StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Surlethe wrote:

Terralthra wrote:Surlethe, it's not like you need the help at this point, but if you should need an example of free markets not working as Voluntaryist claims they will, you need only mention Hong Kong. Despite having little to no restriction on starting a business or owning a business, almost every industry is controlled by monopolies, cartels, and other forms of oligolopolies. New competitors are simply beaten down or bought out, and consumer prices and customer satisfaction are both among the worst in the developed world.

Thanks. He actually mentioned Hong Kong as an example of the good things about free markets; I took him at his word because the reply was taking long enough as-is and I didn't want to research all of his examples. If you have any links to outside sources verifying your description of Hong Kong, feel free to post them.

This is a good summary of why Hong Kong isn't an anarcho-libertarian dream country, and here is a monopoly story.

Cathay Pacific, Hong Kong's biggest air line, is a great example of monopoly power, as they have bought out, bought a majority stake, or driven under all real competitors in the HK market.

This is another interesting report, on a probe into suspected price fixing. My favorite paragraph is this one near the bottom:

Most other monopolies are, of course, under local control and await investigation. However, it would be premature to get too excited about the demolition of the web of cartels and monopolistic practices that result in high food, utility, banking and property costs for Hong Kong people.

I was listening to a story by the BBC World Service on it, but I'm afraid I can't find a link to that.

Graeme Dice wrote:

Sidewinder wrote:The person(s) who discover a cure for diabetes is GUARANTEED to win a Nobel Prize, so I don't think big pharma is thinking they'll make more money by forcing diabetics to buy insulin for the rest of their lives.

A Nobel prize has a cash value of about $1.7 million. This is a tiny, tiny, tiny amount of money for a pharmaceutical company (On the order of 0.1% of their multi-billion dollar marketing budgets).

What researcher would NOT be tempted by the prestige of winning a Nobel Prize? Furthermore, if a researcher wins a Nobel Prize, he/she can use this to attract investments from those who are impressed by this achievement.

Sidewinder wrote:

Graeme Dice wrote:

Sidewinder wrote:The person(s) who discover a cure for diabetes is GUARANTEED to win a Nobel Prize, so I don't think big pharma is thinking they'll make more money by forcing diabetics to buy insulin for the rest of their lives.

A Nobel prize has a cash value of about $1.7 million. This is a tiny, tiny, tiny amount of money for a pharmaceutical company (On the order of 0.1% of their multi-billion dollar marketing budgets).

What researcher would NOT be tempted by the prestige of winning a Nobel Prize? Furthermore, if a researcher wins a Nobel Prize, he/she can use this to attract investments from those who are impressed by this achievement.

With what money is the researcher going to do research in the first place? Sure there are universities that will fund some research, but Big Pharma has the big money.

You do realize that no one actually does research intentionally to try to get a Nobel Prize, correct? It's something that happens when someone discovers something really awesome, which may or may not have been their intent in the first place, like Warren and Marshall and their discovery of the bacterium that causes ulcers. They weren't trying to win the prize. They just wanted to know what caused ulcers, and they were willing to drink vials of the bacteria to prove it.

A lot of people think that research is just a matter of personal will. What they don't realize is that the failed research is done by people who could have been trying just as hard as the successful researchers. Sometimes, you spend a long time on what turns out to be a dead end. I knew one guy who quit the entire research field after that happened to him one too many times. He ended up working in a toilet paper plant, and he was happy.

So does Valleytard have until midnight tonight PDT to respond or did I miss his surrender?

Darth Servo wrote:So does Valleytard have until midnight tonight PDT to respond or did I miss his surrender?

Im working on it right now. I just sent a pm to Darth Wong and Surlethe about it.

I should have it posted by midnight tonight, Pacific Standard Time. I want to be sure to avoid the formatting problems that my last post had, and while it is likely that Ill have it ready in time, I cant guarantee that my reply will be ready by midnight 12:00 PST.

But I can guarantee that I will post my reply before I go to bed. Worst case scenario I would post it at like 1 or 2 am. Regardless, it will be posted by the time everyone wakes up on Saturday.

Voluntaryist wrote:

Darth Servo wrote:So does Valleytard have until midnight tonight PDT to respond or did I miss his surrender?

Im working on it right now. I just sent a pm to Darth Wong and Surlethe about it.

I should have it posted by midnight tonight, Pacific Standard Time. I want to be sure to avoid the formatting problems that my last post had, and while it is likely that Ill have it ready in time, I cant guarantee that my reply will be ready by midnight 12:00 PST.

But I can guarantee that I will post my reply before I go to bed. Worst case scenario I would post it at like 1 or 2 am. Regardless, it will be posted by the time everyone wakes up on Saturday.

Make sure you don't repeat the same points as before again.

or constantly asking for extensions for what?

a new thesarus, so you can repeat the same damn words slightly differently?

The Vortex Empire wrote:

Voluntaryist wrote:

Darth Servo wrote:So does Valleytard have until midnight tonight PDT to respond or did I miss his surrender?

Im working on it right now. I just sent a pm to Darth Wong and Surlethe about it.

I should have it posted by midnight tonight, Pacific Standard Time. I want to be sure to avoid the formatting problems that my last post had, and while it is likely that Ill have it ready in time, I cant guarantee that my reply will be ready by midnight 12:00 PST.

But I can guarantee that I will post my reply before I go to bed. Worst case scenario I would post it at like 1 or 2 am. Regardless, it will be posted by the time everyone wakes up on Saturday.

Make sure you don't repeat the same points as before again.

You mean like Surlethe is doing?

Voluntaryist wrote:

The Vortex Empire wrote:

Voluntaryist wrote: Im working on it right now. I just sent a pm to Darth Wong and Surlethe about it.

I should have it posted by midnight tonight, Pacific Standard Time. I want to be sure to avoid the formatting problems that my last post had, and while it is likely that Ill have it ready in time, I cant guarantee that my reply will be ready by midnight 12:00 PST.

But I can guarantee that I will post my reply before I go to bed. Worst case scenario I would post it at like 1 or 2 am. Regardless, it will be posted by the time everyone wakes up on Saturday.

Make sure you don't repeat the same points as before again.

You mean like Surlethe is doing?

Don't you even think about trying to sell that bullshit around here, Skippy. You have repeatedly dodged challenges to answer basic questions about how your anarchist paradise could work in practical terms. Not just from Surlethe but everybody on this board. You have repeatedly put up a ridiculous strawman of both government in general and democratic government in particular and continue to do so even after being called on it multiple times. You keep putting up Somalia as being "better off" since its government collapsed even after having it pointed out to you what a chaotic, murderous shithole the place actually is. We won't even get into your general, embarassing ignorance about the specific history of aerospace, or of how the judiciary functions.

So take the attitude and cram it.

I guess to a deluded idiot teenager being confronted with reality that shatters his Randian masturbation could sound like a broken record. otherwise your projecting little boy.

Voluntaryist wrote:You mean like Surlethe is doing?

Ha. It's funny because you think you're being clever.

Voluntaryist wrote:I want to be sure to avoid the formatting problems that my last post had

There is a real quick easy way to do that. See that little button right next to "submit" marked "preview"?

but that would be impossing on his right to do self deluded un-wyswyg posting...

Yeah, the anarchist insists everyone automatically will remain civilized in his pipe dream fantasy while he refuses to be bound by the simple rules of a bbs.

That's of course because they are selfish bastards, but are believing that others are supposed to be their convient sheep.

And its 1:20 in California now and still no response. You'd think it wouldn't take this long to simply regurgitate and repeat all his bullshit.

Seriously. It's going to be 4 days at 4:36pm today. C'mon Mike, lay some wood man.

Oh, Volly is at it again.Now he tries to claim the USSR didn't really destroy Nazi Germany, because:

And while the USSR beat the snot out of the Nazis, it lost many more soldiers and suffered far heavier losses and had inferior equipment compared to the Nazis. The Russians in fact got lots of their best war supplies from the US, and if it wasn’t for the support from its free-market allies, the USSR would have likely been overrun by the Nazis.

Yes, gentlemen. Some of the best weapons of the war, like the T-34, the Il-2, excellent Mig fighters, the PPsh-34, the IS-2 and the Kaytusha...

Were supplied to the USSR by lend-lease!

I can't wait for Stas to see this one

Now, Surlethe, can you in turn construct a realistic governmental society which could not eventually have another government take over?

Oh, jesus fucking christ.

France.

Unless of course he thinks that a revolution is "another government taking over"

Surlethe, you should do simple mathematics to show him up:

A single advanced jet fighter costs around 30 million bucks a pop.

IF we have two societies, one governed and one not, with a GDP of, say 300 trillion dollars...

Society one, which is governed, spends 300 billion on it's military (10% of GDP) and is able to afford 10 thousand such airplanes.

Society two is voluntaryist and has twenty security companies competing for customers. Overall, it spends TWENTY percent of GDP on the military, and so is able to afford 20 thousand airplanes overall.

But the biggest security company, with a 20% market share, can only field 4000 aircraft and will, of course, be completely owned by the governed society.

Unless he thinks everybody in a viciously competitive market will suddendly band together to resist an invasion. What stops society A from simply buying off the biggest security company and setting it on others?

--------------------------------------

EDIT2: I just thought of something

EXAMPLES OF VOLUNTARYIST LOGIC

That governs best which governs the least, therefore we should get rid fo all government.

Submarines are harder to detect when moving slow, therefore all submarines should remain stationary at all times.

It is easier to feed a small population, therefore we should kill all humans to solve world hunger.

The less complicated a spacecraft is, the less it is likely to fail, therefore we should only launch solid metal pebbles into orbit.

The warmer the weather, the less chance of freezing to death, therefore we should increase global mean temperature to 600 degrees.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Voluntaryist, apparently does not know of the Laffer Curve Effect: that there is an optimal point at which further adjustment of a variable stops bringing in benefits, and starts bringing harm.

It just reinforces my view he doesn't know shit about basic economic concepts

A day late and the same old bullshit all over again. Throw him to the lions.

<yawn> I couldn't even make it through his response. "No, you provide evidence for your side"

Darth Servo wrote:<yawn> I couldn't even make it through his response. "No, you provide evidence for your side"

Surlethe: The Sun rises in the East, and always has
Voluntaryist: The sun should rise in the West! It is a superior option!
Surlethe: Prove your assertion
Voluntaryist: It is better for the sun to rise in the West, so it should do so.
Surlethe: But it's impossible to make the sun rise in the West. It will rise in the East whatever you do.
Voluntaryist: Prove your assertion!

Somehow, volly seems to think Surlethe should prove that a model of human society which existed for 25 thousand years in many forms (and resulted in our current civilization!) requires the same burden of proof as a new, untested system full of holes.

Go figure.

And another useless repetition of old arguments, straw-mans, etc.

Voluntaryist doesn't realize that he wants to change the status-quo and therefore has to provide a rationale for doing such. Surlethe only has to show that the proposed change is a negative one. Voluntaryist does not realize that the burden of proof is on him, not on Surlethe. Voluntaryist does not realize what Darth Wong wrote in the OP in the Colliseum:

Darth Wong wrote: * Voluntaryist, arguing in favour of anarchism
* Surlethe, arguing against anarchism

It does not say "Surlethe arguing for governmentalism."

Voluntaryist continues showcasing his tremendous lack of knowledge about governments. He continually harps on about the "ruling class" in governments, not realizing that only certain types of government have a ruling class. He continually harps on about individuals not having a check or balance to their government, failing to realize that most modern government systems (with a few exceptions) have those checks and balances integrated into them through voting. He absolutely misses the point, that ultimately a government system can fail and be replaced with a new one (for example through revolutions or uprisings, of which many have occured over the years), and that generally the new government system implemented tries to correct the negatives that lead to the failing of the old system (a good example would be the German democratic system which has, after failing to the rise of Nazism, implemented a lot of checks in order to make such a rise extremely unlikely).

Voluntaryist constantly harps on about the inherent unfairness in democratic systems in regard to the non-ruling minority, failing to realize that there are numerous checks implemented in order to limit this unfairness (for example through basic rights inherent to every person), and also failing to realize that majorities and minorities are not monolithic blocks that stick together for all issues, but are instead comprised of different groups of people for different issues. He continually harps on about the "utopianism" of government systems, failing to realize that the very fact that the vast majority of the world is a lot better off now than before there were governments (somewhere in the Stone Age I guess) points to the positive effects such governments have.

In short: Voluntaryist has failed to show any support for his argument that Voluntaryism is better than "governmentalism." He has shown a complete lack of understanding about "governmentalism" and is therefore unlikely to present any new evidence in this matter.

I repeat my suggestion to drop the entire aspect of Voluntaryism vs "governmentalism" and concentrate completely on the utter impossibility of implementing a Voluntaryist-type society and keeping it from rapidly turing into a "governmentalist" society through the rise of "warlordism".

In that respect, I'll just concentrate on the little he has brought up in that regard:

Voluntaryist wrote: That is easy to construct mentally, but takes lots of typing to explain. Ill try to shorten it down quite a bit, although it will be oversimplified. Free markets and competition improve efficiency, as well as allow for the consumers to pursue the level of defensive capability that they deem sufficient. Consumers will be free to defend their open markets from takeovers by monopolies and governments through both economic and physical means. A declawed population is a vulnerable one, but a well defended population is a dangerous one to start a fight with. Combine this with the improved efficiency of the markets, and a free society will get more “bang for the buck” in their defensive system investments than will a governmental one. It stacks the odds in favor of the free society.

In essence, his entire argument here ignores any economic, societal aspects and completely focuses on the military defense aspect. This completely missed the fact that the largest danger to a Voluntaryist-type society is NOT outside aggression, but internal aggression between various groups vying for power. He does not show a mechanism through which individuals can defend themselves or protect themselves from larger groups. This means that individuals are forced to band together for their own protection. This means that these bands have to provide rules with which to decide things. This means that these bands have to provide rules with which to punish people who break their rules. People will not have a chance to stay out of these groups (or rather out of the influence of these groups), as they will be limited by geographical distances and other things. There will then either exist a huge number of small groups constantly vying for control over parts of the cits/state/country/globe (meaning constant warfare and a quick disbanding of society and a rapid descent to the Stone Age), or a few larger groups will start to take control over large parts of the same. These will be groups that either were the strongest in a military sense, or groups that have the greatest support from the populace, or (more likely) a healthy mix of the two. Unsurprisingly, we have such groups today - they are called governments.

Let Voluntaryist show a mechanism that stops this from happening. And vague pointing at Voluntaryism only recognizing mutual consent doesn't work, because this needs someone to enforce this rule - which only governments can do.

Well Volley, nice job repeating all of your already refuted points yet again.

Can we throw him to the lions now?