StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Patrick Degan wrote:

kinnison wrote:

Do you actually think that records-keeping and data management are useless activities?"

Yes - mostly.

Really? Very well, Mr. Kinnison, you will kindly outline for the class just how governmental operations can be successfully carried out without records-keeping and data management —basic and necessary organisational tasks.

Actually, no I won't. The real question is how much of the data collection and management is actually necessary or useful in the first place. A job not worth doing is not worth doing well.

On the larger issue: It seems to me that this whole argument is one between completely irreconcilable opposites. One is that officers of the State know better than any individual how to best employ his money and the other is the exact reverse.

There are two necessary functions of government; defence against enemies (within and without) and maintenance of a stable money supply. Everything else is optional, although there is a hierarchy of government functions of increasing debatability regarding their necessity; maintenance of a usable transport system is possibly next on the list, and it continues in the direction of decreasing certainty.

Even the defence requirement can be corrupted, as evidenced by the fact that the Royal Navy has more flag officers than ships.

There is an extremely strong tendency in any bureaucracy to serve the interests and comfort of its members rather than the purpose for which it was originally designed. This leads to empire building and to the rigid application of rules whether such application actually makes any sense or not. Examples are legion. And commonsense in a bureaucrat is usually punished or at least a poor career move.

Elected officials are hardly immune from this disease, either; the recent expenses scandals among MPs are an example of that.

All this leads to immensely expensive government that can't even get the basics right; as an example in my town, the local town hall has recently been refurbished with such necessities as £100 per roll wallpaper and designer desks, despite the fact that the council offices will be moved again to new premises within a couple of years; meanwhile, there are potholes all over the streets and a good part of the town floods a few inches deep every time it rains. But who cares? It's only taxpayers' money, and it's not as if they have any choice about paying up.

The Kinnison Plan for government spending reduction: Go through the employee list, and fire every third person on it. It's extremely unlikely anyone not related to one of them will ever notice.

I don't claim any of this to be an argument. I am just heartily sick of government flunkies grabbing my hard-earned money and throwing it away. Or giving it to their friends.

'Even' the defence requirement can be corrupted? Fire 33% of the public service AT RANDOM? You're a fucking moron. Oh noes the government took my money and SPENT IT ON SHIT I DON'T AGREE WITH BECAUSE I'M A LOLBERTARIAN. My one vote isn't enough to counteract all the dirty unwashed brown people, so it's UNFAIR SOMEHOW!

Kinnison persists on pretending that one must choose between believing in all-knowing government overlords and rejecting the idea of organized government almost entirely. This black/white fallacy is, of course, merely the latest in his long line of crimes against intelligence. In fact, the fallacy of this reasoning has been pointed out to him repeatedly, and he has responded only by mindlessly repeating it with slightly different words, much like the way a religious person thinks his doctrine becomes more reasonable if he simply repackages it the right way.

He speaks often of the sins of the government daring to take "my money". Does he believe that his achievements were formed in a vacuum, totally independent of the interwoven fabric of modern technological society which would not exist without large organized government?

Not only does government take 'his money', but it then spends it on worthless programs that don't work (ps they do work) voted for by OTHER PEOPLE, even people he DOESN'T IDENTIFY WITH. Clearly this is 'extortion', that money is gathered from the population and spent at the discretion of elected representatives. It should, rather, be spent at HIS discretion, or not gathered at all. Fuck the poor and all their voting power!

I especially like the way he brought up "envy" as a driving force for progressive taxation even after I pilloried him for trying to transform the issue into a childish matter of psychological projection and motives. He's just a clueless, selfish man-child who is incapable of discussing theoretical abstract concepts in a rational way, hence he tries to turn issues of public policy into simplistic matters of nice or nasty personality traits.

Still waiting for Kinnison to explain his view on history....

Anyone willing to bet against my assumption that I won't even get a single cite out of him?

Thanas wrote:Still waiting for Kinnison to explain his view on history....

Anyone willing to bet against my assumption that I won't even get a single cite out of him?

I think we all know he just copied his claims verbatim from libertarian blogs and websites, and has never bothered learning any of the background necessary to see if they are true.

The idea of using European countries as an example of why large government and social welfare is terrible and bad strikes me as stupid.

Stark wrote:The idea of using European countries as an example of why large government and social welfare is terrible and bad strikes me as stupid.

It's quite typical in America. Remember that most Americans are told over and over and over again in their media that America is THE GREATEST COUNTRY GOD EVER GAVE TO THE WORLD, so you can discredit virtually any idea by simply pointing out that foreign (read: inferior) countries have already tried it. You don't even need to produce real objective evidence showing it was harmful; you just need to point out that Boring Brits or Faggy Froggies or Gay Germans or Kooky Canadians tried it, then point out something about their societies you don't like, connect the dots, and that pretty much shoots it down for more than half of your listening audience in the US.

Thanas wrote:Still waiting for Kinnison to explain his view on history....

Anyone willing to bet against my assumption that I won't even get a single cite out of him?

The application of liberatarian worldview to German history shouldn't survive contact with the First or Second Sammlung, or Krupp's relationship with the House of Hohenzollern.

Post #1773, somewhat ironically.

kinnison wrote:

Patrick Degan wrote:Really? Very well, Mr. Kinnison, you will kindly outline for the class just how governmental operations can be successfully carried out without records-keeping and data management —basic and necessary organisational tasks.

Actually, no I won't.

Translation: you can't. How predictable.

The real question is how much of the data collection and management is actually necessary or useful in the first place. A job not worth doing is not worth doing well.

That question is quite easily answered simply by pointing to the scope of tasks government is mandated to perform, which dictates the organisational level required to manage them. Pithy little aphorisms aren't a proof of dick.

On the larger issue: It seems to me that this whole argument is one between completely irreconcilable opposites. One is that officers of the State know better than any individual how to best employ his money and the other is the exact reverse.

No, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with your black/white fallacies.

There are two necessary functions of government; defence against enemies (within and without) and maintenance of a stable money supply. Everything else is optional, although there is a hierarchy of government functions of increasing debatability regarding their necessity; maintenance of a usable transport system is possibly next on the list, and it continues in the direction of decreasing certainty.

No, in any properly functioning society, the purpose of government is also to provide services, enforce the laws, administer justice with due consideration for the rights of citizens, and protect the weak. I'm sorry if the concepts of a modern civilisation are beyond your puny mind to grasp.

Even the defence requirement can be corrupted, as evidenced by the fact that the Royal Navy has more flag officers than ships.

Non-sequitur. Also untrue.

There is an extremely strong tendency in any bureaucracy to serve the interests and comfort of its members rather than the purpose for which it was originally designed. This leads to empire building and to the rigid application of rules whether such application actually makes any sense or not. Examples are legion. And commonsense in a bureaucrat is usually punished or at least a poor career move.

Elected officials are hardly immune from this disease, either; the recent expenses scandals among MPs are an example of that.

All this leads to immensely expensive government that can't even get the basics right; as an example in my town, the local town hall has recently been refurbished with such necessities as £100 per roll wallpaper and designer desks, despite the fact that the council offices will be moved again to new premises within a couple of years; meanwhile, there are potholes all over the streets and a good part of the town floods a few inches deep every time it rains. But who cares? It's only taxpayers' money, and it's not as if they have any choice about paying up.

That's certainly the position only if you choose to cherry-pick the evidence and ignore every fact which doesn't suit an ideological world-view.

The Kinnison Plan for government spending reduction: Go through the employee list, and fire every third person on it. It's extremely unlikely anyone not related to one of them will ever notice.

The Kinnison Plan is a rather stupidly draconian one for reasons which are all too obvious. Not that I expect you to grasp this, of course.

I don't claim any of this to be an argument. I am just heartily sick of government flunkies grabbing my hard-earned money and throwing it away. Or giving it to their friends.

As has been pointed out, your entire existence as you know it is due to the fact of a functioning modern civilisation which has made possible the comfortable lifestyle you enjoy as opposed to places which have exactly as little government as you'd wish for. The taxes you pay are part of the price of maintaining that society.

And no, as you said, your position is not an argument. It's just whiny lolbertarian bullshit based on ignorance and the fact that poor widdle you doesn't get his own way in everything.

It seems obvious by now that Kinnison has never had to defend an argument in an academic setting, because he clearly does not know how to do it. He's accustomed to the moron water cooler style of discussion where you repeatedly preach "common sense truths" along with snippets of fact which are consistent with those "truths".

Darth Wong wrote:

Stark wrote:The idea of using European countries as an example of why large government and social welfare is terrible and bad strikes me as stupid.

It's quite typical in America. Remember that most Americans are told over and over and over again in their media that America is THE GREATEST COUNTRY GOD EVER GAVE TO THE WORLD, so you can discredit virtually any idea by simply pointing out that foreign (read: inferior) countries have already tried it. You don't even need to produce real objective evidence showing it was harmful; you just need to point out that Boring Brits or Faggy Froggies or Gay Germans or Kooky Canadians tried it, then point out something about their societies you don't like, connect the dots, and that pretty much shoots it down for more than half of your listening audience in the US.

Sadly, I wish he was American. At least then it would be par for the raving norm.

Wrong in fact, and in your interpretation of what I was saying. Wrong in fact, because I have neither representative nor senators for the simple reason that I am English.

Really, speaks volumes on the insanity of it all in some ways.

There are Canadians who act like that too. Of course, when you actually talk to them, it doesn't take too long to get them to admit that they would rather be Americans, and I don't see much point in making a distinction between Americans and American-wannabes.

I still remember one coworker who came into work laughing about how Ted Nugent had gone off on an extended rant against Canadians, and spent the next half hour ranting about how he's so right about "them, I mean us". Quite revealing, especially since he made that Freudian slip more than once.

"No, in any properly functioning society, the purpose of government is also to provide services, enforce the laws, administer justice with due consideration for the rights of citizens, and protect the weak. I'm sorry if the concepts of a modern civilisation are beyond your puny mind to grasp."

Provide services? Which ones are beyond the ability of private industry to provide? 40 years ago in my country it was assumed that only government could properly administer the railway system. Strangely enough, 40 years on we have a railway system that works about as well, run by private industry. Just an example. Gas, electricity and water supplies are a few more.

There are of course a fair number of services that government provides that private industry could not; they are largely in the regulatory sphere and, with a stretch, could be shoehorned into the "defense against enemies within and without" section. (the enemies within being essentially criminals). The criminal justice system is another; defence is clearly the correct sphere for that. Education? NO. It is perfectly possible to educate children privately. Now, I have to agree that having a properly educated population is essential for a functioning society - but does it have to be state employees doing it? What's wrong with a voucher system, to be applied only when a family can't afford to educate their kids? Note that education even (or especially!) in the UK is NOT free - it costs a very great deal of money, increased by a layer of bureaucracy introduced because the system is run by the State.

The same applies to health care. Maybe, just maybe, provision of health care should be viewed as a right, and people should be required to provide for their own care (by buying insurance, probably, in most cases) by law. But why does it have to be a state-run organisation that does it? Unnecessary bureaucracy again.

By the way, regarding the "admirals vs. ships" issue, try this link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... shows.html

My apologies, but I can't work out how to attach a URL to text on this forum, hence the long link.

of course, it is just possible that one or two of those admirals has been retired by now and therefore there are not actually more admirals than ships; but a number that's almost equal is almost as bad. i've been checking again, and apparently officers of flag rank are not now automatically flag officers in the RN. My bad. If I'd actually originally written "more admirals than ships"...

So, back to you, Mr. Degan. Apart from administering the money supply, the justice system, law enforcement and defence of the realm, what are those "essential services" that only government can be trusted with; and in any case, why for most of them does it have to be people directly employed by the State that actually provide them at the point of use?

kinnison wrote:Provide services? Which ones are beyond the ability of private industry to provide?

Anything which qualifies as a public good and which people cannot be excluded from using, because private industry cannot be profitable without exclusion. This principle is well-established, moron.

There are of course a fair number of services that government provides that private industry could not; they are largely in the regulatory sphere ...

See above.

Education? NO. It is perfectly possible to educate children privately. Now, I have to agree that having a properly educated population is essential for a functioning society - but does it have to be state employees doing it?

Find examples of industrialized states which became successful without strong public education systems.

The same applies to health care.

See above, fool. Private industry makes money through exclusion. No private industry ever made money without being able to tell people: "If you don't we pay us enough to make us happy, then we won't serve you."

Maybe, just maybe, provision of health care should be viewed as a right

Ah yes, a "rights" wanker. Who cares whether it's a right? What matters is whether it is an ethical requirement for a humane society.

and people should be required to provide for their own care (by buying insurance, probably, in most cases) by law. But why does it have to be a state-run organisation that does it? Unnecessary bureaucracy again.

Evidence has no effect on you, does it? You just spout your generalizations about what should be done, and you don't give a damn whether you can produce a shred of evidence to back up your claims about how well they would work. You're like a creationist twit who mumbles some vague qualitative nonsense about how tectonic plate upthrust could have accounted for Flood geology.

Tell me Kinnison, have you ever taken any kind of university course? Do you know how to formulate and defend an argument?

Hint: the correct method is not to simply state your beliefs over and over.

kinnison wrote: By the way, regarding the "admirals vs. ships" issue, try this link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... shows.html

My apologies, but I can't work out how to attach a URL to text on this forum, hence the long link.

Right, because an article from a popular newspaper is more reliable then the navy itself on the matter? Right...

Oh, and about linkdressing, Its in the fucking FAQ/intro for noobs.

Link dressing is less important nowadays, since the software automatically shortens long URLs.

"Find examples of industrialized states which became successful without strong public education systems."

How about Victorian England? Sure, it had public education - but it was NOT run by the government. And it was fairly successful, I think you will agree.

Navy vs. the Telegraph on the subject of admirals and ships; the Navy indeed has less flag officers than ships at the moment. The question is in the definition of a flag officer as opposed to an officer of flag rank - as of now, the two are not the same; not all admirals are entitled to a flag. ("Admirals" being defined for this purpose as officers with "admiral" in their rank title, which is in accordance with convention). The existence of that distinction is news to me; you learn something new every day!

As of the date of that article, there were 41 admirals in the RN and 40 ships. Both numbers are matters of public record. I can't find any more recent data.

Even IF the RN has more admirals than ships, it would still be up to Kinnison to prove that this was actually a sign of inefficiency. Not every admiral commands a ship - doctors for example may reach admiral rank after taking over a certain command post in the USA - and what about all the support mechanisms that are commanded by Navy officers?

The statement that the RN might have more admirals than ships is as worthless as me saying that a soccer team has more than 11 players on their payroll.

Also - I still await your explanation for your views on Germany.

Akhlut wrote:Taft was a Republican and the amendment was passed in February 1912, one month before Wilson was in office.

I stand corrected on the timing of the amendment's passage; oops. Wilson oversaw (I don't know for sure, but he was probably not directly involved) the implementation of the income tax. The amendment's proposal by a Republican in my mind lends more weight to the "grab more money and spend as we see fit" motivation behind the passage of the 16th. As an aside, the Federal Reserve was created on Wilson's watch, a clear delegation of Congressional powers to a private entity (though responsible to Congress, in theory). Yeah, that's worked out great...not.

kinnison wrote:
Provide services? Which ones are beyond the ability of private industry to provide?

er...all the one's needed for society that when the chips are down and a private industry would close the doors, the government will keep open. Here is a novel concept for you that I don't think you ever thought about; some things are needed enough in society that they should be run even if running it looses money. Or only makes money indirectly.

The freeway system in the US makes zero in funds, sure some state roads are toll and thus make money, but the interstate freeway system does not. Yet we spend millions per year on maintaining it because? Because the freaking economy would grind to a halt without a fast reliable way for goods to move around the country. If private interests held the roads, they'd shut down the ones not making them a profit, goods would take longer to move around, prices would go up and the economy would drop.

I know you're English but surely you've heard about all the fucked up things on this side of the pond the last year or two? The Greatest Healthcare system money can buy sucks, thank you private industry. The power grids suck as does the energy sector, thanks to massive deregulation last decade. And of course the Financial system just imploded from the sheer greed of the private sector.

The old axiom of 'private sector can always run it better than government' rings hallow since I don't see how government can run it into the ground any worse than the private sector.

I still want to know if Kinnison thinks that old pensioners should be disenfranchised while the bank executives who helped ruin the global economy should still be allowed to vote.

I also still want to know why rich people, who get more out of government, should pay proportionately less than poor people.


Also, I'm curious as to what he would do if as soon as his whacky poll tax, the remaining voters decided to eliminate it and give the franchise back to everyone who could get it prior to the poll tax.

Further, if the people vote in socialism, what would he do about it? Go live in the wilds of the Scottish Highlands or something? Move to Somalia?

Count Chocula wrote:As an aside, the Federal Reserve was created on Wilson's watch, a clear delegation of Congressional powers to a private entity (though responsible to Congress, in theory). Yeah, that's worked out great...not.

The Federal Reserve is one reason why there haven't been more frequent and deeper depressions than what this country's experienced since it's creation by helping to guarantee bank liquidity. So yeah, it actually has worked out great, along with other innovations such as the FDIC and taking the currency off the gold standard. Try actually studying a subject you're going to blow your fool mouth off on sometime.