The WEIRD political hypocrisy of this board.

[healthmyths]

Under Obama everyone on the right loved Bush and the left hated him. Now Bush is hated by the right and admired by the left.
When McCain/Romney ran against Obama they were supported by the right and despised by the left. Now those roles too have reversed.

I think it is a flawed personal trait when you don't have the courage to stick to your so called principles regardless of someone elses health condition. It's hard to take a lot of you serious.

Remember how angry pseudocons would get whenever someone would claim Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq?

Notice how they have gone totally silent about that now that they have elected one of the cut-and-run peaceniks who demanded Dubya be impeached for lying about WMDs?

So...yeah.

Oh I'm not silent! I personally don't like Trump! I think he is loud. Obnoxious. Braggart. Rude. all those characteristics you and others of your ilk attribute to Trump. I agree!
And I also disagree with Trump regarding Iraq and GWB!
But evidently I can be more discriminating than people like you who are totally black or white. Night or Day.
The difference is I defended Bush as President. But when he and others of his ilk including his Dad, brother, etc. ONLY because Jeb was insulted by Trump continued to
help the MSM pound Trump is where I totally disagree with the Bushes i.e. regarding Trump.
Again. Let me repeat. I personally don't like Trump! I think he is loud. Obnoxious. Braggart. Rude. all those characteristics you and others of your ilk attribute to Trump. I agree!
I also though having lived with people like Trump have come to appreciate their many better qualities like:
A) Trump truly loves America... B) Loves and respects his family....C) Respects Law enforcement communities. D) Recognized that America was in a decline.
And so even though I wouldn't want to have Trump as a friend... he is getting things done! He is like most executives who are responsible as someone pointed out
Trump is responsible to ALL Americans and Trump is getting things done to the betterment of America.
Look at this graph and tell me which President cared more about the American worker?

 

[healthmyths]

Remember how angry pseudocons would get whenever someone would claim Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq?

He DIDN'T! He used the same Intel as Clinton. Stop the hypocricy

Just to support you point... Here is a web site showing the FACTS about Democrats support of Bush's actions!
Remember Bill Clinton signed the "1998 Liberation of Iraq Act"... and all the MSM praised the efforts to "LIBERATE" Iraq.
BUT once Bush came into office and after 9/11 when time came to go after Saddam... MSM changed the word to "INVASION of Iraq"!
Truly perfect example of the biased MSM!

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

and more like the above at this link:

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

 

[g5000]

Remember how angry pseudocons would get whenever someone would claim Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq?

He DIDN'T! He used the same Intel as Clinton. Stop the hypocricy

Just to support you point... Here is a web site showing the FACTS about Democrats support of Bush's actions!
Remember Bill Clinton signed the "1998 Liberation of Iraq Act"... and all the MSM praised the efforts to "LIBERATE" Iraq.
BUT once Bush came into office and after 9/11 when time came to go after Saddam... MSM changed the word to "INVASION of Iraq"!
Truly perfect example of the biased MSM!

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

and more like the above at this link:

Reasons for War: Things you might have forgotten about Iraq.

Way to miss the point.

You don't see Democrats continuing to insist ALL THE WAY UP TO 2015 that there were WMDs in Iraq. You don't see Democrats insisting Syria's chemical weapons came from Saddam Hussein.

But we did see pseudocons making such claims all the way up until Trump entered the race, and even a little beyond that point.

Now that they have fallen in love with a cut-and-run peacenik who wanted Bush impeached for lying about WMDs, they have gone radio silent.

Just has they have gone deaf and dumb about double deficits and record spending.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Of course you will, because ignoring my points is your only option here, since you cannot address them.

Happy to address each of your points just don’t want to be writing novels back and forth.

May I gently suggest you two geezers create your own thread to work out your ideological differences? Thanks in advance.

I'm probably half or one third of your age, there, geezer.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I'm probably half or one third of your age, there, geezer

You should take that as a great compliment. Jesus, at age 12, was also more than able to stand toe to toe with the "wise" religious leaders of His time.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

So, you're just going to keep ignoring my other citations which thoroughly debunk your statist nonsense. Besides, he difference between their 'leaders' and your United States is that their worker groups were completely voluntary and people could come and go as they please(I think they were called Tuaths) while the US uses force and coercion to make you obey their selected "leaders". Furthermore, the groups didn't force you to live how they demand, under the threat of imprisonment or death.

You also have no citations to back up your claim that without the threat of government, people kill and rape each other willy nilly, and even if they did, the US Police's response times of 15 minutes on average certainly isn't doing anything to stop it, nor is their disarmament of victims. A damn good job it's doing in Chicago, for example. Oh, and let's not forget that when the police DO finally get there, they murder the armed citizens like the well-trained professionals they are.

Private security sure as hell wouldn't kill the citizens, unlike the armed thugs we nonsensically refer to as police, or the law.

There's also the government's tendency to pick fights with other governments for its own benefit, like the war for oil recently, and replacing the "leader" in Ukrain with a plant which baited Russia into attacking them, so the US could start a war with them to force them into accepting their worthless fiat currency.

I prefer to try and limit my posts to contain a one or only a few topics so they can be more direct and to the point. I find that the arguments in the long winded posts get lost in the shuffle. I’ll make an exception with his response but let’s try and move forward one topic at a time.

Your argument lost credibility when you tried to compare modern day USA to medieval times Ireland, that was my simple point.

Regarding your other arguments about currency and infrastructure you seemed to state that the “people” will trade and build what they want. Well that’s fine and dandy but when it comes to major projects and world trade that is beyond the ability of a few individuals to manage. The only way to accomplish these things is with the voice of the collective which I’m sorry to tell you is what a government is.

My kill and rape statement was made from what actually happened in medieval Ireland. It’s history. And if your anarchist society was so wonderful and productive back then it would still exist today. The fact that it doesn’t just shows its vulnerability and it’s lack of lasting power.

Except no, times are no indication of whether a societal structure works or not, that's just your excuse. For example, Socialism will not work regardless of what age it is, fiat currency will never be sustainable, government will never be sustainable, and the reasons for all of those are consistent. The fact that it's 2018 doesn't give or take away credibility, this is just your excuse because you don't want to acknowledge that people can live without a monopoly on violence and arbitration.

There were long distance trade routes before governments existed, your claim that the government is necessary for world trade is completely false. The problem with your arguments is that you believe that the government is capable of certain things simply because they call themselves such. The reality is that the govenrnent is just as human as anyone else, and thus anything they're capable of, the private sector is ALSO capable of. Furthermore, the government is NOT the voice of any collective besides itself. Regardless of whether elections were truly democratic, and they're not, I've already made this point and cited evidence, BUT even if they were, AT BEST it's the voice of the majority oppressing the minority, which doesn't make it moral. The majority in Germany apparently wanted the Jews dead. However, that's not the case, because the government makes decisions regardless of what the people want. Assuming that everyone wants whatever the government does, simply because the Electoral College selected them is hilarious. When was the last time you were able to sync up to the community-wide hivemind? Oh, that's right, never.

Well, no, actually, you have no citations to support your claim, and even if you did, the US is no less subject to the same occurances As I said, the government suppresses our ability to protect ourselves, and their thugs with guns even shoot us when they do arrive. Furthermore, there was ALSO Neutral Moresnet, Cospaia, and Pennsylvania. The fact that the barbarians in a state conquered Medieval Ireland after 9000+ years and multiple attempts does nothing to discredit its longevity, that's longer than ANY state has lasted, as the absolute LONGEST was the Pandyan Empire, at 1850 years.

I’m gonna address your first paragraph only so we can keep this conversation more concise.

I don’t agree that the day of age isn’t a factor in the effectiveness of political systems. It absolutely is. For example your tribal anarchist system may have worked in medieval times when societies were small and more self contained. But not in a society comprised of hundreds of millions of people actively engaged in global commerce. This is why Anarchy I’m extinct in modern developed countries.

Although I’m not a fan of socialism I’d also disagree that it will never work. Fast forward 100 years (probably less) and let’s say robots are conducting all the labor jobs that are currently held by humans. Robots are able to manufacture, pack, ship, harvest, diagnose, treat, and service everything that us humans need to live comfortably. As a result the need for human labor plumits and available jobs cease to exists. Unless we want a tidal wave of low class citizens and the crime that would be associated it might make sense to undertake some sort of socialism where the basic needs for humans are provided by the state and the role of humans takes on a new form. Again, I am theorizing but it exemplifies my original point that the times play a crucial role in the style and roll of governments.

Of course you will, because ignoring my points is your only option here, since you cannot address them.

You're saying that without considering that trade routes existed before the earliest government and that there were no governments before 2332 BC. If your assertion were accurate, they would have been screwed, yet they were organized enough to BUILD trade routes. As usual, you're full of crud. I'd also like to point out that territorial monopolies on arbitration and violence, IE the US, don't take kindly to Anarchy, and as such, would not allow large scale Anarchies to exist, they'd be able to steal less money, and people would realize that Statism is actually just thuggery.

False, for every job that is innovated away, new jobs will form. Losing jobs in manufacturing would only result in more jobs in engineering and programming. For every job that's replaced with machines, there will need to be people innovating, programming, engineering, and maintaining those machines. Even if, hypothetically, the machines could maintain themselves, people would be needed to head the companies manufacturing those machines, and people would be needed for innovating new methods to build and advance those machines. Not only this, but machines can't do creative work, such as software engineering, so the video game, music, movie industries, etc, will always have a demand for human labor. The economic calculation problem will also always make Socialism completely unworkable, even if states were sustainable.

Happy to address each of your points just don’t want to be writing novels back and forth.

You are comparing trade routes in BC to modern day world commerce? I don’t think you know what you’re talking about with that one.

As far is innovation jobs, yes you are right there will be innovation jobs but those will only cater to a fraction of highly educated individuals. Many millions of labor jobs will be lost and the wealth inequality gap will grow exponentially. Think it through for a bit.

If that were the case, you'd have done so. I don't hold any faith in your response to those being any more logical than any of your previous responses, though, so I'll just conclude that you can't.

Meanwhile, nothing TODAY actually prevents global trade without government, their only contribution is stealing money when they reach port. All forms of transport are available to private industry, and communications are easier than ever. My point wasn't that people can trade the same way, but that they did it before government existed, and can do it even more easily now. Of course, any logical points will fly right over your head. The government has no tools that aren't available to private industry, unless the government is using force to prevent them from being available, in which case government is a problem, not a solution.

Wealth inequality is just a buzz word, and if anything, it's perpetuated by the government, NOT solved by it. Assuming it was a real issue, which is quite the assumption, government regulation, patents, and copyrights are contributing to this "wealth inequality", because they more heavily affect smaller, less renowned and established businesses. Once again, government is in the way, not helping, just as has always been the case.

Furthermore, my claim was not that jobs are replaced one for one, but that they are still replaced. For every one job, there can be one or more taking their place. Even IF you were right about jobs in innovation catering only to a small part of the population, there would still be jobs servicing the machines that are doing the labor, and allocating company resources. There will never NOT be enough jobs, especially without the influence of government, because there would be competition in every area rather than the monopolies the government promotes.

 

[blastoff]

Under Obama everyone on the right loved Bush and the left hated him. Now Bush is hated by the right and admired by the left.
When McCain/Romney ran against Obama they were supported by the right and despised by the left. Now those roles too have reversed.

I think it is a flawed personal trait when you don't have the courage to stick to your so called principles regardless of someone elses health condition. It's hard to take a lot of you serious.

Remember how angry pseudocons would get whenever someone would claim Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq?

Notice how they have gone totally silent about that now that they have elected one of the cut-and-run peaceniks who demanded Dubya be impeached for lying about WMDs?

So...yeah.

The WMDs every significant dimocrat of the day is on record warning us and the world about? The ones countless other government’s security agencies warned everyone about?

 

[g5000]

Under Obama everyone on the right loved Bush and the left hated him. Now Bush is hated by the right and admired by the left.
When McCain/Romney ran against Obama they were supported by the right and despised by the left. Now those roles too have reversed.

I think it is a flawed personal trait when you don't have the courage to stick to your so called principles regardless of someone elses health condition. It's hard to take a lot of you serious.

Remember how angry pseudocons would get whenever someone would claim Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq?

Notice how they have gone totally silent about that now that they have elected one of the cut-and-run peaceniks who demanded Dubya be impeached for lying about WMDs?

So...yeah.

The WMDs every significant dimocrat of the day is on record warning us and the world about? The ones countless other government’s security agencies warned everyone about?

Are you actually this dense?

Seriously.

Daffy Donald demanded Bush be impeached for lying about WMDs and Daffy Donald demanded that we cut and run from Iraq. Got it?

Remember how much the Right HATED people like that? Remember how they called them terrorist lovers?

And this is who the pseudocons are in love with now.

All caught up now?

 

[Olde Europe]

I'm probably half or one third of your age, there, geezer.

You can be everything you want to be on the internet. And I am not even interested in your age, just in the fact that you are thinking with the hard-headedness and imperviousness to reason and an ostentatious unwillingness to learn befitting a geezer, even while writing in color crayon befitting a little girl's friendship book. And that's not to mention your "debate" is wildly off topic.

 

[Slade3200]

I prefer to try and limit my posts to contain a one or only a few topics so they can be more direct and to the point. I find that the arguments in the long winded posts get lost in the shuffle. I’ll make an exception with his response but let’s try and move forward one topic at a time.

Your argument lost credibility when you tried to compare modern day USA to medieval times Ireland, that was my simple point.

Regarding your other arguments about currency and infrastructure you seemed to state that the “people” will trade and build what they want. Well that’s fine and dandy but when it comes to major projects and world trade that is beyond the ability of a few individuals to manage. The only way to accomplish these things is with the voice of the collective which I’m sorry to tell you is what a government is.

My kill and rape statement was made from what actually happened in medieval Ireland. It’s history. And if your anarchist society was so wonderful and productive back then it would still exist today. The fact that it doesn’t just shows its vulnerability and it’s lack of lasting power.

Except no, times are no indication of whether a societal structure works or not, that's just your excuse. For example, Socialism will not work regardless of what age it is, fiat currency will never be sustainable, government will never be sustainable, and the reasons for all of those are consistent. The fact that it's 2018 doesn't give or take away credibility, this is just your excuse because you don't want to acknowledge that people can live without a monopoly on violence and arbitration.

There were long distance trade routes before governments existed, your claim that the government is necessary for world trade is completely false. The problem with your arguments is that you believe that the government is capable of certain things simply because they call themselves such. The reality is that the govenrnent is just as human as anyone else, and thus anything they're capable of, the private sector is ALSO capable of. Furthermore, the government is NOT the voice of any collective besides itself. Regardless of whether elections were truly democratic, and they're not, I've already made this point and cited evidence, BUT even if they were, AT BEST it's the voice of the majority oppressing the minority, which doesn't make it moral. The majority in Germany apparently wanted the Jews dead. However, that's not the case, because the government makes decisions regardless of what the people want. Assuming that everyone wants whatever the government does, simply because the Electoral College selected them is hilarious. When was the last time you were able to sync up to the community-wide hivemind? Oh, that's right, never.

Well, no, actually, you have no citations to support your claim, and even if you did, the US is no less subject to the same occurances As I said, the government suppresses our ability to protect ourselves, and their thugs with guns even shoot us when they do arrive. Furthermore, there was ALSO Neutral Moresnet, Cospaia, and Pennsylvania. The fact that the barbarians in a state conquered Medieval Ireland after 9000+ years and multiple attempts does nothing to discredit its longevity, that's longer than ANY state has lasted, as the absolute LONGEST was the Pandyan Empire, at 1850 years.

I’m gonna address your first paragraph only so we can keep this conversation more concise.

I don’t agree that the day of age isn’t a factor in the effectiveness of political systems. It absolutely is. For example your tribal anarchist system may have worked in medieval times when societies were small and more self contained. But not in a society comprised of hundreds of millions of people actively engaged in global commerce. This is why Anarchy I’m extinct in modern developed countries.

Although I’m not a fan of socialism I’d also disagree that it will never work. Fast forward 100 years (probably less) and let’s say robots are conducting all the labor jobs that are currently held by humans. Robots are able to manufacture, pack, ship, harvest, diagnose, treat, and service everything that us humans need to live comfortably. As a result the need for human labor plumits and available jobs cease to exists. Unless we want a tidal wave of low class citizens and the crime that would be associated it might make sense to undertake some sort of socialism where the basic needs for humans are provided by the state and the role of humans takes on a new form. Again, I am theorizing but it exemplifies my original point that the times play a crucial role in the style and roll of governments.

Of course you will, because ignoring my points is your only option here, since you cannot address them.

You're saying that without considering that trade routes existed before the earliest government and that there were no governments before 2332 BC. If your assertion were accurate, they would have been screwed, yet they were organized enough to BUILD trade routes. As usual, you're full of crud. I'd also like to point out that territorial monopolies on arbitration and violence, IE the US, don't take kindly to Anarchy, and as such, would not allow large scale Anarchies to exist, they'd be able to steal less money, and people would realize that Statism is actually just thuggery.

False, for every job that is innovated away, new jobs will form. Losing jobs in manufacturing would only result in more jobs in engineering and programming. For every job that's replaced with machines, there will need to be people innovating, programming, engineering, and maintaining those machines. Even if, hypothetically, the machines could maintain themselves, people would be needed to head the companies manufacturing those machines, and people would be needed for innovating new methods to build and advance those machines. Not only this, but machines can't do creative work, such as software engineering, so the video game, music, movie industries, etc, will always have a demand for human labor. The economic calculation problem will also always make Socialism completely unworkable, even if states were sustainable.

Happy to address each of your points just don’t want to be writing novels back and forth.

You are comparing trade routes in BC to modern day world commerce? I don’t think you know what you’re talking about with that one.

As far is innovation jobs, yes you are right there will be innovation jobs but those will only cater to a fraction of highly educated individuals. Many millions of labor jobs will be lost and the wealth inequality gap will grow exponentially. Think it through for a bit.

If that were the case, you'd have done so. I don't hold any faith in your response to those being any more logical than any of your previous responses, though, so I'll just conclude that you can't.

Meanwhile, nothing TODAY actually prevents global trade without government, their only contribution is stealing money when they reach port. All forms of transport are available to private industry, and communications are easier than ever. My point wasn't that people can trade the same way, but that they did it before government existed, and can do it even more easily now. Of course, any logical points will fly right over your head. The government has no tools that aren't available to private industry, unless the government is using force to prevent them from being available, in which case government is a problem, not a solution.

Wealth inequality is just a buzz word, and if anything, it's perpetuated by the government, NOT solved by it. Assuming it was a real issue, which is quite the assumption, government regulation, patents, and copyrights are contributing to this "wealth inequality", because they more heavily affect smaller, less renowned and established businesses. Once again, government is in the way, not helping, just as has always been the case.

Furthermore, my claim was not that jobs are replaced one for one, but that they are still replaced. For every one job, there can be one or more taking their place. Even IF you were right about jobs in innovation catering only to a small part of the population, there would still be jobs servicing the machines that are doing the labor, and allocating company resources. There will never NOT be enough jobs, especially without the influence of government, because there would be competition in every area rather than the monopolies the government promotes.

Machines will service the machines. Jobs and tasks that used to take a crew of humans will soon be a crew of robots with a few humans to oversee operations. You are underestimating the impact of what the effects of this will be. There will be a flood of poor and unemployed unless appropriate measures are taken. Even tech/biz/humanitarian icons like Bill Gates and other leaders are warning against this. Seriously think about it.

Trade is commenced by currency, currency is controlled by governments. Trading goods and services is out dated but Crypto is a new interesting adversary so we shall see where that evolves, either way, whether it is a king, a dictator, an elected president, a tribal chief or a CEO every society has leaders. Every society has individuals who disagree with the decisions of their leaders and feel ripped off. Anarchy will only work in small tribal communities and even within those you have a form of authoritarian leadership lead by fear and strength or democratically elected leaders chosen by the people. It can’t be escaped.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I'm probably half or one third of your age, there, geezer.

You can be everything you want to be on the internet. And I am not even interested in your age, just in the fact that you are thinking with the hard-headedness and imperviousness to reason and an ostentatious unwillingness to learn befitting a geezer, even while writing in color crayon befitting a little girl's friendship book. And that's not to mention your "debate" is wildly off topic.

Feel free to debate me if you have a problem with my argument. Or, at least that's what I'd say if I believed you were capable, old fart.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Except no, times are no indication of whether a societal structure works or not, that's just your excuse. For example, Socialism will not work regardless of what age it is, fiat currency will never be sustainable, government will never be sustainable, and the reasons for all of those are consistent. The fact that it's 2018 doesn't give or take away credibility, this is just your excuse because you don't want to acknowledge that people can live without a monopoly on violence and arbitration.

There were long distance trade routes before governments existed, your claim that the government is necessary for world trade is completely false. The problem with your arguments is that you believe that the government is capable of certain things simply because they call themselves such. The reality is that the govenrnent is just as human as anyone else, and thus anything they're capable of, the private sector is ALSO capable of. Furthermore, the government is NOT the voice of any collective besides itself. Regardless of whether elections were truly democratic, and they're not, I've already made this point and cited evidence, BUT even if they were, AT BEST it's the voice of the majority oppressing the minority, which doesn't make it moral. The majority in Germany apparently wanted the Jews dead. However, that's not the case, because the government makes decisions regardless of what the people want. Assuming that everyone wants whatever the government does, simply because the Electoral College selected them is hilarious. When was the last time you were able to sync up to the community-wide hivemind? Oh, that's right, never.

Well, no, actually, you have no citations to support your claim, and even if you did, the US is no less subject to the same occurances As I said, the government suppresses our ability to protect ourselves, and their thugs with guns even shoot us when they do arrive. Furthermore, there was ALSO Neutral Moresnet, Cospaia, and Pennsylvania. The fact that the barbarians in a state conquered Medieval Ireland after 9000+ years and multiple attempts does nothing to discredit its longevity, that's longer than ANY state has lasted, as the absolute LONGEST was the Pandyan Empire, at 1850 years.

I’m gonna address your first paragraph only so we can keep this conversation more concise.

I don’t agree that the day of age isn’t a factor in the effectiveness of political systems. It absolutely is. For example your tribal anarchist system may have worked in medieval times when societies were small and more self contained. But not in a society comprised of hundreds of millions of people actively engaged in global commerce. This is why Anarchy I’m extinct in modern developed countries.

Although I’m not a fan of socialism I’d also disagree that it will never work. Fast forward 100 years (probably less) and let’s say robots are conducting all the labor jobs that are currently held by humans. Robots are able to manufacture, pack, ship, harvest, diagnose, treat, and service everything that us humans need to live comfortably. As a result the need for human labor plumits and available jobs cease to exists. Unless we want a tidal wave of low class citizens and the crime that would be associated it might make sense to undertake some sort of socialism where the basic needs for humans are provided by the state and the role of humans takes on a new form. Again, I am theorizing but it exemplifies my original point that the times play a crucial role in the style and roll of governments.

Of course you will, because ignoring my points is your only option here, since you cannot address them.

You're saying that without considering that trade routes existed before the earliest government and that there were no governments before 2332 BC. If your assertion were accurate, they would have been screwed, yet they were organized enough to BUILD trade routes. As usual, you're full of crud. I'd also like to point out that territorial monopolies on arbitration and violence, IE the US, don't take kindly to Anarchy, and as such, would not allow large scale Anarchies to exist, they'd be able to steal less money, and people would realize that Statism is actually just thuggery.

False, for every job that is innovated away, new jobs will form. Losing jobs in manufacturing would only result in more jobs in engineering and programming. For every job that's replaced with machines, there will need to be people innovating, programming, engineering, and maintaining those machines. Even if, hypothetically, the machines could maintain themselves, people would be needed to head the companies manufacturing those machines, and people would be needed for innovating new methods to build and advance those machines. Not only this, but machines can't do creative work, such as software engineering, so the video game, music, movie industries, etc, will always have a demand for human labor. The economic calculation problem will also always make Socialism completely unworkable, even if states were sustainable.

Happy to address each of your points just don’t want to be writing novels back and forth.

You are comparing trade routes in BC to modern day world commerce? I don’t think you know what you’re talking about with that one.

As far is innovation jobs, yes you are right there will be innovation jobs but those will only cater to a fraction of highly educated individuals. Many millions of labor jobs will be lost and the wealth inequality gap will grow exponentially. Think it through for a bit.

If that were the case, you'd have done so. I don't hold any faith in your response to those being any more logical than any of your previous responses, though, so I'll just conclude that you can't.

Meanwhile, nothing TODAY actually prevents global trade without government, their only contribution is stealing money when they reach port. All forms of transport are available to private industry, and communications are easier than ever. My point wasn't that people can trade the same way, but that they did it before government existed, and can do it even more easily now. Of course, any logical points will fly right over your head. The government has no tools that aren't available to private industry, unless the government is using force to prevent them from being available, in which case government is a problem, not a solution.

Wealth inequality is just a buzz word, and if anything, it's perpetuated by the government, NOT solved by it. Assuming it was a real issue, which is quite the assumption, government regulation, patents, and copyrights are contributing to this "wealth inequality", because they more heavily affect smaller, less renowned and established businesses. Once again, government is in the way, not helping, just as has always been the case.

Furthermore, my claim was not that jobs are replaced one for one, but that they are still replaced. For every one job, there can be one or more taking their place. Even IF you were right about jobs in innovation catering only to a small part of the population, there would still be jobs servicing the machines that are doing the labor, and allocating company resources. There will never NOT be enough jobs, especially without the influence of government, because there would be competition in every area rather than the monopolies the government promotes.

Machines will service the machines. Jobs and tasks that used to take a crew of humans will soon be a crew of robots with a few humans to oversee operations. You are underestimating the impact of what the effects of this will be. There will be a flood of poor and unemployed unless appropriate measures are taken. Even tech/biz/humanitarian icons like Bill Gates and other leaders are warning against this. Seriously think about it.

Trade is commenced by currency, currency is controlled by governments. Trading goods and services is out dated but Crypto is a new interesting adversary so we shall see where that evolves, either way, whether it is a king, a dictator, an elected president, a tribal chief or a CEO every society has leaders. Every society has individuals who disagree with the decisions of their leaders and feel ripped off. Anarchy will only work in small tribal communities and even within those you have a form of authoritarian leadership lead by fear and strength or democratically elected leaders chosen by the people. It can’t be escaped.

I appreciate that you admitted that people will be needed to oversee the machines, which means you're already aware of the flaws in your argument. People will always be necessary in the workforce for overseeing, creative work, and complicated work. Furthermore, the state is incapable doing anything about it, even if you were right, it's impossible for the State to properly allocate resources due to the economic calculation problem.

Currency is not exclusively controlled by governments, crypto currency is a perfect example of this, as much as the government would like to mock it, despite it having a supply cap and more utility. The only thing a State is needed for is Fiat currency, which is a worthless commodity which is only traded when force is applied. Currency is not even required for trade, it only exists because of the "Double Coincidence of Wants", in which case it's perfectly viable, and in fact more viable, for crypto currency to be applied. Really, pretty much anything is better than Fiat in that situation.

Difference there is that even if a leader is preferred, being able to voluntarily associate with that leader is the moral option, unlike in the case of a state, where force and coercion is applied, in which case the "Leader" just passes what they refer to as "Laws" which are just opinions backed by force. A CEO simply leads their own company, and anyone can come and go as they please, while a State is a territorial monopoly on violence and arbitration, you like to equate the two, but they are completely different. You can't seem the comprehend the difference between voluntary and forced association.

 

[Walt]

Under Obama everyone on the right loved Bush and the left hated him. Now Bush is hated by the right and admired by the left.
When McCain/Romney ran against Obama they were supported by the right and despised by the left. Now those roles too have reversed.

I think it is a flawed personal trait when you don't have the courage to stick to your so called principles regardless of someone elses health condition. It's hard to take a lot of you serious.

I am on the right yet I did not care for, or vote for, either Bush, McCain or Romney.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Under Obama everyone on the right loved Bush and the left hated him. Now Bush is hated by the right and admired by the left.
When McCain/Romney ran against Obama they were supported by the right and despised by the left. Now those roles too have reversed.

I think it is a flawed personal trait when you don't have the courage to stick to your so called principles regardless of someone elses health condition. It's hard to take a lot of you serious.

I am on the right yet I did not care for, or vote for, either Bush, McCain or Romney.

Then this thread does not apply to you.
Simple enough eh?

Seems a few posters took this thread as a personal opinion of them. It was intended as a "general" observation.

 

[Billy000]

Under Obama everyone on the right loved Bush and the left hated him. Now Bush is hated by the right and admired by the left.
When McCain/Romney ran against Obama they were supported by the right and despised by the left. Now those roles too have reversed.

I think it is a flawed personal trait when you don't have the courage to stick to your so called principles regardless of someone elses health condition. It's hard to take a lot of you serious.

We don’t admire Bush. Trump just makes him look like Lincoln. That is how batshit crazy politics have become.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

We don’t admire Bush. Trump just makes him look like Lincoln. That is how batshit crazy politics have become

Don t need perfect candidates. I follow William Buckley's advice in voting, both in the primary and the general. I vote for the most conservative candidate I believe has a chance to win. In the primary, that was Cruz. In the general, it was Trump. I am pretty happy with Trump -- if only to watch the pain it causes the left (in BOTH parties).

 

[Ted Frazier]

The far left started to like the Bush's again when Jeb and the rest of the clan opposed Trump. Suddenly the Bush's were "transformed" from scum of the earth...to moderate voices of reason!

How do you measure love? Is there a poll out their detailing support towards George W. Bush from the far left as you call it?

 

[rightwinger]

The far left started to like the Bush's again when Jeb and the rest of the clan opposed Trump. Suddenly the Bush's were "transformed" from scum of the earth...to moderate voices of reason!

How do you measure love? Is there a poll out their detailing support towards George W. Bush from the far left as you call it?

I like Bush 43 now that he can no longer be President

I doubt I can ever gather any respect for Trump

 

[deanrd]

Under Obama everyone on the right loved Bush and the left hated him. Now Bush is hated by the right and admired by the left.
When McCain/Romney ran against Obama they were supported by the right and despised by the left. Now those roles too have reversed.

I think it is a flawed personal trait when you don't have the courage to stick to your so called principles regardless of someone elses health condition. It's hard to take a lot of you serious.

Democrats have never hated any of those people.

That's what Republicans do.

 

[rightwinger]

Under Obama everyone on the right loved Bush and the left hated him. Now Bush is hated by the right and admired by the left.
When McCain/Romney ran against Obama they were supported by the right and despised by the left. Now those roles too have reversed.

I think it is a flawed personal trait when you don't have the courage to stick to your so called principles regardless of someone elses health condition. It's hard to take a lot of you serious.

Democrats have never hated any of those people.

That's what Republicans do.

Republicans hate Democrats and former Republicans as they embrace the flavor of the month