lolbertarians are lol by trop - Page 3 - TribalWar Forums
Click Here to find great hosting deals from Branzone.com


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page lolbertarians are lol
Page 3 of 5
Thread Tools
Scuzzle
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
41 - 06-21-2009, 15:59
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lobster View Post
Here's the problem with this outlook, and why timber companies are a poor analogy.

Timber companies own the land they use, no-one owns portions of the ocean.

Therefore you have multiple competitive elements fishing the same waters. Maybe they all have foresight and think fishing less would mean more fish in the long run, but where is their guarantee that their competitors will think and act likewise?

It's nowhere. This is why you need an over-arching organistion to set fishing quotas. Which is why you need regulation, which is why you need government.

The "market" doesn't give a **** about long term sustainability, regardless of whether individuals working in the marketplace recognise the wisdom of acting that way.
I think water property rights are a better idea. Just as plots of land can be owned, so too should areas of water. Just as land is a limited resource, so to water area, and it would force owners not to overfish for their own good.
 
Scuzzle is offline
 
Sponsored Links
Lobster
VeteranXV
Contributor
Old
42 - 06-21-2009, 16:02
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzle View Post
I think water property rights are a better idea. Just as plots of land can be owned, so too should areas of water. Just as land is a limited resource, so to water area, and it would force owners not to overfish for their own good.
I knew you'd go this way, and I could do a really lengthy response.

But I just want you to think for a minute about:

1. How crazy that is. (how would it be policed, enforced, etc?)

2. How "libertarian" it is to take something where anyone can go and do pretty much anything they want, and then privatise it, cordon it off, and have it owned by people.
 
Lobster is offline
 
Scuzzle
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
43 - 06-21-2009, 16:04
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by La Heladera View Post
By arguing that "human nature" is a societal construction, you just argued in favor of the possibility of communism, too. If communism is an "impossibility," it's because since the 18th century individualism has been a rampantly touted ideology, that apparently programmed you quite well.

Also, your last sentence, about reform not being overnight but taking decades, was something that Marx also realized would be necessary -- socialism is a broad term referring to the transition to communism.

What's good for the dunce is...

P.S. capitalism has failed more times than communism. the former is just given more chances.
I didn't argue that human nature is a societal construction. I said that KnightMare was mistaken about his definition of human nature, and I was referring back to his definition every time I used the phrase "human nature", which is why it was always in quotes instead of being typed outright.

Now that that is cleared up, you can see that I didn't make any case for communism, because I have made no statement of what human nature actually is. Now I will:

I think part of human nature is to feel a sense of ownership for the things you have labored over. I feel this is an evolutionary trait that has been beneficial for survival and is one of the key elements for the success of the only cognitive race. Now, if this is part of "human nature", then there is absolutely no case for Communism.
 
Scuzzle is offline
 
KnightMare
VeteranX
Old
44 - 06-21-2009, 16:05
Reply With Quote
now if I could only get dumpy and zod to admit that their libertarian fantasy would fail miserable (without the proper vuclan retraining of the populous of course) just like scuzzle already has.
 
KnightMare is offline
 
CarpeIppon
Veteran++
Old
45 - 06-21-2009, 16:09
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by La Heladera View Post
By arguing that "human nature" is a societal construction, you just argued in favor of the possibility of communism, too. If communism is an "impossibility," it's because since the 18th century individualism has been a rampantly touted ideology, that apparently programmed you quite well.

Also, your last sentence, about reform not being overnight but taking decades, was something that Marx also realized would be necessary -- socialism is a broad term referring to the transition to communism.

What's good for the dunce is...

P.S. capitalism has failed more times than communism. the former is just given more chances.
No he didn't. He is saying that people will slowly realize that if everyone acts in their rational best interests, aside from using things like force or fraud, then society is advanced. Its a culture shock because people are used to nanny state government. Communism requires people to act in many cases in opposition to their best interests in order to progress. This is totally unrealistic even if it is technically possible.
 
CarpeIppon is offline
 
MolimOrion
VeteranXV
Old
46 - 06-21-2009, 16:10
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by -]DoW[-RedDeath View Post
keep telling yourself that, sucko.

libertarianism works about as well as communism. looks good on paper, but there's a pesky little thing called human nature getting in the way.
How do you know ? Have you ever seen an example of it ?

Actually, have you ever seen an example of the free market in our country ?

It hasn't been around since I've been born. Possibly before that, but my research shows we haven't had a free market in at least 100 years.

If you have businesses that are "too big to fail", then it is impossible to have a free market. The business has no incentive to do a good job, and be profitable, as either way, whether there is success or failure, the business will be ok, since it is backed by the government.

One of the best parts of Libertarianism is there is no data, none, whatsoever, to show that that system would not work. Since it has never been implemented, you can point to no failures of that system.

Responsibility is a great value to have, and to instill in children. It makes a big difference imo when you have parents instilling that value, as opposed to raising your children without the understanding of just how evil Obama is.

And the bottom line is Libertarianism is the *most* peaceful solution of any yet brought forth before my eyes. Socialism, which we have practiced for over 100 years, requires the government holding a gun to the head of every working citizen, and demanding, via that threat of deadly force, that the working citizen give up the fruits of their labor.

Offer up a solution that doesn't require the government holding a gun to the head of every citizen, to steal the fruits of their labor, and I'll consider pondering its merits. Otherwise, you won't convince me, in this lifetime, that the government holding a gun to the head of every working citizen is in any way just. It is the most warped incentive system one could ever possibly create. Seriously, if anyone can offer any solution as peaceful as Libertarianism, let me know. If you stop for a second, and consider your values, and the genesis of those, and not be ashamed that your value systems are rooted in evil, and that it is ok to "change", then you, and our country, can both have a chance. But this holding a gun to our heads crap will never work, as it is rooted in evil. Go ahead and argue how great monopolies are and how you wish the government had a monopoly on guns so that it could hold more of them to our heads to steal more of the fruits of our labor. That's honorable, has integrity, and does not reek of hypocrisy.

As always, from your favorite Libertarian hippie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OnWAOqZj58
 
MolimOrion is offline
 
Scuzzle
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
47 - 06-21-2009, 16:13
Reply With Quote
Quote:
1. How crazy that is. (how would it be policed, enforced, etc?)
It's not crazy. But, it is impossible right now.

Quote:
2. How "libertarian" it is to take something where anyone can go and do pretty much anything they want, and then privatise it, cordon it off, and have it owned by people.
Very? We did it with land. There are millions of acres of land that have been privatized, cordoned off, and owned by people that would otherwise be places where anyone could go and do pretty much anything they want.

And if we are talking about what is in someone's best interest, it definitely isn't in anyone's best interest to disallow commercial travel, and international trade simply because they own fishing waters. What are they afraid of? That a Carnival cruise ship is going to throw out shrimping nets? Or that oil tankers will do the same? And they would destroy entire portions of the economy, thus gravely harming themselves, just to prove a point?
 
Scuzzle is offline
 
ZOD
VeteranX
Old
48 - 06-21-2009, 16:21
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightMare View Post
now if I could only get dumpy and zod to admit that their libertarian fantasy would fail miserable (without the proper vuclan retraining of the populous of course) just like scuzzle already has.
Your definition of libertarianism is more a description of Anarchy. I am not a libertarian anyway . I believe dumpy is an anarchist not a libertarian but he can speak for himself.
 
ZOD is offline
 
Reno
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
49 - 06-21-2009, 17:38
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzle View Post
I think water property rights are a better idea. Just as plots of land can be owned, so too should areas of water. Just as land is a limited resource, so to water area, and it would force owners not to overfish for their own good.
Fish swim around. Unless one cohesive group works with all the "waterowners" it wouldn't work. And please explain how I benefit from letting people (which would end up being gigantic corporations) buy up rights to the surface of the oceans? Part of liberty is not destroying liberties I currently have, such as access and use of international waters.

I can't stand the government and I'm opposed to nearly every regulation and expenditure they come up with, but to argue that the free market will protect fish is naive at best.
 
Reno is offline
 
KnightMare
VeteranX
Old
50 - 06-21-2009, 17:44
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZOD View Post
Your definition of libertarianism is more a description of Anarchy. I am not a libertarian anyway . I believe dumpy is an anarchist not a libertarian but he can speak for himself.
thats a far cry from all of the ron paul support a number of months ago but good enough for me.
 
KnightMare is offline
 
LGBR
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
51 - 06-21-2009, 17:50
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZOD View Post
Devils advocate . Give me an example of the government doing a good job.
you enjoy driving on your interstate highway system, dont you?

ever called the cops?

ever ****ing VOTED?
 
LGBR is offline
 
Reno
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
52 - 06-21-2009, 17:52
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LGBR View Post
you enjoy driving on your interstate highway system, dont you?

ever called the cops?

ever ****ing VOTED?
You only think you voted.
 
Reno is offline
 
LGBR
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
53 - 06-21-2009, 17:53
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reno View Post
You only think you voted.
then how the **** did ******bama win?

cause im sure as **** the good ol boy network would never allow that
 
LGBR is offline
 
KnightMare
VeteranX
Old
54 - 06-21-2009, 17:55
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LGBR View Post
then how the **** did ******bama win?

cause im sure as **** the good ol boy network would never allow that
thats what they want you to think!
 
KnightMare is offline
 
Reno
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
55 - 06-21-2009, 17:55
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LGBR View Post
then how the **** did ******bama win?

cause im sure as **** the good ol boy network would never allow that
His skin color is irrelevant. He's continuing the progression towards bigger and bigger government. We had some time for social control and now the push is coming on the economic side. Back and forth until nothing's left.
 
Reno is offline
 
Scuzzle
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
56 - 06-21-2009, 17:59
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reno View Post
Fish swim around. Unless one cohesive group works with all the "waterowners" it wouldn't work.
And that group just has to be the government, right? It would be far too much to think that the companies, upon realizing that they can make higher profits if they work together, might regulate themselves.
Quote:
And please explain how I benefit from letting people (which would end up being gigantic corporations) buy up rights to the surface of the oceans? Part of liberty is not destroying liberties I currently have, such as access and use of international waters.
The same way that you benefit from the private ownership of land which, by your logic, is an assault on your liberties. The laws that make private land ownership a reality (like trespassing laws) are the reasons why people are willing to invest in land to produce everything from corn to automobiles. In short, the unequaled prosperity that is possible in America is directly linked to respect of private property, whether it be a wristwatch, or a 60,000 acre paper farm.

And I think it would be pretty funny to watch as fish product sales plummet as people turn to other products instead of buying from the companies who refuse to allow the public access to the ocean. I wonder how long it would take until they decided to change their minds and just worry about people who would like to steal from them, instead of people in speed boats and on cruise ships.
 
Scuzzle is offline
 
Last edited by Scuzzle; 06-21-2009 at 18:01..
Reno
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
57 - 06-21-2009, 18:02
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scuzzle View Post
And that group just has to be the government, right? It would be far too much to think that the companies, upon realizing that they can make higher profits if they work together, might regulate themselves.The same way that you benefit from the private ownership of land which, by your logic, is an assault on your liberties. The laws that make private land ownership a reality (like trespassing laws) are the reasons why people are willing to invest in land to produce everything from corn to automobiles. In short, the unequaled prosperity that is possible in America is directly linked to respect of private property, whether it be a wristwatch, or a 60,000 acre paper farm.

And I think it would be pretty funny to watch as fish product sales plummet as people turn to other products instead of buying from the companies who refuse to allow the public access to the ocean. I wonder how long it would take until they decided to change their minds and just worry about people who would like to steal from them, instead of people in speed boats and on cruise ships.
I didn't say it has to be the government.

If the government suddenly said "hey we're gonna slice up all the national forests and parks and sell them off to the highest bidders" I would be ****ing pissed. That would be an insane assault on my liberties but you're arguing that it would be a good thing.
 
Reno is offline
 
LGBR
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
58 - 06-21-2009, 18:03
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reno View Post
His skin color is irrelevant. He's continuing the progression towards bigger and bigger government. We had some time for social control and now the push is coming on the economic side. Back and forth until nothing's left.
most people in governmental power became adults at the height of the cold war, when anti-socialist and anti-communist propaganda was at its absolute highest. those same mother****ers are actually duped to the point where most of them would do ANYTHING to keep us from becoming even an inch more like the soviets

the fact that hes half black just adds to the old rednecks gripes
 
LGBR is offline
 
Scuzzle
VeteranXX
Contributor
Old
59 - 06-21-2009, 18:07
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reno View Post
If the government suddenly said "hey we're gonna slice up all the national forests and parks and sell them off to the highest bidders" I would be ****ing pissed. That would be an insane assault on my liberties but you're arguing that it would be a good thing.
Read what you typed and really, really think about it.
 
Scuzzle is offline
 
ZOD
VeteranX
Old
60 - 06-21-2009, 18:12
Reply With Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnightMare View Post
thats a far cry from all of the ron paul support a number of months ago but good enough for me.
Ron Paul is a member of the Republican party, not Libertarian. I did not vote for him when he ran on the Libertarian ticket prior to the last election. Nice straw man attempt though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LGBR View Post
you enjoy driving on your interstate highway system, dont you?

ever called the cops?

ever ****ing VOTED?
at highway system and voting. I've never called the police in my life and based on plenty of evidence they are far from stellar. Oh and the police are not Federal.
 
ZOD is offline
 
Last edited by ZOD; 06-21-2009 at 18:14..
Page 3 of 5
Reply


Go Back   TribalWar Forums > TribalWar Community > General Discussion
Reload this Page lolbertarians are lol

Social Website Bullshit

Tags
shit thread , zod is dumb , zod is smart


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


AGENT: claudebot / Y
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:22.