responds, "What about the poor!" proves that helping the poor is a nearly universal value in our society. If it's a universal value we don't need to be forced. If it isn't a universal value a majority isn’t going to vote for it. The very fact that people vote for welfare programs tells me that people would help the poor without coercion.
Then enters the shoeshine stand. Entrepreneurship is how the fair market raises the poor out of the safety net. In a fair market absolutely everyone has value and can create wealth from just a minimum of creativity and ambition. Statism tells us that some people are worthless. By imposing a minimum wage the centrally planned economy raises the barrier of entry into the market and prevents people like Larry from participating. People in Larry's situation have value, and are prevented from accessing that value because they have dropped beneath the minimum wage. Were it not for minimum wage laws Larry would have been able prove his value to an employer by offering to work for a reduced starting wage. He could have swept hair in a barber shop for $4 and hour and earned $600 in less than two months. But no employer is going to risk $8 dollars an hour, and all the taxes, and liability that come with employing someone, on a homeless drunk. So, despite the raised barrier to entry, the market is still finding value in the poor who have an entrepreneurial spirit. And, a coercive minimum wage takes jobs away from people who can prove their value in the fair market and gives jobs to bureaucrats who cannot prove their value.
And now the little statist is screaming, “but without government greedy capitalists will exploit the workers!” To which I respond, ”Is there some difference between a capitalists and a bureaucrat? What makes you think that a business owner, who interacts with people on a voluntary basis, must prove the value of their services, and must maintain a positive reputation would exploit people more than a bureaucrat, who wields coercive force, has a monopoly on his services, and is only accountable to the public once in an election cycle?” In my experience violent people with no competition or liability are not more virtuous. I mean, the fair market boycotts products for exploiting dolphins.
Then enters the state. Can you imagine! The government completely ignores Larry for six years and then when it learns of his success it swoops in and takes every penny. Just when he was on the verge of actually lifting himself off the street he's attacked by the third head of the hydra. Licensing laws. And I'm not sure what the reason for the "sidewalk vendor permit" is, but I know why it's important to the Department of Public Works. Because everyone, the capitalist, the bureaucrat, the rich, the poor, you, me, Barry Obama, EVERYONE acts upon market incentives. And the state acquires revenue through licensing laws. Plain and simple. The difference however is that the state is not required to prove it's value. It is a monopoly willing to extort $491 from every sidewalk vendor, effectively keeping the poor poor.
And now the little statist is screaming, "..." Nothing. And I think that's kind of funny. Because what's he going to say? "Without the government poor people will all be selling stuff on the street! They'll be providing value in the market, earning wealth, satisfying customers, and improving their condition!" And this is always the end result of any discussion about coercive violence. Eventually the statist runs out of arguments and has nothing left but irrational preference, which is a dangerous motivation when people's lives are at stake.
Then enters the market. Larry was not saved by the state. Larry was saved by the market. Hundreds of people voluntarily getting their shoes shined. Because the fair market is not only heartless capitalism. The fair market is the aggregate of all voluntary economic exchanges. And in the fair market, in the hearts of people, the poor have value, charity has value, Larry has value. And all that it takes for good to prevail to for people to live without coercion.
So I hope this clears things up. Everything right and true is from Allah. Any mistakes are from myself. And I hope you'll go to the corner of New Montgomery and Market Street in San Francsico and get your shoes shined by Larry Moore, the best-dressed shoe shine man in San Francisco.
1- Shoeshine man fashioning a better life
2- Bureaucrat scuffs dream of homeless shoe shiner
3- SF's Homeless 'Shoeshine Man' Back In Business
For six years Larry was a homeless drunk, living under a bridge and begging on the street. Last September Larry acquired his own shoeshine stand, got himself a nice looking suit and starting earning $7 a shine. Business was so successful that the SF Chronicle called him, “the best-dressed shoeshine man in the city” last March (1). When they interviewed him he said, “I used to push a shopping cart in this town. Now I have my own business. I feel blessed every day!” You see Larry was on his way to earning the $600 he needed to rent an apartment.
Then some bureaucrat from the Department of Public Works saw the article and sought out Larry to inform him that he needed to purchase a $491 sidewalk vendor permit. A spokesbureaucrat from Public Works, said the department’s contact with Larry was meant to be, “educational.” Bollocks! So, Larry, this saint, dutifully handed over almost every penny he’d saved. Just one problem, Larry doesn't have a valid California ID, and had to send away for a replacement birth certificate from Kansas (2).
When news of this bureaucratic SNAFU reached the public hundreds of people lined up for blocks with shoes in hand. After earning nearly $1,000 Larry was able to pay off the state, and pay his way into some temporary housing (3). Mabruk Larry!
Larry's story exemplifies perfectly exactly how the state (A monopoly on coercive violence) fails to help the poor, and the fair market (the aggregate of all voluntary economic exchanges) absolutely succeeds. Let me explain.
America has one of the most bloated federal welfare programs in the world. California is likely the most socialist state in the union. San Francisco is the most lefty pinko city in the state. If the state was going to solve poverty anywhere it would be here. But the state did nothing for Larry, while well intending strangers did. At the very bottom, it is voluntary interaction, not coercive redistribution, that kept Larry fed for 6 years. So, despite the ever increasing taxation, the market is still providing for the poor. And, a coercive tax takes money out of the safety net that works and puts it into the safety net that fails.
And now the statist is screaming, “but without the government the poor will starve in the streets!” To which I respond, “Is there some reason why you think people wouldn't give money to the charity, but would vote for a bureaucrat to take it from them by force?” The fact that nearly every person instantly responds, "What about the poor!" proves that helping the poor is a nearly universal value in our society. If it's a universal value we don't need to be forced. If it isn't a universal value a majority isn’t going to vote for it. The very fact that people vote for welfare programs tells me that people would help the poor without coercion.
Then enters the shoeshine stand. Entrepreneurship is how the fair market raises the poor out of the safety net. In a fair market absolutely everyone has value and can create wealth from just a minimum of creativity and ambition. Statism tells us that some people are worthless. By imposing a minimum wage the centrally planned economy raises the barrier of entry into the market and prevents people like Larry from participating. People in Larry's situation have value, and are prevented from accessing that value because they have dropped beneath the minimum wage. Were it not for minimum wage laws Larry would have been able prove his value to an employer by offering to work for a reduced starting wage. He could have swept hair in a barber shop for $4 and hour and earned $600 in less than two months. But no employer is going to risk $8 dollars an hour, and all the taxes, and liability that come with employing someone, on a homeless drunk. So, despite the raised barrier to entry, the market is still finding value in the poor who have an entrepreneurial spirit. And, a coercive minimum wage takes jobs away from people who can prove their value in the fair market and gives jobs to bureaucrats who cannot prove their value.
And now the little statist is screaming, “but without government greedy capitalists will exploit the workers!” To which I respond, ”Is there some difference between a capitalists and a bureaucrat? What makes you think that a business owner, who interacts with people on a voluntary basis, must prove the value of their services, and must maintain a positive reputation would exploit people more than a bureaucrat, who wields coercive force, has a monopoly on his services, and is only accountable to the public once in an election cycle?” In my experience violent people with no competition or liability are not more virtuous. I mean, the fair market boycotts products for exploiting dolphins.
Then enters the state. Can you imagine! The government completely ignores Larry for six years and then when it learns of his success it swoops in and takes every penny. Just when he was on the verge of actually lifting himself off the street he's attacked by the third head of the hydra. Licensing laws. And I'm not sure what the reason for the "sidewalk vendor permit" is, but I know why it's important to the Department of Public Works. Because everyone, the capitalist, the bureaucrat, the rich, the poor, you, me, Barry Obama, EVERYONE acts upon market incentives. And the state acquires revenue through licensing laws. Plain and simple. The difference however is that the state is not required to prove it's value. It is a monopoly willing to extort $491 from every sidewalk vendor, effectively keeping the poor poor.
And now the little statist is screaming, "..." Nothing. And I think that's kind of funny. Because what's he going to say? "Without the government poor people will all be selling stuff on the street! They'll be providing value in the market, earning wealth, satisfying customers, and improving their condition!" And this is always the end result of any discussion about coercive violence. Eventually the statist runs out of arguments and has nothing left but irrational preference, which is a dangerous motivation when people's lives are at stake.
Then enters the market. Larry was not saved by the state. Larry was saved by the market. Hundreds of people voluntarily getting their shoes shined. Because the fair market is not only heartless capitalism. The fair market is the aggregate of all voluntary economic exchanges. And in the fair market, in the hearts of people, the poor have value, charity has value, Larry has value. And all that it takes for good to prevail to for people to live without coercion.
So I hope this clears things up. Everything right and true is from Allah. Any mistakes are from myself. And I hope you'll go to the corner of New Montgomery and Market Street in San Francsico and get your shoes shined by Larry Moore, the best-dressed shoe shine man in San Francisco.
1- Shoeshine man fashioning a better life
2- Bureaucrat scuffs dream of homeless shoe shiner
3- SF's Homeless 'Shoeshine Man' Back In Business
62
General / Little Mosque on the Prairie clashes with Libertarian Party of Canada
« on: September 05, 2007, 05:01:28 AM »Quote from: http://www.libertarian.ca/english/newsletter/2007-03/LPC-2007-03-am2.html
Dear CBC,
The CBC website http://www.cbc.ca/littlemosque/ has the following comments under "Meet the Townsfolk" for "Fred Tupper". It says,
"Fred Tupper, a local in his forties, is the town of Mercy's own Rush Limbaugh. Fred uses his daily radio talk show, 'Wake-up People', to fuel people's suspicions about the growing Muslim community. If accused of intolerance, Fred would would claim he only says things people don't like to hear. No one would disagree with that! Fred describes himself a textbook libertarian: like most bigots. In person, Fred's polite, and has a rough charm. Fatima (who Fred has a crush on) finds him extremely resistible."
This statement directly associating libertarians with bigots is very offensive. A Muslim libertarian noticed it and sent a complaint to the Libertarian Party of Canada. There are Muslim libertarians, for example: "Minaret of Freedom Institute".
I didn't realize that "most bigots" describe themselves as "libertarian". This is a completely absurd, unverifiable and impossible statement.
Personally I found it offensive - regardless of whose fault it is - that libertarianism - an ideology of freedom, justice and peace - is associated with either bigots or Rush Limbaugh (Drug Warrior extraordinaire), who is really just a State apologist and propagandist for the establishment he represents.
The statement on your website is a very unfair attack on libertarians. I'd ask the writers to please correct this misrepresentation. I'm sure it's just based on a lack of information about the subject and false assumptions.
Alan Mercer
President
Libertarian Party of Canada
Man, I'm wandering down some strange avenues tonight.
63
General / I'm tired of repeating myself...
« on: August 25, 2007, 06:52:04 PM »
You know… I come here to talk about liberty, but spend 90% of my time correcting utter falsehoods people spread about Islam. It’s getting redundant, and I’m tired of repeating myself. So, this post is going to link to all my previous explanations, and I’m going to link to it in my signature. From now on when people direct their accusations toward me, I’m just going to direct them to what I’ve already said.
General rebuttal:
The standard grievances.
Verses of the Sword:
Quran 9:5 Slay the pagans wherever you find them
Quran 9:29 Fight those who disbelieve… until they pay the Jizya
Non Muslim Tax:
What is the jizya?
How do I respond to the wiki article,
and what’s the scholars behind it.
Apostasy:
Does Islam prescribe the Death Penalty for apostasy?
The Child Bride:
Who was Aisha?
Primitive Desert Religion:
I’ve explained Islam’s contribution to the enlightenment specifically the idea of a separation of faith and politics. I’ve explained how Wahhabi ideology dominated politics in the Middle East, influenced by British colonialism.
The Battle of the Trench:
Did Muhammad really execute 200 Jews?
Reason and Faith:
I’ve explained the reasons I believe in a couple of places, and defined faith from the Arabic conception to distinguish from Blind Faith.
Zeitgeist:
This movie is a joke.
I am exhausted… fed up… and finished repeating myself.
I’ll add to this post over time, so it remains a comprehensive list. And I'm happy to answer sincere question to the best of my ability, but if you’re making claims and your only source of information is Daniel Pipes and Jihadwatch.com than you’re not really interested in the Truth anyway. You’re just looking for talking points to support your own bias, and you’re not worth my time.
But I remain, your faithful Muslim Nonarchist
General rebuttal:
The standard grievances.
Verses of the Sword:
Quran 9:5 Slay the pagans wherever you find them
Quran 9:29 Fight those who disbelieve… until they pay the Jizya
Non Muslim Tax:
What is the jizya?
How do I respond to the wiki article,
and what’s the scholars behind it.
Apostasy:
Does Islam prescribe the Death Penalty for apostasy?
The Child Bride:
Who was Aisha?
Primitive Desert Religion:
I’ve explained Islam’s contribution to the enlightenment specifically the idea of a separation of faith and politics. I’ve explained how Wahhabi ideology dominated politics in the Middle East, influenced by British colonialism.
The Battle of the Trench:
Did Muhammad really execute 200 Jews?
Reason and Faith:
I’ve explained the reasons I believe in a couple of places, and defined faith from the Arabic conception to distinguish from Blind Faith.
Zeitgeist:
This movie is a joke.
I am exhausted… fed up… and finished repeating myself.
I’ll add to this post over time, so it remains a comprehensive list. And I'm happy to answer sincere question to the best of my ability, but if you’re making claims and your only source of information is Daniel Pipes and Jihadwatch.com than you’re not really interested in the Truth anyway. You’re just looking for talking points to support your own bias, and you’re not worth my time.
But I remain, your faithful Muslim Nonarchist
65
The Polling Pit / Who's a PWNer
« on: July 31, 2007, 10:00:24 PM »
You try to do something nice and everyone’s gotta fight about it
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=15293.0;topicseen
You all suck
66
The Polling Pit / How religious are we?
« on: April 19, 2007, 01:31:02 PM »
Sorry if I've left any out, or misrepresented.