Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 35

Thread: Help Me Debunk This

  1. #1

    Default Help Me Debunk This

    I'm involved in a Facebook fight. I have already responded once to this but could use some help if anyone wants to toss in a few talking points. Thanks.

    The Other Person's Response to Me:

    "Well, yes much of this is so BUT government was actually created to protect us from these things. We have allowed monopolies, corporatists, and plutocrats to take over the very agency our ancestors created to protect us from these nefarious entities. The government, is at it's core we the people. We have failed by allowing corporations to be "people" , we have failed by allowing their money to be "free speech". This is the real culprit. Originally corporations not only were banned from any interference in elections, but also had to show that they existed in the public interest every 4 years...thier charter was revoked for any infraction. Today whoever fills the political coffers is represented regardless of purpose. Individual citizens simply can not compete with corporate "free speech" can they? A person can only generate so much capital in a lifetime while a corporation is essentially immortal and amasses tremendous wealth...if money is free speech, then mere humans have far far less free speech hence far far less say in the process. The country is for sale to the highest bidder. And the highest bidders are not human beings, they are the wealthiest corporations (about 16 of them are behind most all bribery or whatever you want to call filling political coffers) or the 400 or so richest people. Everyone else is simply at their mercy. THIS is a complete perversion of the original purpose of government. Easier said than done, but take the money and corporate control out of government and it will again represent we the people. It's actually quite simple. If the politicos need to satisfy their constituents rather than their corporate overlords to keep their positions, then we return to being a great nation. The path we are on now leads only to plutocracy. The libertarians, as respectful as I am of their regard for freedom and civil liberties are ultimately dead wrong. Every nation state throughout history with a weak central government has failed or been conquered. Today Somalia is a libertarian state. It creates an environment ripe for thugs to rise to power. It's freedom from government rules and has low taxes but instead you get pirates, gangsters, and self appointed despots taking the place of government. It would be no different here or anywhere such a thing was implemented. Better rathter than scrap it, we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Government simply needs to be accountable to the citizens who grant them governance as it was intended. Remove the lobbyists, corporatists, plutocrats from the equation and viola! it is done!"
    Last edited by anaconda; 05-04-2011 at 12:38 AM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    By the way this was my post that this person was respondeding to:

    "I am for completely abolishing the IRS and the federal income tax. Corporate welfare is utterly contemptible. The Bush/Obama bailouts were completely criminal and unconstitutional. I am for cutting the defense budget by FAR MORE than 25%. The Federal Reserve Bank in collusion with the Federal government through AIG, Fannie Mae, & Freddie Mac have brought you this cataclysmic ripoff of wealth from the middle and lower classes into the pockets of the super wealthy. This unholy alliance must end. Corporations must stand or fall on their own merits or lack thereof and price their risk accordingly. The current state of affairs is 180 degrees opposite. This continual left-right paradigm is tired and only keeps empowering bureaucrats. We keep fighting each other over crumbs while we give the power to political criminals to steal all of the our wealth. The argument about who should pay taxes is irrelevant. No one should unless they are apportioned per the Constitution. Property taxes pay for schools. Gasoline tax pays for roads. But the Federal Income Tax currently only pays for the interest on the national debt. I say let the People keep the fruits of their labor and let the longstanding spirit of generosity of Americans be the alternative to this welfare/warfare state. Taxing businesses and strangling them with crushing regulations drives them offshore in search of cheaper operating costs. This results in fewer jobs, lower output, and higher prices. I say let people save, invest, innovate, produce, consume, vote by deciding where to spend their hard earned dollar or which charitable cause to give it to. And for God's sake let's stop voting for candidates that are selected by the elites and funded by their blood money."

    And this was my rather feeble response to the person's response:

    "I am certainly not at the mercy of corporate campaign contributions. I simply look into the candidates platforms and records and vote accordingly. It is true that the lazy will vote for the two headed dog and pony show but you cannot regulate people's voting criteria any more than bureaucrats can regulate corporations with any effectiveness. The social problems related to corporations are because of government intervention rather than because of insufficient intervention. Government steals our tax money and hands it out to their favorite cronies and therefore picks and chooses the winners and losers, rather than leaving this up to the consumer to vote with their hard earned dollars. Monopolies are not inherently bad by any means, and are often so precisely because they are exceptionally skilled at deploying labor and capital in a highly efficient manner, offering a fine product or service at an appealing price. The moment we have bureaucrats regulating them for political reasons we have done great damage to the overall social welfare. Cut the cord between business and politicians and we all gain in leaps and bounds."
    Last edited by anaconda; 05-04-2011 at 12:35 AM.

  4. #3

    Default

    You can win right here
    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    ...Today Somalia is a libertarian state. It creates an environment ripe for thugs to rise to power...
    These are quotes from two different answers:
    Is Somalia a libertarian's paradise?
    • "A Republic of law versus a lawless region of tribal infighting. Nope your connection is not working for me."
    • "The real reason why there is no state control in Somalia is because there is no underlying wealth there that the socialists can steal."
    Last edited by Indy Vidual; 05-04-2011 at 12:43 AM.
    $$$$$$$$$$


    Negativity is ignorance, and ignorance is your own personal tyranny. It tells you how to act, how to talk, how to think, and what to feel. You will never see a world without tyrants until you release your own. ~Honored to be Among You

    How does Ron stay so calm?

  5. #4

    Default

    I usually just bring arguments like these back to the non-aggression principle. What exactly is this person proposing?

    Maybe I'm just biased but your responses seemed more than adequate. You convinced me

    His comparison of Somalia is crap. Somalia needs to be compared to the other countries immediately surrounding it, which are just as bad if not worse off.

    Also, corporations are just groups of people. I think you basically said this in different words talking about favoring their cronies, but the government is the mafia. As Milton Friedman would say, "Who are these angels that would govern us?"

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Indy Vidual View Post
    You can win right here


    These are quotes from two different answers:
    Is Somalia a libertarian's paradise?
    • "A Republic of law versus a lawless region of tribal infighting. Nope your connection is not working for me."
    • "The real reason why there is no state control in Somalia is because there is no underlying wealth there that the socialists can steal."
    Thanks! May I have your permission to use this? But the "thug" issue is one that I have not sorted out yet in my understanding of a libertarian society. It seems that the rich and successful will always be tempted to bribe police, bribe government officials, spend money to advertize for their puppet candidates, bribe the court system, and hire thugs to intimidate smaller producers or smaller start ups. How say ye?

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IDefendThePlatform View Post
    I usually just bring arguments like these back to the non-aggression principle. What exactly is this person proposing?

    Maybe I'm just biased but your responses seemed more than adequate. You convinced me

    His comparison of Somalia is crap. Somalia needs to be compared to the other countries immediately surrounding it, which are just as bad if not worse off.

    Also, corporations are just groups of people. I think you basically said this in different words talking about favoring their cronies, but the government is the mafia. As Milton Friedman would say, "Who are these angels that would govern us?"
    Thank you for your words and advice.

    The "thug" issue that this person raised is one that I have not sorted out yet in my understanding of a libertarian society. It seems that the rich and successful will always be tempted to bribe police, bribe government officials, spend money to advertize for their puppet candidates, bribe the court system, and hire thugs to intimidate smaller producers or smaller start ups. I am not sure how this works. My current understanding is that it is, indeed, one of the downsides of libertarianism that makes it, like other social systems, less than 100% perfect. And, if this is so, makes it incumbent on us to explain why this is better than the alternatives to those we hope to encourage to vote for Dr. Paul.

    My naive first approach to this would be to suggest that it is far less risky to society to have a few bands of thugs here and there rather than a tyrannical central government. Yet, I see no intuitively obvious protection against a mafia-like consolidation of successful business tycoons to create essentially a freedomless reign of terror.

    Thoughts?
    Last edited by anaconda; 05-04-2011 at 01:08 AM.

  8. #7

    Default

    Mises article on economic success in Somalia:

    http://mises.org/daily/2066

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    Thank you for your words and advice.

    The "thug" issue that this person raised is one that I have not sorted out yet in my understanding of a libertarian society. It seems that the rich and successful will always be tempted to bribe police, bribe government officials, spend money to advertize for their puppet candidates, bribe the court system, and hire thugs to intimidate smaller producers or smaller start ups. I am not sure how this works. My current understanding is that it is, indeed, one of the downsides of libertarianism that makes it, like other social systems, less than 100% perfect. And, if this is so, makes it incumbent on us to explain why this is better than the alternatives to those we hope to encourage to vote for Dr. Paul.

    My naive first approach to this would be to suggest that it is far less risky to society to have a few bands of thugs here and there rather than a tyrannical central government. Yet, I see no intuitively obvious protection against a mafia-like consolidation of successful business tycoons to create essentially a freedomless reign of terror.

    Thoughts?
    I thought this little debate we had about a month ago covered it fairly well:
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ertarian+ancap

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    Thanks! May I have your permission to use this?..
    You're welcome
    Sure, use it, I just founds some good quotes and linked to the source.


    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    Thanks! May I have your permission to use this? But the "thug" issue is one that I have not sorted out yet in my understanding of a libertarian society. It seems that the rich and successful will always be tempted to bribe police, bribe government officials, spend money to advertize for their puppet candidates, bribe the court system, and hire thugs to intimidate smaller producers or smaller start ups. How say ye?
    bribe government officials...
    • Exactly why we need a limited Federal Government with very little power and state/local/individual rights.
    • A strong central Gov. provides a single point of control which can easily be abused.
    $$$$$$$$$$


    Negativity is ignorance, and ignorance is your own personal tyranny. It tells you how to act, how to talk, how to think, and what to feel. You will never see a world without tyrants until you release your own. ~Honored to be Among You

    How does Ron stay so calm?

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Indy Vidual View Post
    You can win right here


    These are quotes from two different answers:
    Is Somalia a libertarian's paradise?
    • "A Republic of law versus a lawless region of tribal infighting. Nope your connection is not working for me."
    • "The real reason why there is no state control in Somalia is because there is no underlying wealth there that the socialists can steal."
    The rest of the comments at the link you provided are also highly entertaining and thoughtful.

  12. #11

    Default

    Thank you thank you IDefendThePlatform and Indy Vidual. I needed a little nudge in the right direction and now I am fired up thanks to you both!
    Last edited by anaconda; 05-04-2011 at 01:31 AM.

  13. #12

    Default

    simple logic breaks his opening thesis (haven't heard the rest yet - will respond further).

    "Well, yes much of this is so BUT government was actually created to protect us from these things"

    Nonsense. Granted the second govt created may have been formed for protection but only as a response to the aggression from the first. The first was created by someone to extort his or her neighbors.

    Ex. Hrmm I have this bone, and if I use it as a weapon I can coerce my neighbor who killed that deer to give me some meat or I'll bash his head in. This is what reason tells me was the first government.

    I am reminded of this thought "Before wealth can be looted or mooched it must first be created."

    Same goes for governments. They are not sustainable unless wealth had been created previously. You cannot have in existence a government that 'protects' no wealth. It simple doesn't pass common sense.

  14. #13

    Default

    What about this guy's claim that countries with weak governments fail? this would be an interesting claim were it true. we all know that plenty of governments with iron fisted central governments utterly fail, but this does not necessarily refute this person's claim in and of itself..
    Last edited by anaconda; 05-04-2011 at 01:34 AM.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smokemonsc View Post
    simple logic breaks his opening thesis (haven't heard the rest yet - will respond further).

    "Well, yes much of this is so BUT government was actually created to protect us from these things"

    Nonsense. Granted the second govt created may have been formed for protection but only as a response to the aggression from the first. The first was created by someone to extort his or her neighbors.

    Ex. Hrmm I have this bone, and if I use it as a weapon I can coerce my neighbor who killed that deer to give me some meat or I'll bash his head in. This is what reason tells me was the first government.

    I am reminded of this thought "Before wealth can be looted or mooched it must first be created."

    Same goes for governments. They are not sustainable unless wealth had been created previously. You cannot have in existence a government that 'protects' no wealth. It simple doesn't pass common sense.
    Thanks for jumping in here, smokemonsc. What about the American Constitutional Republic of 1787? While there was a good deal of business activity in the New World, was the Constitution constructed to "protect wealth?" If that were the objective, wouldn't we have seen far more freedom as we ventured into nations with greater wealth at that time? Perhaps England, France, Germany, Russia, Spain? It seems like the American Constitution was almost more of a "preliminary" framework from which to foster economic growth and personal liberty.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    What about this guy's claim that countries with weak governments fail? this would be an interesting claim were it true. we all know that plenty of governments with iron fisted central governments utterly fail, but this does not necessarily refute this person's claim in and of itself..
    I would say bull$#@!

    The best armed populaces are the ones that stay the freest, for the longest. For what it's worth Afghanistan's people have tons of weapons and they have a very weak central state. I'm sure you can come up with better examples though. The Swiss - until recently, have had a pretty small govt and they are very well armed. The US was extremely well armed in 1776 and 1812 and they were able to fight off the British. Tons of examples of well armed people and weak govt's beating the big guys.

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smokemonsc View Post
    I would say bull$#@!

    The best armed populaces are the ones that stay the freest, for the longest. For what it's worth Afghanistan's people have tons of weapons and they have a very weak central state. I'm sure you can come up with better examples though. The Swiss - until recently, have had a pretty small govt and they are very well armed. The US was extremely well armed in 1776 and 1812 and they were able to fight off the British. Tons of examples of well armed people and weak govt's beating the big guys.
    Sweet. Good examples.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    Thanks for jumping in here, smokemonsc. What about the American Constitutional Republic of 1787? While there was a good deal of business activity in the New World, was the Constitution constructed to "protect wealth?" If that were the objective, wouldn't we have seen far more freedom as we ventured into nations with greater wealth at that time? Perhaps England, France, Germany, Russia, Spain? It seems like the American Constitution was almost more of a "preliminary" framework from which to foster economic growth and personal liberty.
    I always focus my arguments back to the beginnings of government. Everything after that is really a strawman. For example "Why would the states need to form a govt?" The obvious unsaid answer is "To protect themselves from the aggression of other governments But to address the question-

    The Constitution's and thus the US govt's purpose can be gleaned from the Preamble:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    What that means is up to each of us, as the constitutionality of any law ultimately up to the judgement of the people (definitely not a select group of the unelected).

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    Thanks! May I have your permission to use this? But the "thug" issue is one that I have not sorted out yet in my understanding of a libertarian society. It seems that the rich and successful will always be tempted to bribe police, bribe government officials, spend money to advertize for their puppet candidates, bribe the court system, and hire thugs to intimidate smaller producers or smaller start ups. How say ye?
    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    The "thug" issue that this person raised is one that I have not sorted out yet in my understanding of a libertarian society. It seems that the rich and successful will always be tempted to bribe police, bribe government officials, spend money to advertize for their puppet candidates, bribe the court system, and hire thugs to intimidate smaller producers or smaller start ups. I am not sure how this works. My current understanding is that it is, indeed, one of the downsides of libertarianism that makes it, like other social systems, less than 100% perfect. And, if this is so, makes it incumbent on us to explain why this is better than the alternatives to those we hope to encourage to vote for Dr. Paul.
    You might find these videos interesting:



    According to the logic of pointing to Somalia and saying "see what happens under anarchy!", we could point to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union under Stalin and use them as examples of why we should oppose government. Both are worse case scenarios of the respective systems (anarchy and statism).

    1:10:00 to 1:31:29 on Somalia:


    This whole video is very good btw.

    Another (and shorter) video on Somalia:



    What if we compare Anarchic Ireland (which was civilized) to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union? Stateless Ireland lasted peacefully for over 1,000 years, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had unsustainable economic systems and murdered millions of people. So wouldn't this prove that Anarchy is better than statism?...

    Comparing the most successful governments (U.S.A) to the least successful stateless societies (Somalia) doesn't really tell us anything more than comparing anarchic Ireland to government in Nazi Germany...



    Medieval Iceland (stateless) lasted for like 300 years, it was also better than Nazi Germany, therefore anarchy>government. (according to the logic used by people who use Somalia as an argument against a stateless society)
    http://mises.org/daily/1121

    You might also find this thread interesting: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...cho-capitalism...

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Indy Vidual View Post
    You can win right here


    These are quotes from two different answers:
    Is Somalia a libertarian's paradise?
    • "A Republic of law versus a lawless region of tribal infighting. Nope your connection is not working for me."
    • "The real reason why there is no state control in Somalia is because there is no underlying wealth there that the socialists can steal."
    Also, its worth noting that Somalia got the cheapest phone call rates of all Africa in a very few years. And their cattle and agricultural industries boomed. According to the view of that guy without government regulation this can not happen because one industry will take control and destroy any competition. But it happens because what he/she thinks its wrong. Regulations are there to stop competition.

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wesker1982 View Post
    Thank you so much! I watched this one and now I have to sleep. Will watch the rest tomorrow. I had not thought about private courts before. Ron Paul never openly talks about the monopolies in the three branches of government. This is an eye opener for me. The only thing I am uncertain about is what the narrator implies would be a likely response of honest and good police forces consolidating to put down the corrupt police force. Why would they want to put themselves into a dangerous war? Mightn't they be just as likely to say: "Sorry, we're not coming over to your village and risk getting killed to help you mop up your out-of-control police force....."

  22. #21

    Default

    i think you would have a hard time against the 1st 2/3th's of the post , corp's are people now ( says the scoth ), corp's with their money does control washington , sure they don't vote but they control most of which we vote into office.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    The only thing I am uncertain about is what the narrator implies would be a likely response of honest and good police forces consolidating to put down the corrupt police force. Why would they want to put themselves into a dangerous war? Mightn't they be just as likely to say: "Sorry, we're not coming over to your village and risk getting killed to help you mop up your out-of-control police force....."
    You are assuming a monopoly on police in any given area. Other defense agencies would have an interest in protecting their customers. If one agency had a total monopoly on defense in a given area (unlikely), it would only achieve this by successfully serving the desires of the consumers. It is very unlikely that a defense agency would simultaneously consist of the characteristics required to be this successful while at the same time being sociopathic.

    Check out the thread I posted, there is a lot of info there. Let me know if you need more clarification after watching the videos and reading that thread .

  24. #23

  25. #24

    Default

    what does a monopoly of force have to do with corporations? Help me understand.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ILUVRP View Post
    i think you would have a hard time against the 1st 2/3th's of the post , corp's are people now ( says the scoth ), corp's with their money does control washington , sure they don't vote but they control most of which we vote into office.
    Does the money "control" Washington D.C. or does it simply fill the vacuum of a Republic full of lazy people that will not take a few hours per year to educate themselves and vote accordingly?

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by emazur View Post
    This is pure gold.

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    Thank you for your words and advice.

    The "thug" issue that this person raised is one that I have not sorted out yet in my understanding of a libertarian society. It seems that the rich and successful will always be tempted to bribe police, bribe government officials, spend money to advertize for their puppet candidates, bribe the court system, and hire thugs to intimidate smaller producers or smaller start ups. I am not sure how this works. My current understanding is that it is, indeed, one of the downsides of libertarianism that makes it, like other social systems, less than 100% perfect. And, if this is so, makes it incumbent on us to explain why this is better than the alternatives to those we hope to encourage to vote for Dr. Paul.

    My naive first approach to this would be to suggest that it is far less risky to society to have a few bands of thugs here and there rather than a tyrannical central government. Yet, I see no intuitively obvious protection against a mafia-like consolidation of successful business tycoons to create essentially a freedomless reign of terror.

    Thoughts?
    If Corporation A produces widgets and Corporation B produces widgets, but Corporation A decides to go out and bribe police, store owners and judges, then Corporation A will have a much higher cost of production than Corporation B and will have to raise their prices. Corporation B will have a lower priced option in the mean time, or for the next town over, or the next state over, etc.

    If A's tactics work then we may end up with a less than optimal outcome. There are many scenarios, however, where the Judge won't accept the bribe, or they will accept the bribe and get caught, or accept another bribe from someone else and get caught, etc..

    Then there is the regional issue which I touched on earlier. Let's say we are talking about HUGE corporations here. Are they going to go to all 50 states and maybe into every town in the country and bribe police, judges, etc??? Because the judges and police they are bribing have a very small jurisdiction, so that is going to start getting really expensive. Not to mention, what happens when one of the judges or police gets caught? Won't this shed light on A's entire operation?

    Now if we give the power to the federal government to regulate the markets, then Corporation A can simply hire a lobbyist for much less money, go to D.C., and impose the same outcome on the ENTIRE population of the United States.

    The answer is clear.
    Last edited by dannno; 05-04-2011 at 03:37 PM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anaconda View Post
    Does the money "control" Washington D.C. or does it simply fill the vacuum of a Republic full of lazy people that will not take a few hours per year to educate themselves and vote accordingly?
    i think big money controls washington , everyone thinks their congressman is great and its the others that are no good, i do agree that a lot of voters are stupid to vote for their rep's over and over , if people would learn and listen to ron paul , he would be POTUS now.

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    If Corporation A produces widgets and Corporation B produces widgets, but Corporation A decides to go out and bribe police, store owners and judges, then Corporation A will have a much higher cost of production than Corporation B and will have to raise their prices. Corporation B will have a lower priced option in the mean time, or for the next town over, or the next state over, etc.

    If A's tactics work then we may end up with a less than optimal outcome. There are many scenarios, however, where the Judge won't accept the bribe, or they will accept the bribe and get caught, or accept another bribe from someone else and get caught, etc..

    Then there is the regional issue which I touched on earlier. Let's say we are talking about HUGE corporations here. Are they going to go to all 50 states and maybe into every town in the country and bribe police, judges, etc??? Because the judges and police they are bribing have a very small jurisdiction, so that is going to start getting really expensive. Not to mention, what happens when one of the judges or police gets caught? Won't this shed light on A's entire operation?

    Now if we give the power to the federal government to regulate the markets, then Corporation A can simply hire a lobbyist for much less money, go to D.C., and impose the same outcome on the ENTIRE population of the United States.

    The answer is clear.
    Than you. Well spoken and robust.

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mkatz6693 View Post
    what does a monopoly of force have to do with corporations? Help me understand.
    Check the thread I linked to at the bottom of the first page. That gets discussed fairly extensively IIRC.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Let's Debunk This
    By Fox McCloud in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-16-2008, 06:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •