d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > American Entitlement System > The Elephant In The Room
Prev11819202122Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 53,433
Joined: Mar 6 2008
Gold: 7,525.35
Apr 18 2018 12:25am
Quote (Thor123422 @ Apr 18 2018 02:10am)
Doesn't matter what you "advocate" for.

when you incorrectly represent what i advocate it certainly matters.

Quote
The system you want would make raising an actual army to defend against modern invaders impossible.

false assertion.
this idiocy of 'taxes are the only possible way' to fund a defense force is certifiably retarded.
people voluntarily agreeing to fund or join an army is definitely a possibility.

If the US government said 'we are not going to tax anyone to fund the army starting tomorrow' do you think everyone would throw up their hands and go 'oh well guess we wont have an army or any good way to defend ourselves!"?
Use your brain.

Quote
Free rider problem bro. In the end you'll have a few people who are well off enough to afford personal security (who will relocate to a stated society because it's more efficient in every way than what you advocate for) and everybody else stays in small non-advancing tribes.


unsubstantiated and unbelievable nonsense. you could attempt to claim that it would be better in some ways for some people, but to claim its more efficient in every way is beyond the pale.
we can all see the incredible inefficiencies and downsides of the state. a voluntary social order would certainly be recognized as beneficial in many ways to a lot of people.
it would not just be limited to 'farmers with rifles' as your infantile portrayal suggested.
Member
Posts: 45,817
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 22,186.49
Apr 18 2018 12:26am
Quote (Thor123422 @ Apr 18 2018 12:03am)
Sorry bro, farmers with rifles get stomped when faced against a foreign formal army. And a formal army only exists when you tax to pay for it.


viet cong wants a word with you
Member
Posts: 45,817
Joined: Jan 20 2010
Gold: 22,186.49
Apr 18 2018 12:32am
Quote (cambovenzi @ Apr 18 2018 12:25am)
unsubstantiated and unbelievable nonsense. you could attempt to claim that it would be better in some ways for some people, but to claim its more efficient in every way is beyond the pale.
we can all see the incredible inefficiencies and downsides of the state. a voluntary social order would certainly be recognized as beneficial in many ways to a lot of people.
it would not just be limited to 'farmers with rifles' as your infantile portrayal suggested.


I think I can see good evidence for the efficiency of the state: that it exists.
if chaotic libertarian societies with no central authority to rule over everyone were more efficient, it would be the system of governance with the power around the world
instead some sliding scale of republic between democracy and dictatorship has proved to be the fittest.
Member
Posts: 53,433
Joined: Mar 6 2008
Gold: 7,525.35
Apr 18 2018 12:49am
Quote (Goomshill @ Apr 18 2018 02:32am)
I think I can see good evidence for the efficiency of the state: that it exists.
if chaotic libertarian societies with no central authority to rule over everyone were more efficient, it would be the system of governance with the power around the world
instead some sliding scale of republic between democracy and dictatorship has proved to be the fittest.


what is most efficient is not necessarily or inherently what is currently existing in a given area. nor does it mean it is more efficient 'in every way'.

There are a plethora of reasons the state and its many policies still exist outside of its supposed 'efficiency'.

Are there any government policies you recognize as inefficient?
Lets pick literal slavery(not working at mcdonalds as PF would have us believe). Was that the most efficient system? or was it used because people used power and coercion to benefit themselves at the expense of others?
Enacting extremely wasteful tax-funded policies that benefit special interest groups at others' expense isn't most efficient either.
Member
Posts: 48,749
Joined: Jun 19 2006
Gold: 356.93
Apr 18 2018 02:14am
Quote (cambovenzi @ Apr 18 2018 05:49pm)
what is most efficient is not necessarily or inherently what is currently existing in a given area. nor does it mean it is more efficient 'in every way'.

There are a plethora of reasons the state and its many policies still exist outside of its supposed 'efficiency'.

Are there any government policies you recognize as inefficient?
Lets pick literal slavery(not working at mcdonalds as PF would have us believe). Was that the most efficient system? or was it used because people used power and coercion to benefit themselves at the expense of others?
Enacting extremely wasteful tax-funded policies that benefit special interest groups at others' expense isn't most efficient either.


The problem with your system is the people with the power and the wealth are already the most unscrupulous people..
Remove the state and you have the least moral people holding all the cards.
Member
Posts: 33,452
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,617.52
Apr 18 2018 10:36am
Quote (Plaguefear @ Apr 18 2018 02:18am)
No it wasn't, modern day statism is much better than the robber barons of the past.
The more social safety nets in place the better the life of the average person.
If I broke my leg tomorrow I would not lose thousands of dollars.


Exactly, though I foresee some corporations taking advantage.


If you do get your way and implement shitty centralized healthcare, you will die from easily cured medical issues

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Apr 18 2018 10:36am
Member
Posts: 90,565
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,489.69
Apr 18 2018 10:43am
Quote (Plaguefear @ Apr 18 2018 02:14am)
The problem with your system is the people with the power and the wealth are already the most unscrupulous people..
Remove the state and you have the least moral people holding all the cards.


LOL. when Gates and Buffet went to China they couldn't convey the concept of philanthropy to the chinese billionaires. they legit didn't understand what it meant.

American uber rich people are plenty generous and can't be described with such broad strokes as you're trying. Their current level of philanthropy is also in a meta where the state exists, you can't say conclusively that wouldn't change drastically devoid of a state. but a good comparison is natural disasters, where the state is too slow to give instant relief, and rich people (often natives of the area that was affected) step in to provide aid until the state aid package arrives. JJ Watt in Houston seems like a good example.
Member
Posts: 33,452
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,617.52
Apr 18 2018 10:53am
Quote (Plaguefear @ Apr 18 2018 04:14am)
The problem with your system is the people with the power and the wealth are already the most unscrupulous people..
Remove the state and you have the least moral people holding all the cards.


No evidence for any of this statement of course :rofl:
Member
Posts: 48,749
Joined: Jun 19 2006
Gold: 356.93
Apr 18 2018 04:17pm
Quote (EndlessSky @ Apr 19 2018 03:36am)
If you do get your way and implement shitty centralized healthcare, you will die from easily cured medical issues

We already have single payer here in australia and have some of the best medical care in the world, i beat cancer for free, i have had numerous broken bones and never paid a cent.
If anything australians live too long, our right wing government stole our pension fund and now we are trying to find a way to look after everyone relying on it.

Quote (thesnipa @ Apr 19 2018 03:43am)
LOL. when Gates and Buffet went to China they couldn't convey the concept of philanthropy to the chinese billionaires. they legit didn't understand what it meant.

American uber rich people are plenty generous and can't be described with such broad strokes as you're trying. Their current level of philanthropy is also in a meta where the state exists, you can't say conclusively that wouldn't change drastically devoid of a state. but a good comparison is natural disasters, where the state is too slow to give instant relief, and rich people (often natives of the area that was affected) step in to provide aid until the state aid package arrives. JJ Watt in Houston seems like a good example.


Do you know how many people gates crushed to get to where he is?
He was ruthless in business, sure he is a great philanthropist now but in his younger years he caused suicides.

This post was edited by Plaguefear on Apr 18 2018 04:18pm
Member
Posts: 90,565
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,489.69
Apr 18 2018 04:22pm
Quote (Plaguefear @ Apr 18 2018 04:17pm)
We already have single payer here in australia and have some of the best medical care in the world, i beat cancer for free, i have had numerous broken bones and never paid a cent.
If anything australians live too long, our right wing government stole our pension fund and now we are trying to find a way to look after everyone relying on it.



Do you know how many people gates crushed to get to where he is?
He was ruthless in business, sure he is a great philanthropist now but in his younger years he caused suicides.


so being competitive at business is immoral? lolwut.

you're moving the goalposts, also. first you suggest that devoid of a state we're at the whims of the rich, which is based on hte false premise that the state protects US from THEM. When in fact it's either even or IMO the other way around. You think rich people would be left in peace if there was no laws, watch the Purge, thats how i think it would go. You know, just based on every population driven revolution in the history of human kind.

Like i also said, your statement is based on another false premise. That rich people would act the same way with regards to philanthropy devoid of the state, which i think is false objectively. i gave an example
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev11819202122Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll