- Joined
- Nov 16, 2017
- Messages
- 83,959
- Reaction score
- 83,634
- Location
- Southern CA.
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I used to consider myself a Libertarian until I realized that you can't get more the two Libertarians to agree on anything, because as soon as a third party gets involved the arguments begin, including the standard accusations of "you aren't a real Libertarian because you'd agree with me if you were."
Trump cozies up to the oligarchy the same as everyone else, Musk and Bezos and all those folk.If you knew what it meant, you would apply it to Gates, Zuckerberg and the rest of the technocrats wh9 control is all to a far greater degree than Trump.
I remember when both of my boys learned a new vocabulary word and then used it as often as they could.Trump cozies up to the oligarchy the same as everyone else, Musk and Bezos and all those folk.
You're not fighting the oligarchy by supporting Trump, Trump just wants to cement it all into the State and rule it with Party. It's the China model.
Well let's hope they got past the fourth grade level, unlike your Dear Leader.I remember when both of my boys learned a new vocabulary word and then used it as often as they could.
You just dont understand. Leftists only shit themselves about 'oligarchs' when they think they can accuse the 'oligarch' of supporting conservatives. These 'people' embrace the flooding of their puny rat gods coffers by 'oligarchs'...always have.If you knew what it meant, you would apply it to Gates, Zuckerberg and the rest of the technocrats wh9 control is all to a far greater degree than Trump.
You dismiss my critique of your model as "sterile" by saying I simply "don't like what the model reveals."Yes, it's a model used to analyze situations like shortages. Calling it “sterile” doesn’t refute it; it just tells me that you don't like what the model reveals.
You did not learn the meaning of the word oligarch in the fourth grade.Well let's hope they got past the fourth grade level, unlike your Dear Leader.
lol
Let's be very clear. I will not accept your repeated attempts to frame this as a binary choice between price gouging and Soviet-style central planning. This is a rhetorical tactic to avoid confronting the failures of your own model. The world is more complex than that, and your refusal to acknowledge a third way is telling.No, because you don't believe monopolies are bad. You support giving a relatively tiny group of politicians a monopoly on the use of force and violence - the most dangerous and murderous monopoly ever created....
Yes, I'm sure your education eclipses mine and are well versed in the propaganda you smear but then demand no one else use.You did not learn the meaning of the word oligarch in the fourth grade.
In fact, you still haven't learned it.
Yeah, My point about the moon landings was, that Starship has 9 launches only 4 could reasonably be called successes, and it's not like getting to orbit is breaking new ground. Apollo had 13 test missions of which 11 were successes.And on it's 2nd, 4th and 5th tries, too! .... if anybody was asking.
Yes, you subscribe to authoritarian leftist politics on service to global oligarchs.Yes, I'm sure your education eclipses mine and are well versed in the propaganda you smear but then demand no one else use.
lol
What cha got? Probably a Bachelor's at best, likely business.
lol
Yes, you subscribe to the authoritarian rightist politics on service to global oligarchs.Yes, you subscribe to authoritarian leftist politics on service to global oligarchs.
It's nice to have that one settled.
My goodness, that one is ALMOST as clever as " I know what you are, but what am I?"Yes, you subscribe to the authoritarian rightist politics on service to global oligarchs.
It's nice to have that one settled.
Your posts don't really deserve clever. You want to pretend your side isn't doing the same shit, that's all. You live in a delusional political sphere of MAGA propaganda and bullshit. There's not much to do about that, and it's not worth any grand efforts.My goodness, that one is ALMOST as clever as " I know what you are, but what am I?"
Almost
I did not vote for Trump.Your posts don't really deserve clever. You want to pretend your side isn't doing the same shit, that's all. You live in a delusional political sphere of MAGA propaganda and bullshit. There's not much to do about that, and it's not worth any grand efforts.
I was asked to leave the Libertarian caucus because I was 1-too much of a republican and then 2-too much of a democrat and really, all I was saying was that the continued insistence on the party platform as constituted has prevented them from EVER being viable. I'm still a registered Libertarian and I still usually vote Libertarian (I couldnt bring myself to vote for Johnson the 2nd time around).I used to consider myself a Libertarian until I realized that you can't get more the two Libertarians to agree on anything, because as soon as a third party gets involved the arguments begin, including the standard accusations of "you aren't a real Libertarian because you'd agree with me if you were."
All Ikari knows is that it means something along the lines of "poopoohead". His understanding goes no deeper than that.I was asked to leave the Libertarian caucus because I was 1-too much of a republican and then 2-too much of a democrat and really, all I was saying was that the continued insistence on the party platform as constituted has prevented them from EVER being viable. I'm still a registered Libertarian and I still usually vote Libertarian (I couldnt bring myself to vote for Johnson the 2nd time around).
Ive sent correspondence to the party and the unofficial party leader (Jo Jorgensen) recommending they stop this once every 4 years pretense of relevancy and start promoting real and legitimate candidates at state levels....but...I am nobody and I get that. Then again...the party is politically 'nobody'.
Let's be very clear. I will not accept your repeated attempts to frame this as a binary choice between price gouging and Soviet-style central planning. This is a rhetorical tactic to avoid confronting the failures of your own model. The world is more complex than that, and your refusal to acknowledge a third way is telling.
1. On Monopolies: A Textbook Deflection
When I pointed out the self-evident problem of a temporary monopoly on water, you responded by changing the subject to the state's monopoly on force.
Can we agree monopolies are bad?
This is a tu quoque fallacy and is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Whether the state is a justifiable monopoly is a separate, vast political philosophy debate. It does not, in any way, refute the fact that a private actor with a monopoly on a life-sustaining resource holds coercive power over a desperate population.
Let's stay focused: The water seller in this scenario has absolute market power. They are not a "price taker" but a "price maker." Your entire model of market efficiency is built on the premise of competition, a premise that is absent in this critical moment. You concede the monopoly exists, but then immediately defend it.
You claim: "Allowing higher prices draws in competition and supply faster."
This is the core dogma of your argument, and it is fatally flawed in this context. You are valuing a theoretical, long-term market correction over immediate, real-world survival.
Imagine a house is on fire. My solution is for the community to grab buckets and help put it out. Your solution is to let the house burn to create a high price signal that "incentivizes" a private fire truck company to form, buy equipment, and eventually drive over to put out the embers.
You keep asserting that the market response will be "faster." Faster than what? It will not be faster than the 1-3 days it takes for a human to die of dehydration. In a situation of total infrastructure collapse—which you have still not properly addressed—the price signal may as well be a message in a bottle. No one is coming. The incentive is meaningless if the ability to respond is zero, or naturally, the best responses will be where people have money.
Your "solution" prioritizes the health of a theoretical market over the lives of the actual people who comprise it.
No True Scotsman fallacies are rarely posted so explicitly, kudos.ALL libertarians (including influential ones) oppose ANY forms of Direct Taxation. There are no exceptions. If someone thinks that Direct Taxes are acceptable, then they cannot possibly be a libertarian.
You posted an extremely literal No True Scotsman.The textbook Straw-Man fallacy.
Thanks for making it.
You got nothing.
You don't even understand the cornerstone principle of libertarianism, so your argument is based entirely on a false premise.No True Scotsman fallacies are rarely posted so explicitly, kudos.
You don't even understand the cornerstone principle of libertarianism, so your argument is based entirely on a false premise.You posted an extremely literal No True Scotsman.
Of course I do. The argument was a perfect example of a straw-man.And you don't know what a straw man is.
I agree. This is not the best solution. It is still better than the damaging trade imbalance we have had for decades.
+1Let's be very clear. I will not accept your repeated attempts to frame this as a binary choice between price gouging and Soviet-style central planning. This is a rhetorical tactic to avoid confronting the failures of your own model. The world is more complex than that, and your refusal to acknowledge a third way is telling.
1. On Monopolies: A Textbook Deflection
When I pointed out the self-evident problem of a temporary monopoly on water, you responded by changing the subject to the state's monopoly on force.
This is a tu quoque fallacy and is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Whether the state is a justifiable monopoly is a separate, vast political philosophy debate. It does not, in any way, refute the fact that a private actor with a monopoly on a life-sustaining resource holds coercive power over a desperate population.
Let's stay focused: The water seller in this scenario has absolute market power. They are not a "price taker" but a "price maker." Your entire model of market efficiency is built on the premise of competition, a premise that is absent in this critical moment. You concede the monopoly exists, but then immediately defend it.
2. The "Incentive to End the Monopoly" is a Deadly Fantasy
You claim: "Allowing higher prices draws in competition and supply faster."
This is the core dogma of your argument, and it is fatally flawed in this context. You are valuing a theoretical, long-term market correction over immediate, real-world survival.
Imagine a house is on fire. My solution is for the community to grab buckets and help put it out. Your solution is to let the house burn to create a high price signal that "incentivizes" a private fire truck company to form, buy equipment, and eventually drive over to put out the embers.
You keep asserting that the market response will be "faster." Faster than what? It will not be faster than the 1-3 days it takes for a human to die of dehydration. In a situation of total infrastructure collapse—which you have still not properly addressed—the price signal may as well be a message in a bottle. No one is coming. The incentive is meaningless if the ability to respond is zero, or naturally, the best responses will be where people have money.
Your "solution" prioritizes the health of a theoretical market over the lives of the actual people who comprise it.
3. "High Prices are the Symptom, Not the Disease"
You state: "People get sick and desperate when they don’t get water - not when prices go up... This is about scarcity, not pricing."
This is a dangerous half-truth. Let's use your own analogy. Scarcity is the disease. Unfettered price is your prescribed treatment. I am arguing that your treatment is toxic.
The method of allocation is what directly causes the negative externality.
If water is scarce and is allocated by a community-based system of rationing (e.g., one case per family), people get a small but life-sustaining amount.
If water is scarce and allocated by your price system, the wealthy get all they want and the poor get none. It is the pricing mechanism itself that creates the subgroup of people who are forced to drink contaminated water.
Therefore, the public health crisis is not an inevitable symptom of scarcity; it is a direct consequence of your chosen solution to scarcity. You cannot separate the outcome from the mechanism.
The Final Rejection of Your False Dichotomy
You conclude by framing my position as: "I don’t like the consequences of scarcity, so I blame the system that acknowledges it." You then equate any other solution with "beloved price ceilings" and "central planners."
This is a strawman. I have never once advocated for a government price ceiling. I have never advocated for a central planner to allocate every resource.
You champion a system where a man with a truck of water is incentivized to see his desperate, dying neighbor as a profit opportunity. I champion a system where he sees him as a human being to be helped.
Your view isn't "honest"; it's a selective and brittle ideology that willfully ignores any human motivation other than pure financial self-interest (likely fueled by what I pointed out in my last post). It ignores the existence of social capital. It is a philosophy so focused on the freedom of the individual from the state that it justifies the freedom of that same individual to exploit his fellow citizen in their moment of greatest need.
The Libertarian view fails here not because only because it's heartless, but because it is fragile. It breaks down under the slightest real-world pressure.
After his start with Lockheed Martin, my brother spent about a dozen years with ULA on the Atlas V project. The anti-science, anti-government parade of know-nothing politicians never stopped bitching about the price. They hate to be reminded that the high cost of success is often still much cheaper than the cost of failure. In 161 launches, the joint venture ULA Atlas V still has a 100% success rate!Yeah, My point about the moon landings was, that Starship has 9 launches only 4 could reasonably be called successes, and it's not like getting to orbit is breaking new ground. Apollo had 13 test missions of which 11 were successes.
in 1969 Saturn 5 could carry 140t to orbit. Musk claimed <cough-lied-cough> Starship would reach 250t, today that's been scaled back to a max of 150t, or only 10t greater than Saturn 5 if it every leaves the testing phase.. Apollo V were created with compass and protractors on drawing tables without the aid of CAD an in-computer-testing. So Musk and Starship have over 50 years of acquired knowledge and can't hit a 50% success rate? It would make sense if there was something truly groundbreaking here, but there isn't.
Starship is a dismal failure, whose only notable "feat" (Besides it's largest payload of 1 banana) was a graceful landing back on a launch tower, but that's a feat that I'd argue was a case of - the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
Your attempt to label my "third way" of mutual aid and community action as "fascism" is not only a stunning display of historical and political ignorance, but it is also a desperate rhetorical grenade thrown to distract from the collapse of your own argument.The "third way" is fascism. That's where ownership is nominally private, but the state still has full control over the economy. It's really just another form of socialism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?