Libertarians need candidates - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Classical liberalism. The individual before the state, non-interventionist, free-market based society.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14987883
B0ycey wrote:You agree to it by being part of society.


When did I ever agree to being taxed in exchange for voting (which is a lie anyway); and when was I ever given the choice to join society? The answer is: NEVER.

B0ycey wrote:Again you could become an outlaw. They are your choices.


Obviously.

B0ycey wrote:This is true. But the government only get taxes from people who want to work and as such are prepared to be taxed by doing so. You on the otherhand can choose not to work and not get taxed. As such by working you agree to be taxed. So again not against NAP.


I never agreed to be taxed, I was never asked and I wasn't given the choice. Working is not a form of assent except to my employer. Don't be ridiculous.

B0ycey wrote:So again not against NAP.


Yes it is, if I never made a voluntary agreement to be taxed, then forcing me to pay taxes under threat of force is a violation of the NAP.

Your claim is some idea of involuntary consent; which is a fiction.

If I fuck you while you are sleeping, you are not consenting just because you didn't object to the arrangement or didn't realized you were being fucked; your argument implies that consent would have existed in such a case. :eh:

Same thing with taxation in a social contract. Its not voluntary and involuntary consent is just as absurd as the example I gave.
#14987891
Victoribus Spolia wrote:When did I ever agree to being taxed in exchange for voting (which is a lie anyway); and when was I ever given the choice to join society? The answer is: NEVER.


You have to pay taxes in America to vote? Even the unemployed can vote in the UK. So if there is an association with taxes and voting in America it doesn't mean there has to be. A Libertarian party could even campaign against this. So again I see no NAP violation in Liberal politics.

As for society, your choice is to exclude yourself from it. Not to agree to join up for it.

I never agreed to be taxed, I was never asked and I wasn't given the choice. Working is not a form of assent except to my employer. Don't be ridiculous.


We are going around in circles aren't we? Again you know you will be taxed when you agree to work and yet you still work. Is that forced on you? If you don't like that consider being a gypsy. This is a choice.

Yes it is, if I never made a voluntary agreement to be taxed, then forcing me to pay taxes under threat of force is a violation of the NAP.

Your claim is some idea of involuntary consent; which is a fiction.

If I fuck you while you are sleeping, you are not consenting just because you didn't object to the arrangement or didn't realized you were being fucked; your argument implies that consent would have existed in such a case. :eh:

Same thing with taxation in a social contract. Its not voluntary and involuntary consent is just as absurd as the example I gave.


I am repeating myself aren't I? Laws are part of the social contract. They give you protections that you agree to by being part of society. Taxes are part of society also. So if you don't like them move. Apply to migrate. Buy a tent and head to the hills. Become homeless. Do something but do not pay any taxes you refuse to pay if you are dead set against them. As long as you are treated equal I see no violation of the NAP with anything you write. They are just complaints but no action to do anything about them on your part.

Nonetheless rather than argue over a minor issue, I will state that I think you are still wrong but will say I can at least see your point of view and where you are going with this when before I thought you just confused oxymoron with faux.
#14987910
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Isn't this obvious?

Its because libertarianism is NOT good for business. Libertarians oppose state-funded and supported monopolies; which most corporations basically are.

Libertarians also oppose things like patents and copyrights laws; which are likewise the basis for most corporate power.


Are you saying that almost all companies benefit from state funding, state support, patents, copyright laws and other state interventions in the free market?
#14988009
Anarchism certainly makes more sense, with fewer assumptions, than Libertarianism does. But not every ideology of the State believes in the forms of Democracy that do not possess the substance of Democracy (that is, true earthly Liberty) anyway.

And Reformism as we should all know by now does not work, entryism into government and political organizations to affect slow and meaningful change, peaceful and gradual, according to one's ideology. Any Ideology. Because as has been pointed out, human nature is what it is.
#14988077
Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you saying that almost all companies benefit from state funding, state support, patents, copyright laws and other state interventions in the free market?


I would definitely say the largest and most powerful companies and corporations definitely do. Which is part of my critique of statism, for statism is what enables corporations to get as big as they do and its statism that often prevent these organizations from failing when that is what nature would have dictated.

Small businesses and farms by contrast are almost always hindered by state regulations and requirements which larger corporations have no problem with as they can afford them, and often helped write them in the first place. I am running into this myself as I am trying to start a meat business, my #1 problem by far is the government, bar none. Everything else is relatively easy in comparison.

Ultimately a stateless free-market society will be far more decentralized and both individual land-holding and business size would be far more restricted by natural conditions. There are no mega monopoly corporations in ancapistan; they can't exist because the mechanisms simply aren't there for them as they exist under super-states like we have today.

B0ycey wrote:You have to pay taxes in America to vote? Even the unemployed can vote in the UK. So if there is an association with taxes and voting in America it doesn't mean there has to be. A Libertarian party could even campaign against this. So again I see no NAP violation in Liberal politics.


You missed the point; the assumption of the social contract is that you have the privilege to vote in a representative government and receive its protection, but in exchange you must sacrifice total autonomy and be subject to taxation; its a general principle.

If "Liberalism" was consistent with the NAP; then I would have had to have voluntarily and willfully agreed to be taxed (which is not the case); and if not, I should be able to refuse paying taxes without any legal ramifications (which is not the case). If I am forced to pay taxes, that is by definition a violation of the NAP (unless I willfully and consciously agreed to this arrangement in explicit and contractual terms).

B0ycey wrote:Again you know you will be taxed when you agree to work and yet you still work.


No I don't, I am informed that Uncle Sam is going to forcibly take my money. Like I said; that is not voluntary association; that is theft.

If a thief gives you notice that he is going to steal from you, that doesn't make it any less of an act of thievery.

B0ycey wrote: Is that forced on you?


Yes, If I sell you something grown on my own land, the State demands a cut under penalty of violence.

I cannot opt out of that except by being illegal in my activities; if you wish to buy or sell, you are held at gunpoint by the state. That is a violation of the NAP.

B0ycey wrote:Laws are part of the social contract.


You can have laws without a social contract, this has been the case for most of human history.

B0ycey wrote:They give you protections that you agree to by being part of society.


I don't want them, nor did I agree to be part of this society; I never signed a document, I never explicitly assented to this arrangement.

B0ycey wrote:Nonetheless rather than argue over a minor issue, I will state that I think you are still wrong but will say I can at least see your point of view and where you are going with this when before I thought you just confused oxymoron with faux.


Believe me, I am doing everything I can; following the practice of Agorism.

In any event, thanks for the convo.

annatar1914 wrote:And Reformism as we should all know by now does not work, entryism into government and political organizations to affect slow and meaningful change, peaceful and gradual, according to one's ideology. Any Ideology. Because as has been pointed out, human nature is what it is.


Agreed.

annatar1914 wrote: But not every ideology of the State believes in the forms of Democracy that do not possess the substance of Democracy (that is, true earthly Liberty) anyway.


This is true; and though any state is a violation of the NAP; not all states are predicated on the false concept of public ownership (as social contracts are); namely minarchist monarchies which assume as sacrosanct the concept of private property as such legitimizes their own authority.
Last edited by Victoribus Spolia on 14 Feb 2019 15:20, edited 1 time in total.
#14988084
Victoribus Spolia wrote:I would definitely say the largest and most powerful companies and corporations definitely do. Which is part of my critique of statism.


Sure, bug businesses profit from capitalism. We all know this.

What I was asking was: do almost all companies (regardless of size) benefit from state funding, state support, patents, copyright laws and other state interventions in the free market?

Ultimately a stateless free-market society will be far more decentralized and both individual land-holding and business size would be far more restricted by natural conditions. There are no mega monopoly corporations in ancapistan; they can't exist because the mechanisms simply aren't there for them as they exist under super-states like we have today.


We have no idea if monopolies can exist in fanciful ancap land, since it has never existed and is solely a thought experiment.

You missed the point; the assumption of the social contract is that you have the privilege to vote in a representative government and receive its protection, but in exchange you must sacrifice total autonomy and be subject to taxation; its a general principle.

If "Liberalism" was consistent with the NAP; then I would have had to have voluntarily and willfully agreed to be taxed (which is not the case); and if not, I should be able to refuse paying taxes without any legal ramifications (which is not the case). If I am forced to pay taxes, that is by definition a violation of the NAP (unless I willfully and consciously agreed to this arrangement in explicit and contractual terms).

No I don't, I am informed that Uncle Sam is going to forcibly take my money. Like I said; that is not voluntary association; that is theft.

If a thief gives you notice that he is going to steal from you, that doesn't make it any less of an act of thievery.

Yes, If I sell you something grown on my own land, the State demands a cut under penalty of violence.

I cannot opt out of that except by being illegal in my activities; if you wish to buy or sell, you are held at gunpoint by the state. That is a violation of the NAP.

You can have laws without a social contract, this has been the case for most of human history.

I don't want them, nor did I agree to be part of this society; I never signed a document, I never explicitly assented to this arrangement.

Believe me, I am doing everything I can; following the practice of Agorism.

In any event, thanks for the convo.


Agreed.

This is true; and though any state is a violation of the NAP; not all states are predicated on the false concept of public ownership (as social contracts are); namely minarchist monarchies which assume as sacrosanct the concept of private property as such legitimizes their own authority.


You ahould look up Locke’s idea of tacit consent.
#14988086
Pants-of-dog wrote:You ahould look up Locke’s idea of tacit consent.



Isn't that begging the question? I am critiquing the social contract's presumption of tacit consent, so appealing to the chief developer of the concept's definition of tacit consent is a circular argument.

Pants-of-dog wrote:We have no idea if monopolies can exist in fanciful ancap land, since it has never existed and is solely a thought experiment.


Praxeology can tell us as its based axioms derived a priori.

I don't need to have universal knowledge of every historic example to know that A cannot be Non-A.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure, bug businesses profit from capitalism. We all know this.


The definition of capitalism does not require a state. You have failed to address this in a different thread.

Pants-of-dog wrote:do almost all companies (regardless of size) benefit from state funding, state support, patents, copyright laws and other state interventions in the free market?


Currently or necessarily? Directly or indirectly?
#14988089
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Isn't that begging the question? I am critiquing the social contract's presumption of tacit consent, so appealing to the chief developer of the concept's definition of tacit consent is a circular argument.


You are already using and benefiting from government services.

Praxeology can tell us as its based axioms derived a priori.

I don't need to have universal knowledge of every historic example to know that A cannot be Non-A.


As far as I can tell, there is no reason for monopolies not to happen in Magical Anarchiland.

The definition of capitalism does not require a state. You have failed to address this in a different thread.


The defineion might not include the state, but the actual system that we see every day in reality requires the state.

Currently or necessarily? Directly or indirectly?


I don’t know.

You are the one saying that this is the reason why businesses do not support libertarians.
#14988092
Pants-of-dog wrote:You are already using and benefiting from government services.


Not voluntarily.

Thats like saying I am benefiting from slavery because my task masker gives me water and some gruel now and then.

Pants-of-dog wrote:As far as I can tell, there is no reason for monopolies not to happen in Magical Anarchiland.


Please give an example of a monopoly existing without a state. Thanks.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The defineion might not include the state,
.

Correct.

but the actual system that we see every day in reality requires the state.


So the actual system is not pure capitalism, but a mixed one including something not freely exchanged and privately owned (the state) and whatever its attempting to corrupt (the rest of the market; "capitalism").

Pants-of-dog wrote:I don’t know.

You are the one saying that this is the reason why businesses do not support libertarians.


Yeah, but you didn't say all businesses regardless of size are bankrolling political parties, you specifically referred to corporate backing.

I addressed this specifically, and you followed up with a question pertaining to ALL businesses.

Regarding that much broader and more ambiguous question, I asked for some clarifications. Without them I have no way to answer your question because I have no idea what you are talking about.
#14988096
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Not voluntarily.

Thats like saying I am benefiting from slavery because my task masker gives me water and some gruel now and then.


Are you being forced to own land and drive down roads?

Please give an example of a monopoly existing without a state. Thanks.


No. Instead, you can provide some sort of supprt for your claim that monopolies cannot exist without the state.

Correct.

So the actual system is not pure capitalism, but a mixed one including something not freely exchanged and privately owned (the state) and whatever its attempting to corrupt (the rest of the market; "capitalism").


And capitalist enterprises profit when the state is involved, and capitalism (as it currently works) requires the state.

The only capitalism that does not require the state is your imaginary one.

Yeah, but you didn't say all businesses regardless of size are bankrolling political parties, you specifically referred to corporate backing.

I addressed this specifically, and you followed up with a question pertaining to ALL businesses.

Regarding that much broader and more ambiguous question, I asked for some clarifications. Without them I have no way to answer your question because I have no idea what you are talking about.


Small businesses can also support politicians and policies. Obviously, snall businesses are not supporting libertarians either.

Why is that?
#14988101
Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you being forced to own land


What does the government have to do with my land?

Pants-of-dog wrote:drive down roads?


I have the choice to use a private road? NOPE.

Once again, the fact that the task-master gives you water doesn't make you any less a slave.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Instead, you can provide some sort of supprt for your claim that monopolies cannot exist without the state.


So no evidence then?

Got it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And capitalist enterprises profit when the state is involved,


Often times yes, and disproportionately favoring the rich, the corrupt, and the incompetent.

Pants-of-dog wrote:and capitalism (as it currently works) requires the state.


Please provide evidence for this claim; I agree that the capitalism market has the state involved in it, and that crony corporations couldn't exist without a state, but I see no argument for why capitalism requires a state.

this requires proof.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The only capitalism that does not require the state is your imaginary one.


The definition of capitalism does not require a state. Definitions and logic are not imaginary.

Is there an argument here?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Small businesses can also support politicians and policies. Obviously, snall businesses are not supporting libertarians either.


So you are withdrawing your stupid question then? Good.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Small businesses can also support politicians and policies. Obviously, snall businesses are not supporting libertarians either.


Please provide evidence for this claim, Thanks.
#14988105
Victoribus Spolia wrote:What does the government have to do with my land?


It creates and maintains the system of land ownership that you use to claim your right to your land.

Also, without a state supported henocide and/or ethnic cleansing, the land would still belong to its actual indigenous owners.

I have the choice to use a private road? NOPE.

Once again, the fact that the task-master gives you water doesn't make you any less a slave.


You could choose not to use the roads. But instead you choose to use them. You almost certainly drive more often than i do.

So no evidence then?

Got it.


Exactly. You have no evidence or any ither supoort for your claim that monopolies require the state. Thus, I will assume it is unsupported and dismiss it,

Please provide evidence for this claim; I agree that the capitalism market has the state involved in it, and that crony corporations couldn't exist without a state, but I see no argument for why capitalism requires a state.

this requires proof.

The definition of capitalism does not require a state. Definitions and logic are not imaginary.

Is there an argument here?


Every single instance of capitalism that ever existed did so with state support.

So you are withdrawing your stupid question then? Good.

Please provide evidence for this claim, Thanks.


Well, they are definitely not supporting libertarians enough to make any sort of viable or realistic challenge to any congressperson or senator.
#14988112
Pants-of-dog wrote:It creates and maintains the system of land ownership that you use to claim your right to your land.


Please provide evidence for the claim that my land ownership would necessarily cease without a state.

Likewise, provide evidence for the other claim that land-ownership is CREATED by the state.

Define ownership.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You could choose not to use the roads. But instead you choose to use them. You almost certainly drive more often than i do.


And slaves chose to drink the water they were served by their masters, does this make them no longer slaves?


Pants-of-dog wrote:Exactly. You have no evidence or any ither supoort for your claim that monopolies require the state. Thus, I will assume it is unsupported and dismiss it,


Not an argument.

NOTE: you have failed to provide evidence for your claims.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Every single instance of capitalism that ever existed did so with state support.


1. That is not evidence that capitalism requires a state, for even if it were true it would only show correlation, not causation. Hence, it would not be proof that capitalism requires a state.

2. Please provide evidence for the claim that EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of capitalism existed with a state, given the definition of capitalism.


A universal claim requires either universal knowledge (omniscience) or a demonstration from a logical axiom that is universally true a priori.


If you have neither, then your argument is invalid as stated.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Well, they are definitely not supporting libertarians enough to make any sort of viable or realistic challenge to any congressperson or senator.


So no evidence then? Thought so.
#14988115
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Please provide evidence for the claim that my land ownership would necessarily cease without a state.

Likewise, provide evidence for the other claim that land-ownership is CREATED by the state.

Define ownership.


Your specific land ownership was created by the state during the colonial era of the US. This is historical fact. Previous to European settlement, the land was owned by indigenous people. Land ownership forcibly changed hands when the USA, as a state, was forced on indigenous people and previous agreements about land ownership were discarded, and the land was given to settlers.

And you benefit from this, because your ownership of the land is legally recognized by the same state that created (by ethnically cleansing the previous owners) the current system of land ownership, and maintains it with things like laws and contracts and cops.

And slaves chose to drink the water they were served by their masters, does this make them no longer slaves?


Dramatic metaphors aside, you do choose to use roads that are paid for and maintained by the state.

Not an argument.

NOTE: you have failed to provide evidence for your claims.


Again, you made the claim that monopolies cannot happen without the state. You have not supported this with evidence or logic and anything else.

1. That is not evidence that capitalism requires a state, for even if it were true it would only show correlation, not causation. Hence, it would not be proof that capitalism requires a state.

2. Please provide evidence for the claim that EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE of capitalism existed with a state, given the definition of capitalism.


A universal claim requires either universal knowledge (omniscience) or a demonstration from a logical axiom that is universally true a priori.


If you have neither, then your argument is invalid as stated.


Yeah, I could not think of any examples of capitalism without a state either.

Nor could I think of a logical argument for a capitalist system independent of a state either.

Now, you seem to be arguing that capitalism can exist without a state because we have no proof otherwise. This seems like an argument from ignorance.

So no evidence then? Thought so.


And if businesses are not supporting libertarians in any significant manner, this does provide some support for the idea that libertarianism is not actually good for business.

Let us take the idea of regulations. Libertarians think these are as evil as single moms and Hitler. I would argue that regulations are actually good for business, and libertarians are shooting themselves in the proverbial foot on this one.
#14988118
Pants-of-dog wrote:Your specific land ownership was created by the state during the colonial era of the US. This is historical fact. Previous to European settlement, the land was owned by indigenous people. Land ownership forcibly changed hands when the USA, as a state, was forced on indigenous people and previous agreements about land ownership were discarded, and the land was given to settlers.


Do you have evidence that my specific plot was owned by a native? or that ALL specific lots in the United States were specifically owned by specific natives?

Likewise, what of lots that were previously owned by Indians but were purchased by settlers?

Do you have evidence showing that this NEVER happened?

Likewise, in my part of the country; Indian tribes allied themselves with white colonial powers against other Indian tribes who likewise allied themselves with other colonial powers. What happens when one side wins? Does that mean that the Indians on the winning side were colonist expropriators? Or if they secured their original lands because of their alliance, does this now make their land claims illegitimate?


:lol:

Let me know when you have some actual argument and not a bunch of unsupported and ambiguous nonsense.

Pants-of-dog wrote:the land was owned by indigenous people.


How could they own land without a state? If these were non-capitalist societies; or pre-capitalist societies (According to Marxism); then they had no states to enforce private property, and if ownership requires a state, then according to your argument these indigenous people didn't really own anything.

If they didn't own their land, then nothing could have been stolen according to your own argument. :lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:Dramatic metaphors aside, you do choose to use roads that are paid for and maintained by the state.


Its not a metaphor, its an analogical question. Answer my question.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yeah, I could not think of any examples of capitalism without a state either.


Not an argument; you have failed to support your claim.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Nor could I think of a logical argument for a capitalist system independent of a state either.


I have one and I challenged you to debate it six previous times and have mentioned your by name in that thread. I am now challenging you to debate my argument in that thread for THE SEVENTH TIME: Do you accept or yield?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Now, you seem to be arguing that capitalism can exist without a state because we have no proof otherwise. This seems like an argument from ignorance.


The definition does not require a state; and the argument you are making is a causal argument. Causation can only be demonstrated from an absolute knowledge sufficient to established the relationship as necessary.
However, this requires that you either have a universal knowledge of all particulars (omniscience) or a logical argument (a priori) demonstrating that this is the case.

If you have no argument; then you have no proof in this regards that capitalism requires a state.
#14988122
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Do you have evidence that my specific plot was owned by a native? or that ALL specific lots in the United States were specifically owned by specific natives?

Likewise, what of lots that were previously owned by Indians but were purchased by settlers?

Do you have evidence showing that this NEVER happened?

Likewise, in my part of the country; Indian tribes allied themselves with white colonial powers against other Indian tribes who likewise allied themselves with other colonial powers. What happens when one side wins? Does that mean that the Indians on the winning side were colonist expropriators? Or if they secured their original lands because of their alliance, does this now make their land claims illegitimate?


Are these questions supposed to be a rebuttal to the historical facts I already outlined?

Let me know when you have some actual argument and not a bunch of unsupported and ambiguous nonsense.


If I held ancaps to this standard, we would never be able to discuss their ideology.

How could they own land without a state? If these were non-capitalist societies; or pre-capitalist societies (According to Marxism); then they had no states to enforce private property, and if ownership requires a state, then according to your argument these indigenous people didn't really own anything.

If they didn't own their land, then nothing could have been stolen according to your own argument. :lol:


I never said land ownership required a state. I said capitalist land ownership as it exists now requires a state.

And indigenous land ownership systems also required institutional support in terms of recognition of whose land it was, inheritance, law enforcement, etc.

Its not a metaphor, its an analogical question. Answer my question.


What exactly is the analogy?

Not an argument; you have failed to support your claim.


Again, you made the claim that monopolies cannot happen without the state. You have not supported this with evidence or logic and anything else.

I have one and I challenged you to debate it six previous times and have mentioned your by name in that thread. I am now challenging you to debate my argument in that thread for THE SEVENTH TIME: Do you accept or yield?


No.

You can briefly explain in this thread how capitalism can occur without a state.

The definition does not require a state; and the argument you are making is a causal argument. Causation can only be demonstrated from an absolute knowledge sufficient to established the relationship as necessary.
However, this requires that you either have a universal knowledge of all particulars (omniscience) or a logical argument (a priori) demonstrating that this is the case.

If you have no argument; then you have no proof in this regards that capitalism requires a state.


And you have no proof it does not.

Again this seems like an argument from ignorance.

—————————-

Now, do businesses profit from regulations?

In my experience, they do. When I worked for a contractor, we often avoided having to correct certain “deficiencies”. This was because the tradespeople had installed the materials as the code dictated, and ignored the architect’s drawings when the drawings were not up to code.

Those regulations saved us thousands of dollars.
#14988124
Pants-of-dog wrote:Are these questions supposed to be a rebuttal to the historical facts I already outlined?


They are in the interrogative, so that would require you to answer them as they are questions; your argument resting on how you answer them.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If I held ancaps to this standard, we would never be able to discuss their ideology.


Not an argument.

Pants-of-dog wrote:I never said land ownership required a state. I said capitalist land ownership as it exists now requires a state.


So if a state ceased to exist; that doesn't necessarily mean ownership of land would cease then, according to your argument. Is that correct? Yes or No?


Pants-of-dog wrote:What exactly is the analogy?


You don't know what an analogy is? :eh:

a·nal·o·gy
[əˈnaləjē]

NOUN
a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
"an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies" · [more]
a correspondence or partial similarity.
"the syndrome is called deep dysgraphia because of its analogy to deep dyslexia"
synonyms:
link · relationship · relation · relatedness · interrelation · interrelatedness · interconnection · interdependence · association · attachment · bond · tie · tie-in · [more]
a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects.
"works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"
logic
a process of arguing from similarity in known respects to similarity in other respects.
synonyms:
similarity · parallel · parallelism · correspondence · likeness · resemblance · correlation · relation · kinship · equivalence · similitude · symmetry · homology
linguistics
a process by which new words and inflections are created on the basis of regularities in the form of existing ones.
biology
the resemblance of function between organs that have a different evolutionary origin.


Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, you made the claim that monopolies cannot happen without the state. You have not supported this with evidence or logic and anything else.


Actually I did, as I showed that the mechanisms of their existence are all predicated on a state.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No.


So you are refusing to debate for the seventh time my logical argument demonstrating the Ancap thesis as absolutely and universally true?

Pants-of-dog wrote:And you have no proof it does not. Again this seems like an argument from ignorance.



The definition is my proof; there is nothing in it which requires a state, and the state itself is a contradiction to the definition (as it is niether privatley owned or freely exchanged); thus, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise.

You made a universal claim; which requires either universal posteori knowledge or an a priori argument. Do you have any? Yes or No?


Pants-of-dog wrote:Now, do businesses profit from regulations? In my experience, they do. When I worked for a contractor, we often avoided having to correct certain “deficiencies”. This was because the tradespeople had installed the materials as the code dictated, and ignored the architect’s drawings when the drawings were not up to code. Those regulations saved us thousands of dollars.


Anecdotal evidence. Invalid.

Unless you agree to accept my contrary anecdotal evidence. :lol:
#14988126
LaDexter wrote:From 1995 to 1998, the pre 1998 GOP actually did that....

In 1995 there was a Democrat President and a Democrat Senate majority. Republicans are lying hypocrites when they talk about fiscal conservatism. Most Republicans have little interest in government budget surplices and are fine with increasing deficits for military expenditure, tax cuts, farm subsides and a host of other things that take their fancy at the time.
#14988127
Victoribus Spolia wrote:They are in the interrogative, so that would require you to answer them as they are questions; your argument resting on how you answer them.

Not an argument.


As long as you understand how your current ownership of land was historically created by the state.

So if a state ceased to exist; that doesn't necessarily mean ownership of land would cease then, according to your argument. Is that correct? Yes or No?



Can you give an example of land ownerhsip staying the same when the supporting state was destroyed?

The settlement of the USA actually shows how land ownerhsip changed dramatically because of the destruction and replacement of the state.

You don't know what an analogy is? :eh:

Actually I did, as I showed that the mechanisms of their existence are all predicated on a state.


Where did you describe this?

So you are refusing to debate for the seventh time my logical argument demonstrating the Ancap thesis as absolutely and universally true?


No. Instead, you are refusing to provide an argument in this thread with your usual dodge of alluding to another thread.

The definition is my proof; there is nothing in it which requires a state, and the state itself is a contradiction to the definition (as it is niether privatley owned or freely exchanged); thus, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise.

You made a universal claim; which requires either universal posteori knowledge or an a priori argument. Do you have any? Yes or No?


Capitalism has never existed without a state. If you want to believe it would, feel free.

Anecdotal evidence. Invalid.

Unless you agree to accept my contrary anecdotal evidence. :lol:


Another her way that regulations help businesses is by expanding their customer base. Those companies that have barrier free (i.e. accessible to people using wheelchairs and other mobility devices) designs can also serve handicapped people who would otherwise not be able to enter (let alone shop at) these stores.
#14988140
Pants-of-dog wrote:As long as you understand how your current ownership of land was historically created by the state.


You have yet to substantiate this claim.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Can you give an example of land ownerhsip staying the same when the supporting state was destroyed?


How would an answer to this question demonstrate that land ownership must necessarily cease in the absence of a state, as you have claimed (though you made the opposite claim regarding Indians?

This seems irrelevant.

In any event, you have failed to answer my question:

if a state ceased to exist; that doesn't necessarily mean ownership of land would cease then, according to your argument. Is that correct? Yes or No?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Where did you describe this?


When I said this;

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Its because libertarianism is NOT good for business. Libertarians oppose state-funded and supported monopolies; which most corporations basically are.Libertarians also oppose things like patents and copyrights laws; which are likewise the basis for most corporate power.


Pants-of-dog wrote:No. Instead, you are refusing to provide an argument in this thread with your usual dodge of alluding to another thread.



You claim that there is no logical argument; I have one posted in a thread specifically dedicated to this purpose. You have just refused to debate me on it for the SEVENTH TIME!

It doesn't look like i'm the one who is dodging, given that fact. :lol:

Pants-of-dog wrote:Capitalism has never existed without a state.


Another absolute statement.

Please provide evidence for this claim.

Pants-of-dog wrote:If you want to believe it would, feel free.


I demostrated such via logical argument and have challenged you to debate it. You have refused. I believe the argument as its valid and apparently irrefutable.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Another her way that regulations help businesses is by expanding their customer base. Those companies that have barrier free (i.e. accessible to people using wheelchairs and other mobility devices) designs can also serve handicapped people who would otherwise not be able to enter (let alone shop at) these stores.


Can regulations increase costs for businesses? Yes or No?

Can regulations increase the capital needed to start a business? Yes or No?

Can regulations increase the amount of time a businessman spends on government compliance and does this take away time he could otherwise spend on serving customers? Yes or No?

@Negotiator , Also, as Eisenhower put it, you c[…]

Iranian Situation...

Well, it's great to see you follow his lead, then[…]

John Bolton's attempts to goad Iran have been pre[…]

June 24, Monday Two US gunboats shell Confedera[…]