Uneducated Police

[Bendira]

But if people decided they didn't like that system, they would vote for candidates to change the rules regarding party entry. It hasn't happened because people don't want it to happen. You act as if the two parties don't need to get elected at all...

There is no candidates like that, and there is never going to be candidates like that, because then the candidates themselves would have to forfeit their power.

And no, just that when the majority likes something, that is the way the law is going to be. No right or wrong, just the way it is. I'd take this system that balances the needs of the minority with the will of the majority over any other. So even if the majority supports something that would take away the rights of the minority, there is a system in place to protect them.

Its not a good argument to say "Thats the way it is". That dosn't make it moral. And there isn't a system in place to protect the minority. What if a man wants to smoke marijuana in the comfort of his own home. Suddenly his door gets kicked in, his dogs get shot and he gets tasered. Who protected his "rights"? He didn't support drug prohibition.

[Bendira]

What if I feel voting is immoral, because im imposing my will on others by way of force?

Then your belief system is silly.

Oh ok. So are you giving up?

[Msigroeg]

That dosn't make it moral.

Morality is subjective and is a terrible argument for a particular political ideology.

[Bendira]

Im not moving the goalposts by pointing out that your metaphorical example is fundamentally flawed, because the conditions within your example are not those of a free market. Thats like trying to compare the physical state of your hair in a wind storm, and in a period of calm.

You're as bad as those people who claim that "True Communism" will work whilst shrugging off all evidence to the contrary because the theory is nice and technically it hasn't been tried yet.

Whats the evidence to the contrary? I haven't heard you provide any yet? And also, I can disprove marxism right now.

People don't like to work for free.

[Farnhamia]

You haven't really proved the system is immoral in the first place...just that you don't like it. If they people wished, it could be a 200 party state. The people continually vote for two parties, so there are two parties. The system is geared towards two parties only because the people allow it to be that way, you may not like it, but the majority do.

Actually the reason there is only two parties is because the two parties actually control the means to enter the elections, and they do anything they can to bar third party entry. Also the media refuses to cover third party candidates.

Also, just because the majority likes something, means its right?

Here's a link to the official list of candidates in the Colorado elections this November. You'll notice that there are scads of people, not just Democrats and Republicans, running for office. If you're going to carry on about having an intelligent conversation here, it would do you some good to check your facts before pontificating.

[Sdaeriji]

Holy shit I can't even SEE the goalposts anymore.

Im not moving the goalposts by pointing out that your metaphorical example is fundamentally flawed, because the conditions within your example are not those of a free market. Thats like trying to compare the physical state of your hair in a wind storm, and in a period of calm.

You said

Underhanded business tactics leave you with no suppliers and no customers.

Neo Art gave an example of a company that employed underhanded business tactics that still has suppliers and customers.

You then made some claim about it not counting because it's not a true scotsman...err, free market.

Your original statement had nothing to do with a true free market.

You changed the framework of the argument after Neo Art provided a counter example to your claim.

This constitutes moving the goal posts.

You are literally the worst debater on this entire forum. It's stunning.

[Bendira]

That dosn't make it moral.

Morality is subjective and is a terrible argument for a particular political ideology.

Morality isn't subjective. Unprovoked aggression against others is universally considered unethical. Forming an ideology around that premise is actually a very good argument.

[Msigroeg]

Morality isn't subjective. Unprovoked aggression against others is universally considered unethical.

No, it isn't.

[Bendira]

Im not moving the goalposts by pointing out that your metaphorical example is fundamentally flawed, because the conditions within your example are not those of a free market. Thats like trying to compare the physical state of your hair in a wind storm, and in a period of calm.

You said

Underhanded business tactics leave you with no suppliers and no customers.

Neo Art gave an example of a company that employed underhanded business tactics that still has suppliers and customers.

You then made some claim about it not counting because it's not a true scotsman...err, free market.

Your original statement had nothing to do with a true free market.

You changed the framework of the argument after Neo Art provided a counter example to your claim.

This constitutes moving the goal posts.

You are literally the worst debater on this entire forum. It's stunning.

Actually, my claim that "underhanded business tactics leave you with no customers or suppliers" WAS refering to a free-market scenario. If you had actually read the topic, you might understand that. Also, nice unfounded personal insult.

[Sibirsky]

Id say it is. I wrote a research paper on how the two major parties, in conjunction with the media, block third party entry. If you actually think we are free because we get to choose between two dudes, then you need to do some more research.

They use legal methods to silence the competition?

Why, that's terrible. It sounds a little like your Anarcho-Capitalist paradise, actually, although you can replace "parties" with "corporations" and "media" with "private armies".

Either way, I enjoy not living in the good old USA.

There are many ways the Democrats and Republicans change laws to make sure they remain in power and to keep smaller parties out.

[Sdaeriji]

You said


Neo Art gave an example of a company that employed underhanded business tactics that still has suppliers and customers.

You then made some claim about it not counting because it's not a true scotsman...err, free market.

Your original statement had nothing to do with a true free market.

You changed the framework of the argument after Neo Art provided a counter example to your claim.

This constitutes moving the goal posts.

You are literally the worst debater on this entire forum. It's stunning.

Actually, my claim that "underhanded business tactics leave you with no customers or suppliers" WAS refering to a free-market scenario. If you had actually read the topic, you might understand that. Also, nice unfounded personal insult.

Actually, your claim was

Underhanded business tactics leave you with no customers or suppliers

not

Underhanded business tactics leave you with no customers or suppliers in a true free market

If you meant the latter, why did you say the former?

I wasn't insulting you. I was making an objective statement of fact.

[Bendira]

Morality isn't subjective. Unprovoked aggression against others is universally considered unethical.

No, it isn't.

Actually, it is. The reason why aggression has been historically commited against peaceful people was by way of nationalist/religous brainwashing. But if you take a normal rational person that hasn't been brainwashed with nationalism or religion, they will all agree that unprovoked aggression is wrong. Obviously if you believe in some invisible dude that tells you that killing people in his honor is ok, you have some major problems you need to solve.

[Msigroeg]

Whats the evidence to the contrary?

Shell Oil has already been given. The financial crisis in the UK, caused at least in part by vast deregulation of the banks is another. Enron is a third. And so on.

And also, I can disprove marxism right now.

People don't like to work for free.

You've never heard of voluntary work?

[Msigroeg]

The reason why aggression has been historically commited against peaceful people was by way of nationalist/religous brainwashing. But if you take a normal rational person that hasn't been brainwashed with nationalism or religion, they will all agree that unprovoked aggression is wrong. Obviously if you believe in some invisible dude that tells you that killing people in his honor is ok, you have some major problems you need to solve.

In other words, it isn't.

[Msigroeg]

There are many ways the Democrats and Republicans change laws to make sure they remain in power and to keep smaller parties out.

Such as?

Also, I think you'll find I never said otherwise.

[Bendira]

Actually, my claim that "underhanded business tactics leave you with no customers or suppliers" WAS refering to a free-market scenario. If you had actually read the topic, you might understand that. Also, nice unfounded personal insult.

Actually, your claim was

Underhanded business tactics leave you with no customers or suppliers

not

Underhanded business tactics leave you with no customers or suppliers in a true free market

If you meant the latter, why did you say the former?

I wasn't insulting you. I was making an objective statement of fact.

The second one I made was because I didn't feel like quoting my first one. If you look back at the context the first quote was made in, we were discussing business' in a free market.

The idea that its a "fact" that I am the worste debater on the forum is absurd. You have no way to provide evidence to support that. In fact, id argue that the mere assertion that I am the worste debator on the forums makes you CLOSER to the worste debator on the forums than I am. Because I atleast support my claims with some sort of evidence.

[Neo Art]

Im not moving the goalposts by pointing out that your metaphorical example is fundamentally flawed, because the conditions within your example are not those of a free market. Thats like trying to compare the physical state of your hair in a wind storm, and in a period of calm.

You're as bad as those people who claim that "True Communism" will work whilst shrugging off all evidence to the contrary because the theory is nice and technically it hasn't been tried yet.

I remember a joke once...it went something like this....

A farmer was having trouble getting milk from his cows. He wanted to increase their milk production. So he sent out requests to a biologist, an engineer, and a physicist.

A week later, the engineer wrote back, a one page letter which stated "your milk machine is inefficient, I've made some improvements", and a sketch of a modified design.

Three weeks later, the biologist responded. It was a one page letter that began "after careful analysis, I recommend the following feed and vitamin supplements for your cattle" and a list of them.

6 months later, the farmer received a response from the physicist. It was a 100 page thesis that began "first, let us assume perfectly spherical cows in a frictionless enviornment...."

[Bendira]

Actually the reason there is only two parties is because the two parties actually control the means to enter the elections, and they do anything they can to bar third party entry. Also the media refuses to cover third party candidates.

Also, just because the majority likes something, means its right?

Here's a link to the official list of candidates in the Colorado elections this November. You'll notice that there are scads of people, not just Democrats and Republicans, running for office. If you're going to carry on about having an intelligent conversation here, it would do you some good to check your facts before pontificating.

Nader is harassed yearly by the two major parties while trying to get his name on the ballot, and the media refuses to allow him to enter the debates or interview him.

As for that list you provided, theres no context. What the hell is it? Give me some background on it.

[Sdaeriji]

The second one I made was because I didn't feel like quoting my first one. If you look back at the context the first quote was made in, we were discussing business' in a free market.

The idea that its a "fact" that I am the worste debater on the forum is absurd. You have no way to provide evidence to support that. In fact, id argue that the mere assertion that I am the worste debator on the forums makes you CLOSER to the worste debator on the forums than I am. Because I atleast support my claims with some sort of evidence.

And the point goes sailing over your head.

[Old Erisia]

So you are comparing the monetary system of punishment by a state agency to an economic organization trying to manipulative environmental forces to earn revenue without actually producing anything. This doesn't seem to apply to the situation at all unless you are examining a Georgist economy.

Right. The police otherwise are funded by taxes. With a rent-seeking government the goal is allow police to collect at least a portion their funding from criminals, as incentive to do their job.

Thus, a policeman's job, philosophically, is to work and enforce law to support his existence.

The concept doesn't apply here if you are referring to the US police, because they are not dependent on these levies to continue as an entity. If the police worked that way, then the myth about ticket quotas would be true.

[Bendira]

There are many ways the Democrats and Republicans change laws to make sure they remain in power and to keep smaller parties out.

Such as?

Also, I think you'll find I never said otherwise.

One time, Nader got his required 10,000 signatures or whatever to be put on the presidential ballot for the state. He handed it in, however the two major parties threw it out because the specific type and size of the paper he used did not comply with a newly introduced law.

[Bendira]

The second one I made was because I didn't feel like quoting my first one. If you look back at the context the first quote was made in, we were discussing business' in a free market.

The idea that its a "fact" that I am the worste debater on the forum is absurd. You have no way to provide evidence to support that. In fact, id argue that the mere assertion that I am the worste debator on the forums makes you CLOSER to the worste debator on the forums than I am. Because I atleast support my claims with some sort of evidence.

And the point goes sailing over your head.

Why don't you tell me what your point is then?

[Neo Art]

I am equally amused by the apparent "refutation" of the Shell oil example because it's a "socialist" enviornment (and thus they're aided by the state) and not a "free market" one, considering:

1) the actions took place in NIGERIA, about as anarchy as you can get

2) the actual article I linked was about Britain considering taxing the company even HIGHER (rather the anthithesis of "government aid"

[Neo Art]

Here's a link to the official list of candidates in the Colorado elections this November. You'll notice that there are scads of people, not just Democrats and Republicans, running for office. If you're going to carry on about having an intelligent conversation here, it would do you some good to check your facts before pontificating.

Nader is harassed yearly by the two major parties while trying to get his name on the ballot, and the media refuses to allow him to enter the debates or interview him.

As for that list you provided, theres no context. What the hell is it? Give me some background on it.

Here's a link to the official list of candidates in the Colorado elections this November.

What the fuck more context could you possibly want? It's the primary and general election list for 2010 in colorado as issued by the secretary of state. You can tell that much just looking at the URL.

I agree with Sdaeriji here.

[Bendira]

I am equally amused by the apparent "refutation" of the Shell oil example because it's a "socialist" enviornment (and thus they're aided by the state) and not a "free market" one, considering:

1) the actions took place in NIGERIA, about as anarchy as you can get

2) the actual article I linked was about Britain considering taxing the company even HIGHER (rather the anthithesis of "government aid"

Shell's not a Nigerian company is it?