Once again pointing out the elephant in the room

[Indeependent]

I answered your questions by pointing out the glaring failures of Globalization.
All you want is a paragraph from an Economist you would disagree with anyway.

Refer to this thread if you want to prove your lack of intellectual worth.

Biggest ruling class lie of the 21st century

It was determined last time that you had a very limited understanding of economics, due to your deflection from answering questions and your usage of recylcled rhetoric that made no sense in context. Every argument against free trade is fallacious and incorrect.

It was determined you are narcissistic and egotistical and have more spare time than you probably deserve.

 

[Onyx]

It was determined you are narcissistic and egotistical and have more spare time than you probably deserve.

If you want to debate free trade rather than engage in childish games, then write in the thread that I showed you.

 

[Indeependent]

It was determined you are narcissistic and egotistical and have more spare time than you probably deserve.

If you want to debate free trade rather than engage in childish games, then write in the thread that I showed you.

You debate from textbooks, I debate real life.
I already know plenty of "book smart" Free Trade scum in my own neighborhood.

 

[Onyx]

You debate from textbooks, I debate real life.

Lol, you just recycle rhetoric in order to launch weak attacks on theory that you clearly do not understand.

I have never read an economics textbook in my life. I have read many publications and commonly follow economic trends, which is superior to getting my education from the hand me down stupidity of politicized characters.

I already know plenty of "book smart" Free Trade scum in my own neighborhood.

Janitor to Aisle 4!

We have socialist trash that needs sweeping.

 

[Indeependent]

You debate from textbooks, I debate real life.

Lol, you just recycle rhetoric to attack theory that you clearly do not understand.

I have never read an economics textbook in my life. I have read many publications and commonly follow economic trends, which is superior to getting my education from the hand me down stupidity of politicized characters.

I already know plenty of "book smart" Free Trade scum in my own neighborhood.

Janitor to Aisle 4!

We have socialist trash that needs sweeping.

Wikipedia...same nonsense.
Economic Theories have a nasty habit of suffering from human intervention.
Non-Ricardian Free Trade has demonstrably resulted in a Master/Slave Society in the US.
I'm sure you live far from the Brown crowd.

 

[Onyx]

Economic Theories have a nasty habit of suffering from human intervention.
Non-Ricardian Free Trade has demonstrably resulted in a Master/Slave Society in the US.
I'm sure you live far from the Brown crowd.

The master/slave society is a result of corporations being allowed influence over government market control policies. Protectionism is another government tool for the filthy rich to exploit in order to funnel profits at the expense of the greater good.

Now you like to claim that history is on your side, but history shows every period of high tariffs has been met with disaster. Exhibit A: The Great Depression.

 

[Onyx]

By the way, calling someone "free trade scum" is not much of an insult

I got to go, Indeependent

 

[kaz]

You debate from textbooks, I debate real life.

Lol, you just recycle rhetoric to attack theory that you clearly do not understand.

I have never read an economics textbook in my life. I have read many publications and commonly follow economic trends, which is superior to getting my education from the hand me down stupidity of politicized characters.

I already know plenty of "book smart" Free Trade scum in my own neighborhood.

Janitor to Aisle 4!

We have socialist trash that needs sweeping.

Wikipedia...same nonsense.
Economic Theories have a nasty habit of suffering from human intervention.
Non-Ricardian Free Trade has demonstrably resulted in a Master/Slave Society in the US.
I'm sure you live far from the Brown crowd.

No system where you and your beloved politicians ever devise will yield a better result than Americans making our own decisions. The idea you can restrict our free actions, such as who we want to do business with, is an abomination to liberty

 

[forkup]

When did I say that? I'm not claiming I didn't but I would like to know context. I can't remember it. As to your point.

Never said you did.

I was expanding.

Give me a real workable alternative how we distribute food, justice, health, food and the like without government.

Voluntary association.

You might define that as government, but then again, the definition of anarchism is not no government. It is no rulers or no states.

You might define that as government, but then again, the definition of anarchism is not no government. It is no rulers or no states.

How do you see that working? There are more then 6 billion people on this planet. Limited recourses. Unless you are happy to go back to what will ultimately be communes, any larger grouping of people would require more organization that voluntary association can provide. How many of the communes of the 70's are still working? They broke up, usually because of lack of leadership.

 

[Onyx]

any larger grouping of people would require more organization that voluntary association can provide.

So you are saying that it is impossible for large groups to organize along voluntary means? I doubt that, but if that is the case, then just lower the scope of your community organization.

I have discovered that this is a common flaw in the statist thought process. They do not think of the world in terms of individuals, but abstract populations.

How many of the communes of the 70's are still working? They broke up, usually because of lack of leadership.

Some means of voluntary organization succeed for a long period of time, while others fail pretty quickly. It is of no consequence. Public goods and public services are social advantages, and not human essentials.

People do not need to live in a designated commune to interact voluntary. The whole essence of free market capitalism is achieving feats through voluntary association.

By the way, there were only like 6 anarchist communes in the United States, and some of them are still around. There is only one that is filled entirely with anarchists, and that is the Trumbullplex in Detroit. Some of them are just your average hippy collectives.

 

[forkup]

any larger grouping of people would require more organization that voluntary association can provide.

So you are saying that it is impossible for large groups to organize along voluntary means? I doubt that, but if that is the case, then just lower the scope of your community organization.

I have discovered that this is a common flaw in the statist thought process. They do not think of the world in terms of individuals, but abstract populations.

How many of the communes of the 70's are still working? They broke up, usually because of lack of leadership.

Some means of voluntary organization succeed for a long period of time, while others fail pretty quickly. It is of no consequence. Public goods and public services are social advantages, and not human essentials.

People do not need to live in a designated commune to interact voluntary. The whole essence of free market capitalism is achieving feats through voluntary association.

By the way, there were only like 6 anarchist communes in the United States, and some of them are still around. There is only one that is filled entirely with anarchists, and that is the Trumbullplex in Detroit. Some of them are just your average hippy collectives.

Public goods and public services are social advantages, and not human essentials.

You are right, hence my assertion that the largest grouping you could strife for is a commune. We all live in an advanced, technological advanced society, the prerequisite for such a society is an equally advanced social structure, a structure that needs those public services and social advantages. Without it it collapses. The scope and complexity is such, that it is impossible to allow every person to choose directly what, and to what extent they participate in the group as a whole. That's why you have leaders and a hierarchy.

The whole essence of free market capitalism is achieving feats through voluntary association.

The essence of free market capitalism is to create revenue. Claiming it is anything more is false.

 

[Onyx]

We all live in an advanced, technological advanced society, the prerequisite for such a society is an equally advanced social structure, a structure that needs those public services and social advantages

Wrong. The technological advancement of society has no bearing on the framework in which we govern ourselves.

We do NOT have an advanced social structure. We have a very backwards machine that operates on violence, exploitation, and death.

Without it it collapses.

What would collapse? Technology? Society?

That is absurd. The invisible hand of the state is not keeping society from collapsing. You have been brainwashed into believing that what exists does so out of necessity.

You cannot justify that the state is a necessity without resorting to fallacious and incorrect arguments.

The scope and complexity is such, that it is impossible to allow every person to choose directly what, and to what extent they participate in the group as a whole.

Seriously? Everyone is already making their own choices now. The trigger is pulled after we fail to do as we are told.

If anything, your contention should be that society cannot exist without a culture of intimidation and fear.

Your argument is based on a conjectural premise and red herring. Society cannot collapse, it can only be disrupted. The state does not stop social disruption, bur rather produces more social disruption than anything else in existence.

That's why you have leaders and a hierarchy.

Nothing you said explains how you reached this conclusion.

Anarchism is not defined as anti-leader or anti-hierarchy. Do you understand the difference between a leader and a ruler?

The essence of free market capitalism is to create revenue. Claiming it is anything more is false.

Not mutually exclusive.

The core of free market capitalism consists of voluntary associations. Claiming otherwise is false.

 

[forkup]

We all live in an advanced, technological advanced society, the prerequisite for such a society is an equally advanced social structure, a structure that needs those public services and social advantages

Wrong. The technological advancement of society has no bearing on the framework in which we govern ourselves.

We do NOT have an advanced social structure. We have a very backwards machine that operates on violence, exploitation, and death.

Without it it collapses.

What would collapse? Technology?

That is absurd.

The scope and complexity is such, that it is impossible to allow every person to choose directly what, and to what extent they participate in the group as a whole.

Seriously? Everyone is already making their own choices now. The trigger is pulled after we fail to do as we are told.

Your argument is based on a conjectural premise and red herring. Society cannot collapse, it can only be disrupted. The state does not stop social disruption, bur rather produces more social disruption than anything else in existence.

That's why you have leaders and a hierarchy.

Nothing you just stated explains how you reached this conclusion.

Anarchism is not defined as anti-leader of anti-hiearchy. Do you understand the difference between a leader and a ruler? Anarchism simply means no rulers.

The essence of free market capitalism is to create revenue. Claiming it is anything more is false.

Not mutually exclusive.

The core of free market capitalism consists of voluntary associations.Claiming this is not true would be a false statement.

rong. The technological advancement of society has no bearing on the framework in which we govern ourselves.

I'll give an example, a computer needs Thousands of individual parts, highly educated and specialised people to make those parts. A place to make those parts an infrastructure to supply and make that place run. More infrastructure to get the computer to the customer and countless more things. Quite a few of those things people can't perceive as immediately beneficial. It is hard to explain to a person why it is important to go to the moon in order to get to the personal computer. Yet the Space Program was directly responsible for the drive to miniaturize a computer to the point where it eventually fit our desks. You find taxes oppressive but you need to levy taxes, to fund the education, the infrastructure and the space program. ( I put the space program in this example, because this is something that a lot of people find frivolous today). I can also site history. The fall of the Western Roman Empire regressed the technology base. This happened because of the structure that sustained it collapsed. The result we now refer to as the dark ages.

Anarchism is not defined as anti-leader or anti-hierarchy. Do you understand the difference between a leader and a ruler?

Well explain the difference, the only difference I can see is scope, but if there is another one I'm willing to hear it.

 

[Onyx]

I'll give an example, a computer needs Thousands of individual parts, highly educated and specialised people to make those parts. A place to make those parts an infrastructure to supply and make that place run.

I am going to stop you right there. I am not diving down a rabbit hole based on a false equivalency.

The whole problem is that society has been turned into a machine. You tools love to overcomplicate everything.

I can also site history. The fall of the Western Roman Empire regressed the technology base. This happened because of the structure that sustained it collapsed. The result we now refer to as the dark ages.

At the end of the rabbit hole is a conjectural comparison between technological progress and statism.

Lol, glad I skipped over that.

Well explain the difference, the only difference I can see is scope, but if there is another one I'm willing to hear it.

Best I could find as an image.

 

[forkup]

I'll give an example, a computer needs Thousands of individual parts, highly educated and specialised people to make those parts. A place to make those parts an infrastructure to supply and make that place run.

I am going to stop you right there. I am not diving down a rabbit hole based on a false equivalency.

The whole problem is that society has been turned into a machine. You tools love to overcomplicate everything.

I can also site history. The fall of the Western Roman Empire regressed the technology base. This happened because of the structure that sustained it collapsed. The result we now refer to as the dark ages.

At the end of the rabbit hole is a conjectural comparison between technological progress and statism.

Lol, glad I skipped over that.

Well explain the difference, the only difference I can see is scope, but if there is another one I'm willing to hear it.

Best I could find as an image.

At the end of the rabbit hole is a conjectural comparison between technological progress and statism.

Claiming that you can have technological progress, without a state creating a framework (rules) in society is ridiculous.

The whole problem is that society has been turned into a machine. You tools love to overcomplicate everything.

Not acknowledging that you can't have a society where people live in their 70 or 80, have plenty of food, elektricity, the internet, without having a complex society, might make you feel better but it doesn't make it true.
As to your ruler leader meme I'm confused. Are you suggesting that you can only lead if you can do everything the people under you can do? That doesn't work. Not even at the level of comune. People have been specialising since the stone age, this is directly responsible for the fact that we survived and became an apex predator despite the fact that we where physically not as strong as our contemporary hunters at the time.

 

[Onyx]

Claiming that you can have technological progress, without a state creating a framework (rules) in society is ridiculous.

Anarchism is not anti-rules. You can have rules without rulers. You really need to educate yourself before running your mouth.

Not acknowledging that you can't have a society where people live in their 70 or 80, have plenty of food, elektricity, the internet, without having a complex society, might make you feel better but it doesn't make it true.

That is baseless conjecture.

Of course you can have food, electricity, and the internet without "complexity." The state does not produce food, electricity, or the internet.

The state literally produces nothing. Do you not understand that? The state does not create a single thing. All production and trade is sustainable without states.

As to your ruler leader meme I'm confused. Are you suggesting that you can only lead if you can do everything the people under you can do? That doesn't work. Not even at the level of comune. People have been specialising since the stone age, this is directly responsible for the fact that we survived and became an apex predator despite the fact that we where physically not as strong as our contemporary hunters at the time.

It is quite clear that you have poor comprehension skills.

I said that anarchism is not anti-leaders. The correct definition for anarchism is no rulers. That meme was designed to point out the difference between a leader and a ruler.

 

[bripat9643]

When did I say that? I'm not claiming I didn't but I would like to know context. I can't remember it. As to your point.

Never said you did.

I was expanding.

Give me a real workable alternative how we distribute food, justice, health, food and the like without government.

Voluntary association.

You might define that as government, but then again, the definition of anarchism is not no government. It is no rulers or no states.

You might define that as government, but then again, the definition of anarchism is not no government. It is no rulers or no states.

How do you see that working? There are more then 6 billion people on this planet. Limited recourses. Unless you are happy to go back to what will ultimately be communes, any larger grouping of people would require more organization that voluntary association can provide. How many of the communes of the 70's are still working? They broke up, usually because of lack of leadership.

The market is self-organizing. it doesn't require government. The market is far more efficient at allocating resources than any government.

 

[Onyx]

The market is self-organizing. it doesn't require government. The market is far more efficient at allocating resources than any government.

All opposition to anarchism is based on the invisible hand illusion.

They have been conditioned into believing that all economic prosperity and social order is contingent on the state surviving.

 

[forkup]

Claiming that you can have technological progress, without a state creating a framework (rules) in society is ridiculous.

Anarchism is not anti-rules. You can have rules without rulers. You really need to educate yourself before running your mouth.

Not acknowledging that you can't have a society where people live in their 70 or 80, have plenty of food, elektricity, the internet, without having a complex society, might make you feel better but it doesn't make it true.

That is baseless conjecture.

Of course you can have food, electricity, and the internet without "complexity." The state does not produce food, electricity, or the internet.

The state literally produces nothing. Do you not understand that? The state does not create a single thing. All production and trade is sustainable without states.

As to your ruler leader meme I'm confused. Are you suggesting that you can only lead if you can do everything the people under you can do? That doesn't work. Not even at the level of comune. People have been specialising since the stone age, this is directly responsible for the fact that we survived and became an apex predator despite the fact that we where physically not as strong as our contemporary hunters at the time.

It is quite clear that you have poor comprehension skills.

I said that anarchism is not anti-leaders. The correct definition for anarchism is no rulers. That meme was designed to point out the difference between a leader and a ruler.

hat meme was designed to point out the difference between a leader and a ruler.

Yet you can not explain it clearly apparently, what I got out of it was the boss tells you what to do, the leader leads by example. Btw, I can promise you that in the meme, which suggest building of the pyramids, the boss of that project,needed a completely different skill than the ability to pull rocks. It was a complex project which required, extensive planning and knowledge to pull of. He didn't lead because he was stronger, he lead because he had superior knowledge.

All production and trade is sustainable without states.

Really? Who provides the skilled workforce? Who provides the infrastructure? Who provides all resources necessary to provide in most case highly specialised products. Say you need Tantalum, a metal not found in the US used for elektronics. How are you going to trade for them? Without states,no money. How are you going to ask the owner of the mine to give you the metal? I'll give you a print plate in return?

 

[forkup]

When did I say that? I'm not claiming I didn't but I would like to know context. I can't remember it. As to your point.

Never said you did.

I was expanding.

Give me a real workable alternative how we distribute food, justice, health, food and the like without government.

Voluntary association.

You might define that as government, but then again, the definition of anarchism is not no government. It is no rulers or no states.

You might define that as government, but then again, the definition of anarchism is not no government. It is no rulers or no states.

How do you see that working? There are more then 6 billion people on this planet. Limited recourses. Unless you are happy to go back to what will ultimately be communes, any larger grouping of people would require more organization that voluntary association can provide. How many of the communes of the 70's are still working? They broke up, usually because of lack of leadership.

The market is self-organizing. it doesn't require government. The market is far more efficient at allocating resources than any government.

List of countries by total health expenditure per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The US lags far behind most developed countries. Most of those have a state controlled health care systems.
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Most of those countries also have a better life expectancy.
So it seems the market lags behind in both quality and efficiency here.
It was the lack of government oversight that caused the banking crisis so claiming it can run on itself is proven wrong there to.
Last post of the evening, goodnight all.