|
|
#111
10-23-2007, 05:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: San Diego in an AC world
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] i.e. pvn is pointing out that *you* advocate a system based on the *current continuance* of massive, ongoing institutionalized theft [/ QUOTE ] But wait, I didn't *do* anything. In pvn's world, I'm only liable if I've literally put a gun to someone's head and taken their money right out of their hands. I don't do this, or anything like it. Hey, if someone can come up with a claim against me and demonstrated that I've done that, I'd be happy to return their stolen tax money. But I don't collect taxes. I don't even own a gun. I've never knocked on your door with a tank and raided your bank account. Oh, sure, I may have incidentally benefited from said "theft" - I like roads and public schools, just like pvn enjoys his stolen land. But neither of us have any obligation to actually rectify this. If you think you've been stolen from, then make your claim with the appropriate parties. I'd have more details for you about how this kind of paradigm operates, but that's all I've been able to gather from pvn at this point. pvn, go ahead and explain further so Borodog can figure this out. I'm not exactly sure myself, so I can't really go further. But apparently Boro thinks this is pretty "unreal". [/ QUOTE ] There's the old intellectually dishonest dvaut1 we've been missing so long. We wondered where you went. Note that nobody said you put a gun to anyone's head. Do you advocate government? Yes or no, please. 
|
|
#112
10-23-2007, 06:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: San Diego in an AC world
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Why don't I force you to help kill some kid in Iraq? [/ QUOTE ] If you do so through the political process, no problem. [/ QUOTE ] Congratulations. [/ QUOTE ] Quite the banal point, but thanks! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#113
10-23-2007, 06:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: San Diego in an AC world
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I will say this, in AC land no one would have been forced from their home against their will. I know this sounds stupid to you nannies who live and breathe by the principle of forcing citizens to do themselves good, but there are few things done by our government that more blatantly trample your personal liberty and personal responsibility than a forced evacuation. natedogg [/ QUOTE ] top 10 most shortsighted things I have ever seen written. If they didn't do this we would see 100 stories in newspapers about how firefighters "left [the citizens] to die...". The biggest embarrassment are the people who refused to evacuate and then wasted rescuers time by needing to be rescued. [/ QUOTE ] 1. So it's our duty as citizens to obey our government's every command, and abandon our property immediately when ordered to? 2. There would be no public firefighters in AC land, so this problem would disappear entirely. Insurance companies would take great measures to ensure that their clients are safe, but they wouldn't forcefully remove them from their homes.
|
|
#114
10-23-2007, 06:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: San Diego in an AC world
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] i.e. pvn is pointing out that *you* advocate a system based on the *current continuance* of massive, ongoing institutionalized theft [/ QUOTE ] But wait, I didn't *do* anything. In pvn's world, I'm only liable if I've literally put a gun to someone's head and taken their money right out of their hands. I don't do this, or anything like it. [/ QUOTE ] This is false. You are like a strawman machine today. [/ QUOTE ] Then I welcome pvn to expound as to what degree I'm liable for the "current continuance of massive, ongoing organized institutionalized theft" if I'm merely strawmaning here. [ QUOTE ] Is it your claim that the person who hires the hitman is not guilty of murder? Is it your claim that this is pvn's claim? [/ QUOTE ] No, and no. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Hey, if someone can come up with a claim against me and demonstrated that I've done that, I'd be happy to return their stolen tax money. [/ QUOTE ] No, you wouldn't. [/ QUOTE ] Honestly, I wouldn't put a gun to someone's head and take their money. But let's say I was really drunk or just out of sorts, and I did do this. If I had, I would be glad to give them their money back. Seriously. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] But I don't collect taxes. I don't even own a gun. I've never knocked on your door with a tank and raided your bank account. [/ QUOTE ] Wait. I must have missed the part where any of the "ACists" were advocating that *you personally* be held accountable for the violent aggression undertaken by those in *government*. Unless you work for the government, which would explain A LOT. [/ QUOTE ] As far as I know, only one of us draws a salary from state funds, and it's not me. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Oh, sure, I may have incidentally benefited from said "theft" - I like roads and public schools, just like pvn enjoys his stolen land. But neither of us have any obligation to actually rectify this. [/ QUOTE ] True. [/ QUOTE ] Wait -- so which is it -- am I not at all responsible for the "current continuance of massive, ongoing institutionalized theft", or am I? If I'm responsible, then surely, I have some kind of obligation to rectify this. But you just said I didn't! I just pay my taxes, happily enjoy roads, attend a publically funded university (not anymore, but you catch my drift). And I don't work for the government. So let's go back to a bit earlier, where you said: "pvn is pointing out that *you* advocate a system based on the *current continuance* of massive, ongoing institutionalized theft". If you agree I'm not responsible for rectifying any of this, why is pvn pointing it out in the first place? According to you guys, I'm not guilty of anything, anyway.
|
|
#115
10-23-2007, 06:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: San Diego in an AC world
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] i.e. pvn is pointing out that *you* advocate a system based on the *current continuance* of massive, ongoing institutionalized theft [/ QUOTE ] But wait, I didn't *do* anything. In pvn's world, I'm only liable if I've literally put a gun to someone's head and taken their money right out of their hands. I don't do this, or anything like it. [/ QUOTE ] This is false. You are like a strawman machine today. [/ QUOTE ] Then I welcome pvn to expound as to what degree I'm liable for the "current continuance of massive, ongoing organized institutionalized theft" if I'm merely strawmaning here. [ QUOTE ] Is it your claim that the person who hires the hitman is not guilty of murder? Is it your claim that this is pvn's claim? [/ QUOTE ] No, and no. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Hey, if someone can come up with a claim against me and demonstrated that I've done that, I'd be happy to return their stolen tax money. [/ QUOTE ] No, you wouldn't. [/ QUOTE ] Honestly, I wouldn't put a gun to someone's head and take their money. But let's say I was really drunk or just out of sorts, and I did do this. If I had, I would be glad to give them their money back. Seriously. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] But I don't collect taxes. I don't even own a gun. I've never knocked on your door with a tank and raided your bank account. [/ QUOTE ] Wait. I must have missed the part where any of the "ACists" were advocating that *you personally* be held accountable for the violent aggression undertaken by those in *government*. Unless you work for the government, which would explain A LOT. [/ QUOTE ] As far as I know, only one of us draws a salary from state funds, and it's not me. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Oh, sure, I may have incidentally benefited from said "theft" - I like roads and public schools, just like pvn enjoys his stolen land. But neither of us have any obligation to actually rectify this. [/ QUOTE ] True. [/ QUOTE ] Wait -- so which is it -- am I not at all responsible for the "current continuance of massive, ongoing institutionalized theft", or am I? If I'm responsible, then surely, I have some kind of obligation to rectify this. But you just said I didn't! I just pay my taxes, happily enjoy roads, attend a publically funded university (not anymore, but you catch my drift). And I don't work for the government. So let's go back to a bit earlier, where you said: "pvn is pointing out that *you* advocate a system based on the *current continuance* of massive, ongoing institutionalized theft". If you agree I'm not responsible for rectifying any of this, why is pvn pointing it out in the first place? According to you guys, I'm not guilty of anything, anyway. [/ QUOTE ] There's also the little problem of an AC society essentially taking over for an existing government. In that case the roads (and the new "owners" of the roads) as well as anyone who claims ownership for infrastructure and such have all taken advantage (and would continue to take advantage) of the violence of government. Unless you were to start from scratch entirely, this is an unavoidable consequence. I think an appropriate AC response is that there are some things that are economically feasible to correct and some that aren't.
|
|
#116
10-23-2007, 06:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: San Diego in an AC world
[ QUOTE ]
Wait -- so which is it -- am I not at all responsible for the "current continuance of massive, ongoing institutionalized theft", or am I? If I'm responsible, then surely, I have some kind of obligation to rectify this. But you just said I didn't! [/ QUOTE ] I suppose one could make an argument that you have some culpability because you vote, but I just chalk that up to indoctrination. So, no, I don't think you are personally responsible. But you are advocating the current continuence of massive, ongoing institutionalized theft, which is bad. Duh. What's the problem? [ QUOTE ] I just pay my taxes, happily enjoy roads, attend a publically funded university (not anymore, but you catch my drift). And I don't work for the government. [/ QUOTE ] Good. Soon, I won't either. My conscience will be much clearer. [ QUOTE ] So let's go back to a bit earlier, where you said: "pvn is pointing out that *you* advocate a system based on the *current continuance* of massive, ongoing institutionalized theft". If you agree I'm not responsible for rectifying any of this, why is pvn pointing it out in the first place? According to you guys, I'm not guilty of anything, anyway. [/ QUOTE ] Because we're having an argument about the kind of system you advocate. Duh. We can argue with people who advocate Naziism who weren't in the SS or the Gestapo. Are you just going to argue endlessly about ridiculous points that have nothing to do with anything, getting farther and farther afield of the actual point? Which is that you advocate a society based on institutionalized, ongoing current theft and we don't? Regardless of the difficulty of resolving issues of stolen property from last century (which by the way, you still have yet to show government does any better than a free market would)? And why have none of you statists acknowledged that I completely answered the OP, which, if I recall correctly from the distant past, was something akin to, "How would the free market handle wildfires?", before it got silently dropped in favor of an ever more random string of strawmen?
|
|
#117
10-23-2007, 07:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: San Diego in an AC world
[ QUOTE ]
And why have none of you statists acknowledged that I completely answered the OP, which, if I recall correctly from the distant past, was something akin to, "How would the free market handle wildfires?", before it got silently dropped in favor of an ever more random string of strawmen? [/ QUOTE ] Ok. The question was: [ QUOTE ] How would the population of San Diego be better off w/r/t the current disaster if we were in an AC world rather than the statist world in which the Govt. is providing their current response. When answering, please specify which emergency services currently being provided by the gov't would be better provided in an AC world such that we San Diegans would be better off. [/ QUOTE ] I am happy to "concede" that: [ QUOTE ] In a free market world wildfires would be fought by firms that specialize in this task. Just like there are firms that specialize in fighting oil rig fires, for example. Red Adair and his company flew all over the world to fight these fires. At any given moment somewhere in the world is a wildfire that needs to be controlled. Competition would ensure that these companies were efficient, competent, and low cost (compared to the alternative of letting everything burn down at least). These firms would be contracted by the insurance companies that indemnify the home and business owners in the area threatened by the fires. They don't do this now because it isn't their job; the government tells people they will fight the fires. In fact, I have no specific knowledge, but I would be willing to bet some non-zero amount of money that it is illegal for non-government agencies to engage in combating wildfires (unless they are contracted by the government maybe). Insurance companies have a HUGE financial incentive to control wildfires. They have to pay out to every policy owner who's property is destroyed. Meanwhile, the government has little incentive beyond political pressure. The valiant men and women who are currently fighting the fires would be just as valiant in a free market. Meanwhile, insurance companies would have direct and large financial incentives to develop new and innovative firefighting techniques and technologies that we can't even imagine, as well as to incentivize preventative maintenance of wildfire-prone property. [/ QUOTE ] is Anacrocapitalism's "complete" answer to that question. Thanks! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#118
10-23-2007, 07:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: San Diego in an AC world
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] As much as it might shock you, assigning "rightful ownership" over property that was stolen well over a century ago from people who are long dead by people who are long dead is not some transparently obvious task. There is no objective way to do this [/ QUOTE ] Okay. So then what the [censored] is pvn talking about when he says this "society" is built on "ill-gotten gains". My response is: Okay? So are lots of people's houses. Are we to take action, or is it just noted for posterity, or what? [/ QUOTE ] The gains pvn refers to are ONGOING.
|
|
#119
10-23-2007, 07:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: San Diego in an AC world
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] And why have none of you statists acknowledged that I completely answered the OP, which, if I recall correctly from the distant past, was something akin to, "How would the free market handle wildfires?", before it got silently dropped in favor of an ever more random string of strawmen? [/ QUOTE ] Ok. The question was: [ QUOTE ] How would the population of San Diego be better off w/r/t the current disaster if we were in an AC world rather than the statist world in which the Govt. is providing their current response. When answering, please specify which emergency services currently being provided by the gov't would be better provided in an AC world such that we San Diegans would be better off. [/ QUOTE ] I am happy to "concede" that: [ QUOTE ] In a free market world wildfires would be fought by firms that specialize in this task. Just like there are firms that specialize in fighting oil rig fires, for example. Red Adair and his company flew all over the world to fight these fires. At any given moment somewhere in the world is a wildfire that needs to be controlled. Competition would ensure that these companies were efficient, competent, and low cost (compared to the alternative of letting everything burn down at least). These firms would be contracted by the insurance companies that indemnify the home and business owners in the area threatened by the fires. They don't do this now because it isn't their job; the government tells people they will fight the fires. In fact, I have no specific knowledge, but I would be willing to bet some non-zero amount of money that it is illegal for non-government agencies to engage in combating wildfires (unless they are contracted by the government maybe). Insurance companies have a HUGE financial incentive to control wildfires. They have to pay out to every policy owner who's property is destroyed. Meanwhile, the government has little incentive beyond political pressure. The valiant men and women who are currently fighting the fires would be just as valiant in a free market. Meanwhile, insurance companies would have direct and large financial incentives to develop new and innovative firefighting techniques and technologies that we can't even imagine, as well as to incentivize preventative maintenance of wildfire-prone property. [/ QUOTE ] is Anacrocapitalism's "complete" answer to that question. Thanks! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Close enough for government work. I am, after all, a state employee. You're lucky I got around to it at all.
|
|
#120
10-23-2007, 07:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: San Diego in an AC world
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] And why have none of you statists acknowledged that I completely answered the OP, which, if I recall correctly from the distant past, was something akin to, "How would the free market handle wildfires?", before it got silently dropped in favor of an ever more random string of strawmen? [/ QUOTE ] Ok. The question was: [ QUOTE ] How would the population of San Diego be better off w/r/t the current disaster if we were in an AC world rather than the statist world in which the Govt. is providing their current response. When answering, please specify which emergency services currently being provided by the gov't would be better provided in an AC world such that we San Diegans would be better off. [/ QUOTE ] I am happy to "concede" that: [ QUOTE ] In a free market world wildfires would be fought by firms that specialize in this task. Just like there are firms that specialize in fighting oil rig fires, for example. Red Adair and his company flew all over the world to fight these fires. At any given moment somewhere in the world is a wildfire that needs to be controlled. Competition would ensure that these companies were efficient, competent, and low cost (compared to the alternative of letting everything burn down at least). These firms would be contracted by the insurance companies that indemnify the home and business owners in the area threatened by the fires. They don't do this now because it isn't their job; the government tells people they will fight the fires. In fact, I have no specific knowledge, but I would be willing to bet some non-zero amount of money that it is illegal for non-government agencies to engage in combating wildfires (unless they are contracted by the government maybe). Insurance companies have a HUGE financial incentive to control wildfires. They have to pay out to every policy owner who's property is destroyed. Meanwhile, the government has little incentive beyond political pressure. The valiant men and women who are currently fighting the fires would be just as valiant in a free market. Meanwhile, insurance companies would have direct and large financial incentives to develop new and innovative firefighting techniques and technologies that we can't even imagine, as well as to incentivize preventative maintenance of wildfire-prone property. [/ QUOTE ] is Anacrocapitalism's "complete" answer to that question. Thanks! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Close enough for government work. I am, after all, a state employee. You're lucky I got around to it at all. [/ QUOTE ] ZING!
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
