Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Profile of NotYourSlave
| |-+  Show Posts
| | |-+  Messages

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.

Messages - NotYourSlave

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]
61
General / Re: What if we are wrong?
« on: March 01, 2010, 12:53:02 PM »
The industrial-technological system requires centralization.

not exactly.  It may induce voluntary agreements, however, it does not require coerced centralization


Actually, this is true. Most of us don't live on self-sufficient farms and we're not likely to anytime soon.

62
General / Re: What if we are wrong?
« on: March 01, 2010, 11:34:24 AM »
Right now people are idiots. They need a central authority. It is wrong on the practical and moral level. Stop trying to spread it and just live and let live. Maybe some day they will kind enough to follow the example. Don't get your hopes up because they are idiots.

Why do people need a central authority?

The central authority has domesticated them. To push liberty on them is like dropping off your de-clawed and neutered cat in the woods.

of course, that's what the state wants you to think, isn't it?

What is it exactly that you are afraid of?  Do markets respond better when regulations and taxes are removed?

63
General / Re: The Definitive "Things We Like About Texas" Thread
« on: February 28, 2010, 11:50:14 PM »
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world.

Therefore, it has worked for them.

Are you saying they wouldn't have been better off without socialism?

I'm saying that it's worked for places with a small land area and a highly homogenous population.

Would it have worked better than not having socialism?

Unless you can build a machine that can take us to (6)6)6 universes, there's no way I can answer your question. But I'm guessing no.

So it hasn't worked out for them.  And we don't need a time machine, we need a basic understanding of humanity to understand that humans live better lives with freedom as opposed to coercion. Empirical evidences backs this up as well.

No, actually it has worked out for them and Europeans have pretty much the highest standard of living in the world, that is my point.

Therefore, it has worked out for them.

They have high standards of living in spite of socialism, not because of it.  So no, socialism hasn't worked out for them.

No, it has worked. And if they have a high standard of living, and they live in a socialist country, then socialism has worked out for them. Unlike places in the rest of the world that have what can be described as a free market and are in abject poverty (Somalia is the most egregious example of this)

You're going to have to prove the link between socialism and high standards of living because it is counter-intuitive based on human nature and empirical historical evidence. 

Somalia?  Somalia is such a shithole because of statism. 

No, you're the one who is claiming that the high standards of Europe does not mean that socialism has worked. Burden of proof's on you, brother.

Also, the lack of a state in Somalia kind of means that you can't say that statism exists there. Try again.

No, you initially made the claim, so please back it up. 

Somalia is the way it is because of statism.  Actions have consequences.  When government involvement makes a mess out of something, it doesn't magically get better once the state disappears.  Would Somalia have been better off without state involvement?  Absolutely.

64
General / Re: The Definitive "Things We Like About Texas" Thread
« on: February 28, 2010, 11:16:52 PM »
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world.

Therefore, it has worked for them.

Are you saying they wouldn't have been better off without socialism?

I'm saying that it's worked for places with a small land area and a highly homogenous population.

Would it have worked better than not having socialism?

Unless you can build a machine that can take us to (6)6)6 universes, there's no way I can answer your question. But I'm guessing no.

So it hasn't worked out for them.  And we don't need a time machine, we need a basic understanding of humanity to understand that humans live better lives with freedom as opposed to coercion. Empirical evidences backs this up as well.

No, actually it has worked out for them and Europeans have pretty much the highest standard of living in the world, that is my point.

Therefore, it has worked out for them.

They have high standards of living in spite of socialism, not because of it.  So no, socialism hasn't worked out for them.

No, it has worked. And if they have a high standard of living, and they live in a socialist country, then socialism has worked out for them. Unlike places in the rest of the world that have what can be described as a free market and are in abject poverty (Somalia is the most egregious example of this)

You're going to have to prove the link between socialism and high standards of living because it is counter-intuitive based on human nature and empirical historical evidence. 

Somalia?  Somalia is such a shithole because of statism. 

65
General / Re: The Definitive "Things We Like About Texas" Thread
« on: February 28, 2010, 10:01:55 PM »
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world.

Therefore, it has worked for them.

Are you saying they wouldn't have been better off without socialism?

I'm saying that it's worked for places with a small land area and a highly homogenous population.

Would it have worked better than not having socialism?

Unless you can build a machine that can take us to (6)6)6 universes, there's no way I can answer your question. But I'm guessing no.

So it hasn't worked out for them.  And we don't need a time machine, we need a basic understanding of humanity to understand that humans live better lives with freedom as opposed to coercion. Empirical evidences backs this up as well.

No, actually it has worked out for them and Europeans have pretty much the highest standard of living in the world, that is my point.

Therefore, it has worked out for them.

They have high standards of living in spite of socialism, not because of it.  So no, socialism hasn't worked out for them.

66
General / Re: The Definitive "Things We Like About Texas" Thread
« on: February 28, 2010, 09:36:18 PM »
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world.

Therefore, it has worked for them.

Are you saying they wouldn't have been better off without socialism?

I'm saying that it's worked for places with a small land area and a highly homogenous population.

Would it have worked better than not having socialism?

Unless you can build a machine that can take us to (6)6)6 universes, there's no way I can answer your question. But I'm guessing no.

So it hasn't worked out for them.  And we don't need a time machine, we need a basic understanding of humanity to understand that humans live better lives with freedom as opposed to coercion. Empirical evidences backs this up as well.

67
General / Re: The Definitive "Things We Like About Texas" Thread
« on: February 28, 2010, 08:02:51 PM »
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world.

Therefore, it has worked for them.

Are you saying they wouldn't have been better off without socialism?

I'm saying that it's worked for places with a small land area and a highly homogenous population.

Would it have worked better than not having socialism?

68
General / Re: What if we are wrong?
« on: February 28, 2010, 04:33:25 PM »
Right now people are idiots. They need a central authority. It is wrong on the practical and moral level. Stop trying to spread it and just live and let live. Maybe some day they will kind enough to follow the example. Don't get your hopes up because they are idiots.

Why do people need a central authority?

69
General / Re: What if we are wrong?
« on: February 28, 2010, 04:32:52 PM »
What if people really do need to be centrally managed and controlled? What if all human kind is not ready for true liberty? What if I'm wrong about the philosophy of libertarianism or voluntaryism? If I were wrong on a practical level but not a moral one, would I still promote liberty? Would you?

Liberty means you can choose to be centrally managed and controlled.  However, you cannot force me to be centrally managed or controlled.  Liberty is never wrong.

70
General / Re: The Definitive "Things We Like About Texas" Thread
« on: February 28, 2010, 01:32:39 PM »
The Western European countries are socialist, and those countries are among those with the highest standards of living in the world.

Therefore, it has worked for them.

Are you saying they wouldn't have been better off without socialism?

71
General / Re: The "Inheritance Paradox"
« on: February 23, 2010, 11:11:36 PM »
Yes, but is the inheritance tied to liability in some way? 

Like, if you were to find out that there is a Swiss bank account put in place by your ancestor that got his money from slaves, and your claim to it was recognized, then do you face any firm legal liability (i.e. beyond simple social ostracism) to a person who can document his lineage from the said slaves?


I'd say in any case, if someone acquired an asset illegitimately and another party could prove that the asset was their property, then they should be able to get it back.  I don't see how that relates to someone else holding you liable for your parents' actions.

72
General / Re: The "Inheritance Paradox"
« on: February 22, 2010, 11:13:50 PM »
An inheritance is a gift, which means it is a two-sided transaction.  If I don't accept it, the transaction did not occur.  My parents can leave me assets, but I am free to not accept them.  I guess my parents could attempt to give me their debt, but I'd be morally free from not accepting it.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5]

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 31 queries.