13-01-2003 09:09									#61
	Remove this text

GP- "You're like a little kid or something"

I'm enjoying discussions with Berzerker as we seem to be making some progress. Why don't you can the insults? It doesn't help your case.

"Just biological differences - brain waves, heart, etc. A zygote is better classified as a potential human IMO, but I haven't come to a hard conclusion about when a person becomes a person with regards to the law. I figure that if I'm legally dead when I cease having certain bodily functions, then the same would apply on the other end, except of course for the element of potential. "

Berzerker-

Your analogy is fine, except that brain death is generally referred to the irreversable cessation of brain activity. People who are in comas are still persons even though they do not have current functioning brain capacity. The important word is irreversable. The same is true for heart functioning. People who have open heart surgery can have their heart stopped and restarted, yet they do not cease to be persons.

From both these examples, personhood consists of inherent capacity to function, rather than current capacity. Thus, while the zygote may not currently function as a newborn; as a human being, the zygote retains an inherent capacity to function.

Thanks for reminding me of CS Lewis. In the Abolition of Man, CS Lewis notes that while other religions contain variations of the Golden Rule, Christianity was the first to state the rule in the positive form. Instead of, "do not to do others what you would not have done to you, Christianity insists on the positive version, 'do unto others what you want to have done to you.' The difference is that Christianity desires a positive improvement, rather than a modicum of respect.

	13-01-2003 09:09									#62
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Kontiki -

quote: Am I the only one enjoying the whole "American Revolution was funded by lotteries" bit? Without assistance from other, extremely non-libertarian states, the lottery-funded revolutionaries would have been crushed by the British. That hardly seems like a good success story for the ability of non-taxation to fund an effective military.

Where did I say ONLY lotteries funded the American Revolution? I've repeatedly said voluntary donations were given too.

	13-01-2003 09:13									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Yes. You are a self-parody. Very clever.

	13-01-2003 09:22									#64
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Kontiki - Where did I say ONLY lotteries funded the American Revolution? I've repeatedly said voluntary donations were given too.

Yahoo for private donations. The point is that the American Revolution would have been easily put down by the British had other states not intervened (and not in funding the revolutionaries) because they saw an opportunity to undermine British strength. If you think that any combination of lotteries, voluntary donations, etc. would have won the Revolution without outside help, you're seriously deluding yourself.

	13-01-2003 09:24									#65
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Obiwan -

quote: Why don't you can the insults? It doesn't help your case.

He seems to think so, I guess if you don't have an argument, insulting people often enough will convince some people you do have an argument.

quote: Berzerker- Your analogy is fine, except that brain death is generally referred to the irreversable cessation of brain activity. People who are in comas are still persons even though they do not have current functioning brain capacity.

The comatose still have brainwave activity. Usually their brains are still running most of the body while the brain tries to heal.

quote: The important word is irreversable.

Agreed, which is why I referred to "the element of potential". Brain"death" lacks that potential where as the zygote is gaining brain capacity.

quote: The same is true for heart functioning. People who have open heart surgery can have their heart stopped and restarted, yet they do not cease to be persons.

True, I said there were a number of bodily functions that have to cease before one is legally dead. It may be limited now to just brainwaves though.

quote: From both these examples, personhood consists of inherent capacity to function, rather than current capacity.

Agreed.

quote: Thus, while the zygote may not currently function as a newborn; as a human being, the zygote retains an inherent capacity to function.

Can't argue with that.

quote: Thanks for reminding me of CS Lewis. In the Abolition of Man, CS Lewis notes that while other religions contain variations of the Golden Rule, Christianity was the first to state the rule in the positive form. Instead of, "do not to do others what you would not have done to you, Christianity insists on the positive version, 'do unto others what you want to have done to you.' The difference is that Christianity desires a positive action to improvement, rather than a modicum of respect.

Good point. I can't remember exactly how Buddha put it, maybe I'll look into one of my many books on religion.

	13-01-2003 09:43									#66
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

GP -

quote: Yes. You are a self-parody. Very clever.

Gee, you're so brilliant you can't even come up with your own jokes.

Kontiki -

quote: Yahoo for private donations.

Is that your way of admitting you ignored what I said and attributed your fabrication to me?

quote: The point is that the American Revolution would have been easily put down by the British had other states not intervened (and not in funding the revolutionaries) because they saw an opportunity to undermine British strength.

The French intervened at Yorktown by preventing the British from escaping from a battle they already lost. Now, you could argue Britain's other wars and concerns diverted resources away from the colonies, but to suggest the British would have won without those diversions is unsupportable. Their logistical problems were far too great to win the war once they failed to put down the rebellion when it was just starting up.

quote: If you think that any combination of lotteries, voluntary donations, etc. would have won the Revolution without outside help, you're seriously deluding yourself.

Can you make your own arguments without putting words in my mouth? Where did I say we had no outside help and what makes you think the US would have no help today if North America was invaded? Tell us why another country would want to invade another country that is heavily armed with nukes and 300 million people armed to the teeth with small arms. Sorry Kontiki, but I'm not going to repeat all the arguments I made in the other thread here as new questions pop into your head. Go read the other thread first. Last I looked, it was on p3 under Speer ("The Problem with Libertarians").

	13-01-2003 10:42									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

alright alright
enough bickering
Heres an issue

Monopoly

True capitalism will result in monopolies being formed. We see that right before the depression and can be seen as one of the causes for it.
With hardcore libertarianism, we will see the rise of a new type of government: one of slavery and bondage to monopolies.

(*oooh dramatic*)

	13-01-2003 10:53									#68
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

The typical Libertarian response seems to be that monopolies only arrise through government interference (and as we've never had an environment completely without government interference, it can't be proven on eway or the other).

	13-01-2003 11:08									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Of course the truth is somewhere in between as it always is .

Unbridled capitalism will allow for some monopolies (like Microsoft), BUT governmental interference ALSO causes monopolies (Postal Service, Amtrack). Governmental laws may also cause monopolies by favoring a certain industry and giving those industries subsidies to allow it to sustain its position.

Capitalism by itself isn't the only impetus for monopoly. Not by any means.

	13-01-2003 12:55									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd In an earlier PD, Agathon stated, and used as a major argument, that if I buy a gun, the overall safety of everyone decreases. This is absolutely not true. I know that I am responsible, I know that I would handle my weapon safely, and most of all, I know that I would not murder people with it or wave it around in public for no reason.

But every clown says this and yet the statisticians have it the other way. Perhaps you are telling the truth about yourself, but how am I supposed to trust you or know that?

The rest is too funny. The first would have us not opposing nuclear proliferation because nuclear weapons are inanimate objects. Get real man - bad people exist - this is why your trust in people's moral purity will lead us all to ruin.

Anyway, where is your answer to the question I asked you yesterday?

"Given that violating people's rights is not wrong because of the consequences, what makes violating rights wrong?"

If you can't answer this question then you are admitting that you have no reason for believing in your moral theory (no good reason anyway).

	13-01-2003 16:16									#71
	Got spare money?

LoA -

quote: True capitalism will result in monopolies being formed.

Monopolies are rare and short lived in a free market because as soon as a producer starts screwing consumers, if they do that is, someone else will start producing the product to take market share. The only monopolies I know of that can survive more than a few years are government created and protected monopolies.

quote: We see that right before the depression and can be seen as one of the causes for it.

Huh? No monopoly caused (one of the causes) the Depression, unless you want to include the Federal Reserve and government control of the money supply as a monopoly.

quote: With hardcore libertarianism, we will see the rise of a new type of government: one of slavery and bondage to monopolies.

LOOK OUT! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!

General T -

quote: The typical Libertarian response seems to be that monopolies only arrise through government interference (and as we've never had an environment completely without government interference, it can't be proven on eway or the other).

Yes we did, the non-slave states up to the Civil War had largely free markets but you'd be hard pressed to identify any monopolies worthy of the title. It was only after the Civil War and the government's creation and special treatment of corporations that a few monopolies came into existence.

Agathon -

quote: But every clown says this and yet the statisticians have it the other way.

Are these the same "statisticians" who told you more people die from their own guns than the guns of others, but neglected to tell you they include suicides in their stats? Did these analysts tell you how many times each year law abiding people use their guns to thwart criminals? Did they explain to you why most criminals try to avoid the armed police and look for unarmed citizens instead?

	14-01-2003 09:12									#72
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker GP - I debated lotteries with Agathon, not you. You didn't respond to my arguments, you responded to something David said about government casinos.

Liar.

I've never debated government lotteries with you or anyone else on this forum to my knowledge, mainly because I don't know what they are and why they would be relevant to anything I'm interested in.

Is all you mean that the state runs a lottery? What's so weird about that?

And it isn't even relevant if the said statisticians include suicide, the statement I made is still true - more people are killed with their own weapons by criminals than kill criminals with them.

Look here's an interesting statistic. In Toronto, where I live, you are about as likely to get into a fight as you are in Buffalo. However, you are at least 150 times more likely to die as a result in Buffalo than in Toronto - the reason? Guns.

And there is an easy answer to why people don't stop paying tax and establish a voluntary system - it is that, unlike in a Libertarian system, the state has the legal right to take coercive measures against individuals that try it.

Of course you might retort that everyone might try it at once. They have no reason to - as long as the state ensures that everyone complies most people are happy to pay their share (because trust is no longer an issue) - but they will try to pay as little as the law allows because they know everyone else will as well. If one can be sure that others will pay and that coercive sanctions will be taken against oneself if you don't, the prisoner's dilemma no longer applies in the situation of taxation - because state coercion has changed the options.

In the standard dilemma I can free ride by not paying if others do. Here I can't because the only situation in which I can avoid punishment is the complete collapse of society. If I don't pay then I get sent to jail and I have to pay. I also know that if others attempt to free ride then they will be punished and fined - so I don't have to worry about trust.

Why do you think the state is so draconian about minor tax violations? Because that's what keeps us in check for our own good.



David still hasn't answered the question of why violating rights is wrong if its being wrong has nothing to do with the consquences.

Shall we label him utterly refuted, or give him another day or so?

	14-01-2003 10:22									#73
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Kontiki - Is that your way of admitting you ignored what I said and attributed your fabrication to me?

No, that is my way of saying that it supports my arguement even more. You seem to be hung up on exact literal meanings. My point is that the non-tax funded army was not some fantastic fighting force. But is your chopping up my post your way of dodging the real point?

quote: The French intervened at Yorktown by preventing the British from escaping from a battle they already lost. Now, you could argue Britain's other wars and concerns diverted resources away from the colonies, but to suggest the British would have won without those diversions is unsupportable. Their logistical problems were far too great to win the war once they failed to put down the rebellion when it was just starting up. Can you make your own arguments without putting words in my mouth? Where did I say we had no outside help and what makes you think the US would have no help today if North America was invaded? Tell us why another country would want to invade another country that is heavily armed with nukes and 300 million people armed to the teeth with small arms. Sorry Kontiki, but I'm not going to repeat all the arguments I made in the other thread here as new questions pop into your head. Go read the other thread first. Last I looked, it was on p3 under Speer ("The Problem with Libertarians").

Well, let's take this a few points at a time:

1) French involvement went way further than Yorktown, as you seem to already admit. Both France and the Netherlands declared war on Britain and used their combined fleets to threaten British colonial interests unrelated (and more vital to Britain) than the American colonies.

2) Without foreign involvement, there wasn't much in the way of logistical problems. The British still held Canada, and could land whatever troops needed there, not to mention draw supplies and manpower. I fail to see how this is unsupportable - it's rather obvious. Now, whether Britain would have fully committed itself is another matter, but I don't see why they wouldn't if there weren't other distractions.

3) I'm sorry if you think I put words in your mouth - it wasn't my intention. However, it seemed to me that by invoking the American Revolution as a successful example of how a military can be raised an operated without taxation, you were claiming that it actually produced a military cabable of beating the British on its own. As for making my own arguements, can you tell me how I didn't?

4) Do you think the US would be a country heavily armed with nukes and with 300 million people armed to the teeth with small arms were it not for the very system you abhor? If the US had been a Libertarian country from the get go, things would have turned out very differently - I'm sure you can admit that. Or are you arguing that the statist system was great to get the world to where it is, but now a Libertarian system should emerge?

5) I've read the whole previous thread, and I didn't see anything in there that was in any way related to this issue.

6) That's quite the high horse attitude you're slinging about. For someone who has repeatedly accused others of degenerating to insults, you do a pretty good job of it yourself.

	14-01-2003 13:17									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Agathon -

quote: Liar.

Oh, that's right, you never did respond to my argument that the American Revolution was funded by lotteries and voluntary donations. But now that you've establshed the standard that making an inaccurate statement is lying, I'll feel quite justified in calling you a liar every time you make inaccurate statements. Too bad I can't go back to the other thread and apply your standard to you retroactively.

quote: I've never debated government lotteries with you or anyone else on this forum to my knowledge, mainly because I don't know what they are and why they would be relevant to anything I'm interested in.

You've never heard of lotteries? They are relevant because they are one of the potential methods of funding government in a libertarian system and I cited them several times in the other thread. So, how do free riders cause lotteries to fail? Do I need to trust my neighbors to play the lottery before I play the lottery? Lotteries are being used to fund government services yet they are voluntary. How do you explain that?

quote: Is all you mean that the state runs a lottery? What's so weird about that?

Nothing, apparently you didn't know they could be used to fund government in a libertarian system. I thought you knew about libertarianism...

quote: And it isn't even relevant if the said statisticians include suicide, the statement I made is still true - more people are killed with their own weapons by criminals than kill criminals with them.

Liar.

This is what you said:

quote: Now, for the sake of argument let’s agree that this is true (ignoring the evidence that shows that people are more often killed by their own guns than they kill criminals) and watch what happens when everyone in my neighbourhood realises this.

Now you are claiming:

quote: more people are killed with their own weapons by criminals than kill criminals with them

In your first statement you said more people are killed with their own guns than armed people killing criminals. You then changed that to more people killed by criminals using the victim's guns. Do you want to clarify which statement is accurate? The first is a much broader statement including suicides (and accidental discharges), but the second includes only gun deaths perpetrated by criminals who first stole the owner's gun and used it to kill him. Btw, the laws make us financially and criminally liable for shooting criminals in almost all cases. If someone breaks into your home and you defend your family, you better make sure they don't leave the house after you shoot them or you might be charged and sued for using too much force. Secondly, your stat (the correct one, to be determined by you hopefully) ignores that armed citizens deter criminals from committing crimes. How many crimes are deterred by gun wielding citizens? God only knows, but far more than the number of people killed with their guns stolen by criminals.

quote: Here's an interesting statistic. In Toronto, where I live, you are about as likely to get into a fight as you are in Buffalo. However, you are at least 150 times more likely to die as a result in Buffalo than in Toronto - the reason? Guns.

So tell us how many people have been killed in fights in Toronto and by guns used in similar fights in Buffalo? If you want to debate whether or not guns produce more violence, I'll be happy to debate that issue, but there are many factors to be considered. The USA has a massive black market caused by the drug war, Canada doesn't. How many of these fights in Buffalo started as arguments over drug deals? A disproportionally high number of violent crimes in the USA are committed by blacks, especially impoverished blacks involved in the drug trade. Does Canada have a similar problem? If guns were illegal here, we'd only create another massive black market with even more violence. And I'll bet the illegitimacy rate here is much higher than in Canada, and illegitimacy is linked to poverty which is in turn linked to violent crime. Those are just a couple factors to be considered, then there's border control, illegal immigration, smuggling, weather, and alcohol consumption (I imagine we use alot more strong booze).

quote: And there is an easy answer to why people don't stop paying tax and establish a voluntary system - it is that, unlike in a Libertarian system, the state has the legal right to take coercive measures against individuals that try it.

The reason the state is using coercive taxation is because most voters want government services funded via coercive taxation. You said if they had the option of no taxes or voluntary taxes, too many would opt for no taxation even if the result was no government services. So why don't they opt for no taxes now? Can't they simply vote away all forms of taxation? They want the services, that's why they are willing to be coerced into taxes. They want the services, that's why they would pay much lower taxes voluntarily.

quote: Of course you might retort that everyone might try it at once. They have no reason to - as long as the state ensures that everyone complies most people are happy to pay their share (because trust is no longer an issue) - but they will try to pay as little as the law allows because they know everyone else will as well.

Then no one would have funded the American Revolution, much less fought. How could those people be sure others would fight or support the fighters? They couldn't, and they didn't let a lack of "trust" stop them. This country got by without an income tax for more than a hundred years and taxes were extremely low during that time, why was massive coerced taxation required? Because social engineers saw government as a means to fund themselves and their social engineering and they finally succeeded in conning the American people into an income tax by lying about who would have to pay the tax - class warfare.

quote: If one can be sure that others will pay and that coercive sanctions will be taken against oneself if you don't, the prisoner's dilemma no longer applies in the situation of taxation - because state coercion has changed the options.

Then that "PD" would have us believe no one would have the fought the Revolution and that no one would ever volunteer to fight wars. Your argument is that self-interest would translate into a failure to fund government voluntarily because of free riders, but that assumes people would cease funding government voluntarily and lose those services they want from government - services they want out of their self-interest. So we have a situation where people are faced with competing self-interests - pay the voluntary taxes and get services, or don't pay the taxes and lose those services. So your PD ignores this conflict between competing interests. If you were faced with having absolutely no taxation and as a result, absolutley no services, which would you choose? Hell, I'm an advocate of voluntary taxation and I'd pay voluntary taxes for services I consider important. I just reject the notion I can steal from you to pay for what I want from government.

quote: In the standard dilemma I can free ride by not paying if others do.

Which is where social sanctions enter the picture.

quote: Why do you think the state is so draconian about minor tax violations? Because that's what keeps us in check for our own good.

"For our own good"? We have draconian tax enforcement because politicians are greedy thieves who can't find enough ways to buy votes with other people's money.

quote: David still hasn't answered the question of why violating rights is wrong if its being wrong has nothing to do with the consquences.

quote: Shall we label him utterly refuted, or give him another day or so?

Shall we apply that standard to you? You still haven't offered a PD showing that libertarianism is contradictory, nor have you explained why libertarianism requires a "better" outcome for everyone when left free to live their lives and how not realising this better outcome means libertarianism is contradictory. Does that mean every political ideology is contradictory if every decision made within those systems doesn't produce a "better" outcome?

	14-01-2003 14:29									#75
	Increase Your PM Length

Kon tiki -

quote: No, that is my way of saying that it supports my arguement even more.

The fact the American Revolution was funded and fought by volunteers helps your argument?

quote: You seem to be hung up on exact literal meanings.

Does that mean you are hung up on unclear meanings?

quote: My point is that the non-tax funded army was not some fantastic fighting force.

It was enough to win the war, a war against the greatest power on Earth by a fledgling group of colonies.

quote: But is your chopping up my post your way of dodging the real point?

Oh brother, another whiner. Where did I "dodge" your point?

quote: Well, let's take this a few points at a time: 1) French involvement went way further than Yorktown, as you seem to already admit. Both France and the Netherlands declared war on Britain and used their combined fleets to threaten British colonial interests unrelated (and more vital to Britain) than the American colonies.

France declared war in '78 and it was Britain who declared war on the Netherlands followed by military action in '81. As I said before, the fact Britain had an empire to protect all over the world diverted resources away from the American Revolution, but these countries were acting out of their self-interest too.

quote: 2) Without foreign involvement, there wasn't much in the way of logistical problems. The British still held Canada, and could land whatever troops needed there, not to mention draw supplies and manpower. I fail to see how this is unsupportable - it's rather obvious.

They had to transport troops and supplies thousands of miles, that's why the Brits could not maintain their hold in the colonies. Once they failed to suppress the rebellion in it's infancy, the war was lost.

quote: Now, whether Britain would have fully committed itself is another matter, but I don't see why they wouldn't if there weren't other distractions.

We are dealing with the real world, there's always distractions.

quote: 3) I'm sorry if you think I put words in your mouth - it wasn't my intention.

Okay.

quote: However, it seemed to me that by invoking the American Revolution as a successful example of how a military can be raised an operated without taxation, you were claiming that it actually produced a military cabable of beating the British on its own.

The help from Europe was appreciated and helpful, but I don't think it was crucial. Once the Revolution gathered enough steam, it was all but assured.

quote: As for making my own arguements, can you tell me how I didn't?

Read my explanation.

quote: 4) Do you think the US would be a country heavily armed with nukes and with 300 million people armed to the teeth with small arms were it not for the very system you abhor?

Yup. We have a $10 trillion economy, building and maintaining nukes doesn't cost much at all compared to the GNP.

quote: If the US had been a Libertarian country from the get go, things would have turned out very differently - I'm sure you can admit that.

Yup, we'd have an even larger economy and a much more effective militia system in addition to the military (albeit much smaller than now). If China can get away with a military budget of $42 billion, I'm sure we could afford a nuclear deterence.

quote: Or are you arguing that the statist system was great to get the world to where it is, but now a Libertarian system should emerge?

The statist system didn't create this country and didn't evolve until the 20th century (although the Civil War set a horrible precedent).

quote: 5) I've read the whole previous thread, and I didn't see anything in there that was in any way related to this issue.

I discussed the American Revolution and it's funding in the other thread. I just don't want to start answering questions posed already in the other thread.

quote: 6) That's quite the high horse attitude you're slinging about. For someone who has repeatedly accused others of degenerating to insults, you do a pretty good job of it yourself.

If you had read the other thread you would have seen it was started by someone insulting libertarians and used as a platform by others to insult libertarians. And GP has done little more that insult people, so if you want to enter this thread and start making snide remarks about my position, don't complain when I react accordingly.

	14-01-2003 14:53									#76
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia True capitalism will result in monopolies being formed. We see that right before the depression and can be seen as one of the causes for it. With hardcore libertarianism, we will see the rise of a new type of government: one of slavery and bondage to monopolies. (*oooh dramatic*)

I remember reading about this issue in several economics books. The final solution people reached after much debate was that monopolies, on most goods, were not an inevitable part of the capitalist system. A few things like telephone service, utilities, and railroads are considered "natural monopolies" but most other industries tend to see and oligopoly as the end state in an unregulated capitalist system.

As for Monopolies causing the depression. Nope you're way off base there. Standard Oil, U.S. Sugar, U.S. Steel, and most of the other classic monopolies got broken up 15-20 years before the depression. The biggest industry in the country was automobiles and there were over 100 independent auto makers in the U.S. in 1929 and in 1940 there were still 25 different independent companies. By 1940 the big three had 50% of the market but other makes such as Nash, Hudson, Studebaker, Packard, Willys-Overland, Bantum, & all controlled the other half. The stories is the same in aircraft, ships, steel, cement, and most other industries.
Monopolies just weren't the reason for the depression.

For a good read about the root causes of the depression you could check out "The Rise and Fail of Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy. He talks about increasing trade barriers, countries which intentionally devalue their currencies in order to undercut foreign manufactures, this causes financial chaos where companies can't get access to capital, this causes the economy to tank thus causing another round of increased tarrifs and competetive currency devaluations, etc... It becomes a "self reinforcing" down ward spiral which is almost impossible to get out of with out large scale government intervention. BTW one of the primary reasons for the IMF and the WTO is to prevent such a senerio from repeating itself.

	14-01-2003 15:05									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: He talks about increasing trade barriers, countries which intentionally devalue their currencies in order to undercut foreign manufactures, this causes financial chaos where companies can't get access to capital, this causes the economy to tank thus causing another round of increased tarrifs and competetive currency devaluations, etc...

Can you explain that a bit more? Does this de-valuation mean cutting back on the money supply? I heard the Fed had a "loose" monetary policy and tightened it up resulting in the Depression (with other factors of course playing a role).

	14-01-2003 15:19									#78
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I think what it means is making your currency worth less relative to other countries', making foreign goods more expensive and encouraging people to buy domestic goods.

	14-01-2003 15:40									#79
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Competetive devaluations work like this. In the 1920's & 30's Britain, France, and Germany were the leading exporters of manufactured goods to countries in Central and Eastern Europe. The goods from each of these countries were competeting more or less head to head in the market place.

Now lets say there is a normal downturn in the market causing a recession. France begins to have a hard time selling its goods on the international market so the French Government decides to have the French Central bank devalue the Franc visa vi the Pound and the Mark. The result is goods made in France are now cheaper to buy in a country like Czechoslovakia. Now comes the problem; German & British manufacturers are hurting more then ever so their governments follow France's lead and they each devalue their national currencies in order to continue to compete in world markets. That means if France wants to regain its previous market price advantage it will once again have to devalue its currency which means the British & Germans will have todevalue theirs again as well. Which means France will... This causes financial melt down since banks don't want to lend since the value of the money they will be paid back will be much lower then the value of the money they lent out. The only way the bank can make money is to charge sky high interest rates; rates which no one can afford to pay since the value of all their currency based assists just got wiped out.

Now comes the visious part which makes the cycle nearly impossible to break. There is a trickle down effect on countries like Poland and Czechoslovakia. They have weaker economies then the great western powers so, naturally, they must price their currencies even lower then the Brits, Germans, & French. Their economies also tank so they can't afford to buy the goods which the westerners are trying to sell them plus these small eastern European countries are heavily into debt due to post war expenditures and these debt must be repayed in Dollars, Pounds, or Francs. Hard currency which they can't come up since their farmers and manufactures can't get credit to continue to opporate. So their governments are forced to default on their national debt. This makes it even more difficult for them to get capital, so more companies fail and their economy gets worse causing yet another round of devaluations.

Do you see how this turns into a never ending cycle? How things keep getting worse and worse and the only way to stop it is for some large extra governmental lender to step in act as a creditor of last resort. The IMF was formed to fill that role and to help smooth the wild swings in international capital flows.

Last edited by Oerdin on 14-01-2003 at 15:50

	14-01-2003 16:09									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Okay, thx. Would it then make sense to have a worldwide monetary system for everyone so that countries can't start the cycle or has the IMF proven to be sufficient to prevent the cycle from starting?

	14-01-2003 19:57									#81
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Berz, you're such a weasel. You make a big todo about WHO you talked to about lotteries. Give it up. It is really silly. You were part of that discussion that Floyd and I had.

I bet you get all worried someone is after your dope. I met lots of dopers in Breck. I'm used to the paranoia.

	14-01-2003 20:28									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker UR - 4. How can it be gauranteed? 4) By respecting the rights of others.

ARE YOU ****ING SERIOUS! THAT IS THE MOST NIAVE CHILDISH ANSWER CONCIEVABLE!

	14-01-2003 22:43									#83
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

OK, I'm not going to waste my time arguing this anymore. I'll respond to your last post and that's it, because you seem incapable of looking at an entire arguement instead of taking single points out of context. And, as I'm sure you'll respond to this, try reading the whole thing first before you attack a single sentence. Otherwise, if you want to claim victory, be my guest.

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker Kon tiki - The fact the American Revolution was funded and fought by volunteers helps your argument? Does that mean you are hung up on unclear meanings? It was enough to win the war, a war against the greatest power on Earth by a fledgling group of colonies. Oh brother, another whiner. Where did I "dodge" your point?

I'm impressed that you found four seperate things to argue about from one, very clear point. Let me spell it out for you again: THE NON-TAX FUNDED REVOLUTIONARIES DID NOT FIELD AN ARMY THAT COULD DEFEAT THE BRITISH ALONE. WITHOUT OUTSIDE INTERVENTION, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT DOWN. Which part of this are you not understanding? Does it matter if they were funded by lotteries alone, lotteries, private donations and other "non-coercive" forms in combination, or by green monkeys living on Mars?

quote: France declared war in '78 and it was Britain who declared war on the Netherlands followed by military action in '81. As I said before, the fact Britain had an empire to protect all over the world diverted resources away from the American Revolution, but these countries were acting out of their self-interest too.

Not quite correct. The Netherlands declared war on Britain in 1780 (you're right about France declaring war in 1778). I'm not even sure why you are arguing the rest here - France and the Netherlands got involved purely out of self-interest, and not out of any sense of altruism to help out the revolutionaries. They simply seized an opportunity. As far as I can tell, you are agreeing with this.

quote: They had to transport troops and supplies thousands of miles, that's why the Brits could not maintain their hold in the colonies. Once they failed to suppress the rebellion in it's infancy, the war was lost.

Had there not been outside distractions in the form of a rather major war in Europe and in the seas against other naval powers, the British could easily have put enough forces in North America to put down the rebellion. Again, you seem to acknowledge the role other nations played, so why do you doubt this?

quote: We are dealing with the real world, there's always distractions.

Well, some of us are, and some of us seem to keep flipping back and forth between the real world and some libertarian fantasy world. You are quite correct that in the real world there are always distractions. There are also always other states who wouldn't follow the libertarian ideals and who would be quite willing to attack a poorly defended country. You are also mixing the two in the current setting, as I will describe below.

quote: The help from Europe was appreciated and helpful, but I don't think it was crucial. Once the Revolution gathered enough steam, it was all but assured.

Irrespective of what you may believe, it is fairly well acknowledged that foreign intervention was critical in securing an American victory. For example, in the Battle of Yorktown, the majority of the soldiers in the Continental Army were French, the weapons were from France, and the wages were paid by France. But I'm sure you're right. Without this kind of assistance, the "non-coercively" funded Americans would have been just fine.

quote: Yup. We have a $10 trillion economy, building and maintaining nukes doesn't cost much at all compared to the GNP. Yup, we'd have an even larger economy and a much more effective militia system in addition to the military (albeit much smaller than now). If China can get away with a military budget of $42 billion, I'm sure we could afford a nuclear deterence. The statist system didn't create this country and didn't evolve until the 20th century (although the Civil War set a horrible precedent).

Here's where you seem to be switching back and forth between your libertarian dream world and reality once again. If the US had been a libertarian country from day one, it would not have become a continent-wide superpower. Policies by a strong government funded by "coercive" taxation built the United States into what it is today. You developed nukes in the first place thanks to a massive and incredibly expensive government program. You're taking over of the west, killing off/internment of the natives certainly flies in the face of libertarian values - hell, David has gone so far as to argue that the US should not be in the west at all. If you had followed this path, you would have been surrounded by other countries (from other colonial powers that didn't have such reservations about conquest) and most likely wouldn't have enjoyed the glorious isolation that's allowed the US to escape from a major war on its own soil (save for the civil war) and avoid the need to consistently have a major fighting force on hand - that's only been the case since the end of WWII.

So, I don't understand how you could possibly argue that the US would have an even bigger economy, or even look anything like it does today had it followed a libertarian path.

quote: If you had read the other thread you would have seen it was started by someone insulting libertarians and used as a platform by others to insult libertarians. And GP has done little more that insult people, so if you want to enter this thread and start making snide remarks about my position, don't complain when I react accordingly.

Which snide remarks would those be? The only thing I said was that if you think the revolutionaries could have won without outside intervention, you are deluding yourself. You're the one that has so far accused me of fabricating things, putting words in your mouth, being unable to make my own arguements and, more recently, of being a whiner.

	15-01-2003 01:47									#84
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: OK, I'm not going to waste my time arguing this anymore. I'll respond to your last post and that's it, because you seem incapable of looking at an entire arguement instead of taking single points out of context. And, as I'm sure you'll respond to this, try reading the whole thing first before you attack a single sentence. Otherwise, if you want to claim victory, be my guest.

Wellcome to the club
This is some funny stuff, I'm already waiting impatiently for his next answer.

	15-01-2003 01:58									#85
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd Then again, I hate JJ Rousseau, so I'm not inclined to agree with anything he says just on the basis that he said it

Intolerant

I happen to like him

	15-01-2003 01:59									#86
	Got spare money?

well, his ideas anyhow...

	15-01-2003 03:34									#87
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Agathon,

You asked me why it is wrong for you to harm someone - ie, violate their rights.

I would think that the concept that you shouldn't hurt other people is pretty self-evident, and really shouldn't need an explanation for most people.

Then again, most people wouldn't murder 100 to stop someone else from murdering 101, so I guess I can see your confusion.

Harming an individual is wrong because it infringes upon their natural rights. Now, loinburger is going to pop in and try to open up a thread saying that he disproved natural rights - that isn't the case. The thread degenerated into a debate over the meaning and function of a contract, and if contracts could exist in a state of nature. But that's neither here nor there (although if you or anyone else wants to make it an issue we can certainly discuss it again).

I guess at this point, we need to stop and ask the question: Do you believe in or accept the existence of natural rights, in any form?

	15-01-2003 03:41									#88
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Dave, you didn't cut or paste anything. And you wrote in paragraphs. And you advanced a cogent thought and listened to what your opponent was saying.

I'm sorry, you will have to leave the libertarian cell. Berz can go mad in there on his own.

	15-01-2003 03:51									#89
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Oh jeez. What's the point?

Berzerker. You are just thick. Please accept this: there is nothing morally wrong with being thick, but it does impose some obligations on you - like going to school and learning how to if you want to engage in debate. If you don't you will just stay the boring and confused individual you are.

There is no point in debating with you because you refuse to follow the rules of debate, which is to be charitable to your opponent and to actually take their arguments as they make them - instead of ignoring the hard bits and pouncing on irrelevant details. In your own sick mind you no doubt think you are some great intellectual, but I can assure you that this is not the case.

Look it's my job to teach people how to argue properly - I get paid to do it. I spent most of this last weekend grading philosophy papers - most of them weren't that good but I realised that all of them displayed a much higher degree of competence than your illiterate ramblings.

	15-01-2003 03:54									#90
	Support Apolyton

Ah, a philosophy prof...interesting.