Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
I have seen him on TV and admit that he is a very smart man but he, like everyone on TV, is playing a role. The comment above about the Pied Piper and how the elite uses ideologies against us comes to mind. He usually has much better arguments than that one about his cousin coming over for dinner. It seems Libertarians have a need for false analogies and other assorted logical fallacies. I wonder why.
Your use of personal attacks after just complaining about being personally attacked and calling someone prejudiced after defending the concept of segregated stores is a little sad.
The fact that you completely ignored my entire post must mean that you agree with it. I am glad.
Funny, from my viewpoint it looks like you are bailing out of a losing argument by ignoring the bulk of what I had to say and cherry picking my disagreement with your saintly Judge.I'm saying that when you haven't read a word written by the man, and only seen snippets on television, I don't consider you having an opinion on him worth responding to. You think you know what his "deal" is, but you don't. You are ignorant on the literature. I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but it's the correct word to describe someone who hasn't read or otherwise sought and absorbed the material.
Chattel slavery and child labor also reduces the price of goods as well as puts people out of work. You are blinded by your ideology as others have pointed out.Immigration doesn't only affect competition for low-skill labor, it also lowers prices of goods. The fact that you don't know that and haven't looked into it, which I can tell from how you framed your argument, makes it undesirable for me to argue with you about it. Gene Epstein of Baron's writes about it a lot very well.
Child labor has only ever been ended in wealthy societies that built up enough capital to do so. When Westerners who think child labor is per se wrong like yourself go into countries like Bangladesh and get them to criminalize it, you get stats of more starving children and child prostitutes. They need to go through child labor and build up capital to increase the production of their adult workers, then and only then can they end child labor. Or would instituting the code of laws regulating Western labor markets instituted in the Democratic Republic of Congo increase their quality of life?Chattel slavery and child labor also reduces the price of goods as well as puts people out of work. You are blinded by your ideology as others have pointed out.
I think an interesting question that you both could answer that would illuminate many things is "who is responsible?" In other words, if there is a free market, is someone responsible for keeping it thus? If there is poverty, is someone responsible for trying to remedy it? When these conversations happen, it seems like people talk past each other because there is a basic misunderstanding of who is responsible. If some awful thing like child labor happens within a free market, are the participants of that market responsible for the remedy of that? Is the govt?
I think when libertarians speak and people scratch their head it is a basic misunderstanding of this issue. Many people think that if something bad happens, it is the govt/rulers who are responsible for remedying it. Is that true?
I think it's a result of being educated in state schools that imply, and sometimes explicitly teach, that only the state can do meaningful things in society that help everyone. Private actors can only help themselves. The truth is largely the opposite, libertarians are red pilled on this, and blue pilled statists can't see it then.
“Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.” - Bastiat, from The Law
I had no illusion that you wouldn’t be able to answer those questions. I just wanted to see how bad your answers would be. And you didn’t disappoint. There are no good answers to them because Libertarianism is a flawed concept that doesn’t work in the real world. It is based on individuality taken to a ridiculous extreme just as communism is based on social responsibilities taken to a ridiculous extreme. As the Buddha said, the truth doesn't lie at the extremes but along the middle path.
Do you want to split hair here?How exactly is bejng "extreme" in opposing aggressive violence a bad thing?
Tell me true yerrag, are you an "extremist" vis a vis rape? Murder? How much of that should we consider hunky dory to satisfy not being "extremists?"
That's a good question but I think the answer is it depends on the issue. My issue with Libertarian thought is that they seem to think that individuals can solve almost all of societies problems whereas it is sometimes more efficient for the Government to do so. As an example, would you like to inspect the kitchen of every restaurant you eat in. I think there are also a lot of worthwhile societal goals that need Government involvement. One I mentioned above is anti-discrimination laws.I think an interesting question that you both could answer that would illuminate many things is "who is responsible?" In other words, if there is a free market, is someone responsible for keeping it thus? If there is poverty, is someone responsible for trying to remedy it? When these conversations happen, it seems like people talk past each other because there is a basic misunderstanding of who is responsible. If some awful thing like child labor happens within a free market, are the participants of that market responsible for the remedy of that? Is the govt?
I think when libertarians speak and people scratch their head it is a basic misunderstanding of this issue. Many people think that if something bad happens, it is the govt/rulers who are responsible for remedying it. Is that true?
Lol, you will literally argue anything. My only point in bringing up slavery and child labor is that though they also lower consumer costs, that isn't a good reason to allow it. Likewise illegal immigration obviously has some benefits to consumers but the cost to society as a whole is much worse. The studies that show that immigration is a net plus are extremely flawed. They either only looks at Federal Government outlays vs payroll taxes or conflate illegal with legal immigration in terms of job creation.Child labor has only ever been ended in wealthy societies that built up enough capital to do so. When Westerners who think child labor is per se wrong like yourself go into countries like Bangladesh and get them to criminalize it, you get stats of more starving children and child prostitutes. They need to go through child labor and build up capital to increase the production of their adult workers, then and only then can they end child labor. Or would instituting the code of laws regulating Western labor markets instituted in the Democratic Republic of Congo increase their quality of life?
Do you want to split hair here?
Extreme is being tied to libertarianism and applying it hook, line, and sinker.
That is extreme. If you are such a practitioner, I would consider you an extremist libertarian.
That's a good question but I think the answer is it depends on the issue. My issue with Libertarian thought is that they seem to think that individuals can solve almost all of societies problems whereas it is sometimes more efficient for the Government to do so.
I don't see the point of this question. Do libertarians have a substantially differing disposition towards how they view murder?So if I am "extremely" against murder, I am an "extremist libertarian?" In what way, other than extreme, do you oppose murder?[/QUOTE
Lol, you will literally argue anything. My only point in bringing up slavery and child labor is that though they also lower consumer costs, that isn't a good reason to allow it. Likewise illegal immigration obviously has some benefits to consumers but the cost to society as a whole is much worse. The studies that show that immigration is a net plus are extremely flawed. They either only looks at Federal Government outlays vs payroll taxes or conflate illegal with legal immigration in terms of job creation.
I don't see the point of this question. Do libertarians have a substantially differing disposition towards how they view murder?
Maybe I shouldn't call you an extremist libertarian. I should just say that while I agree with the spirit that runs through libertarianism, I cannot wholesale go with it in practice. I detest big government, because it takes away from the individual's capacity to better himself, and as extension, to better society. But if government is about individuals working towards a common good, and not about individuals living off the largesse of a community chest where parasites outnumber those who actually work, I am not against government. That is a lot to ask for, and I'm not even sure if such a government exists among the many countries that dot the planet. But I don't think there is any country that is libertarian in practice either. It would be nice if you could be the president of such a country. I'll be the press and I'll savor the reporting of how unlibertarian you have come to be as the president.I'm demonstrating to you that being "extremely against" something is not a bad thing. At some point it became fashionable to be "against extremism." But that is just a silly phrase, you can show it's silly be asking if they are "extremely against extremism."
Do you follow?