Sunday, September 26, 2010

Anarcho-capitalism debate

Anarcho Capitalist here. I believe that the best way to run government is through complete and total voluntarism. Ask me anything, I'm happy to defend my point of view.




can you define anarcho capitalism and your view for me?
not sure what it is

can you define anarcho capitalism and your view for me?
not sure what it is

Basically everybody does what they want as long as it's done for money

can you define anarcho capitalism and your view for me?
not sure what it is

Anarcho Capitalism is simple. There is no state, and all forms of government are done through contractual agreement. So security and legislation are handled by private entities. You voluntarily join these entities.

Anarcho Capitalist here. I believe that the best way to run government is through complete and total voluntarism. Ask me anything, I'm happy to defend my point of view.

hell yeah bro i'm with you.
However what if I desire to kill you and steal all your possessions?

I'm not going to ask you anything, I'm just going to tell you that you're retarded.

We need more courthouses, so that legal stuff can be handled more efficiently. so privatize courts, somewhat, I think is a step in the right direction.


Anarcho Capitalism is simple. There is no state, and all forms of government are done through contractual agreement. So security and legislation are handled by private entities. You voluntarily join these entities.


Basically everybody does what they want as long as it's done for money

now I don't know which one is OP.
you should have tripped up broh . this thread is dead to me now.


hell yeah bro i'm with you.
However what if I desire to kill you and steal all your possessions?

Well then it's good that the community I'm a part of has banded together and purchased police protection from a PMC. So if you do that you'll be hunted down and probably killed

Basically it'll just end up with competing gangs.

are you younger than 22 years old?
do you realize you are self-satirizing?

NOT OP
i'm 100% capitalist but I live at home with my parents who pay for my food, gas, internet, clothes. I think people who don't work hard deserve to be poor.

Basically it'll just end up with competing gangs.

If you want to call societies "gangs" then yes.

the best government is the one one that leaves there people alone and do as they please as long as they are not hurting anyone. That being said they already f**ked that up so if we are going to get dicked around by our govt it might as well be for programs that actually help people.

are you younger than 22 years old?
do you realize you are self-satirizing?

Look everyone, it's a Democrat!


Look everyone, it's a Democrat!

before i vowed to never vote again, my only votes were for GWB for his 2nd term.

>OP picture implying he actually earned what he did through his own volition and not through the socialized infrastructure provided by the government

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric ADministration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food & Drug Administration.
At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards & Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level
determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to a house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and the fire marshal's inspection, which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.
I then log on to the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on web about how GOVERNMENT is BAD because the government can't do anything right.
Pic related, the world's leading anarcho-capitalist.

Do you happen to be white and middle class?


hell yeah bro i'm with you.
However what if I desire to kill you and steal all your possessions?
Why not visit sunny Somalia. Where every man is entitled to the sweat of his brow.

It's like that Monty Python sketch from Life of Brian, what have the Romans ever done for us?

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric ADministration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food & Drug Administration.
At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards & Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level
determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to a house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and the fire marshal's inspection, which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.
I then log on to the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on web about how GOVERNMENT is BAD because the government can't do anything right.
Pic related, the world's leading anarcho-capitalist.

F**king THIS, OP. Let's see you rebut this stuff. Or you could pay someone to do it for you.


F**king THIS, OP. Let's see you rebut this stuff. Or you could pay someone to do it for you.

inb4 rebuttal consists of NO U FA**OT LOL U R A NI**ER LOLOLOL

"Is a man not entitled to a sh*tty opinion?"

But how will the economy go forward without government purchases boosting aggregate demand and central banks increasing the money supply to achieve the same effect?

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric ADministration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food & Drug Administration.
At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards & Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level
determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to a house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and the fire marshal's inspection, which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.
I then log on to the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on web about how GOVERNMENT is BAD because the government can't do anything right.
Pic related, the world's leading anarcho-capitalist.

Those are things that ALL americans benefit from, hence all of them should pay a little. I have health insurance and enough money to support myself... the government shouldn't be taking from me to give to those that are too f**king awful at life to earn these things. social darwinism: if your in tons of debt and can't pay for your diabetes medication then you deserve to be weeded out of the gene pool, not get your hand held through life by the rest of society.

I'm sure our GLORIOUS ANARCHO CAPITALIST system will be amazing and they WON'T EXPLOIT ANYONE.

But how will the economy go forward without government purchases boosting aggregate demand and central banks increasing the money supply to achieve the same effect?

lol oh Keynes, you and your bullsh*t....


Those are things that ALL americans benefit from, hence all of them should pay a little. I have health insurance and enough money to support myself... the government shouldn't be taking from me to give to those that are too f**king awful at life to earn these things. social darwinism: if your in tons of debt and can't pay for your diabetes medication then you deserve to be weeded out of the gene pool, not get your hand held through life by the rest of society.

Why do they deserve that? Because YOU are a sociopath? I would rather keep diabetics around than you. Perhaps we should gather up people like you, declare you unfit for modern society and kill you?


Those are things that ALL americans benefit from, hence all of them should pay a little. I have health insurance and enough money to support myself... the government shouldn't be taking from me to give to those that are too f**king awful at life to earn these things. social darwinism: if your in tons of debt and can't pay for your diabetes medication then you deserve to be weeded out of the gene pool, not get your hand held through life by the rest of society.

>if your in tons of debt and can't pay for your diabetes medication then you deserve to be weeded out of the gene pool
If you don't know the difference between your and you're, then you deserve to be weeded out of the gene pool.
Your logic works both ways.


Basically everybody does what they want as long as it's done for money

I rape and kill for money.

Fellow AC here. Keep being Awesome, OP.

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric ADministration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food & Drug Administration.
At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards & Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level
determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to a house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and the fire marshal's inspection, which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.
I then log on to the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on web about how GOVERNMENT is BAD because the government can't do anything right.
Pic related, the world's leading anarcho-capitalist.

Oh yes, where would we be without the omnipotent state. Without its benevolent presence I would not be able to even think, let alone articulate my thoughts into language! And I'd be at a hospital (oh wait, those wouldn't exist!) dying from food poisoning without mummy government to hold my hand. That is, if I didn't die from watching prohibited programmes on TV!
Funny, almost all the things it mentions are either a) attributable to the market, b) could be provided by the market but for the state's interventions or c) projects of the state that the market expanded upon and which took off with knowledge it had provided to begin with. The glorious state, all bow at its altar.

We could have used you on [a/ last week athens.
F**king feminist explosion out of nowhere.

I'm sure our GLORIOUS ANARCHO CAPITALIST system will be amazing and they WON'T EXPLOIT ANYONE.

its not the government's responsibility to make sure people are happy and not getting taken advantage of, its to make sure they have the ability to PURSUE happiness and avoid getting taken advantage of.


Oh yes, where would we be without the omnipotent state. Without its benevolent presence I would not be able to even think, let alone articulate my thoughts into language! And I'd be at a hospital (oh wait, those wouldn't exist!) dying from food poisoning without mummy government to hold my hand. That is, if I didn't die from watching prohibited programmes on TV!
Funny, almost all the things it mentions are either a) attributable to the market, b) could be provided by the market but for the state's interventions or c) projects of the state that the market expanded upon and which took off with knowledge it had provided to begin with. The glorious state, all bow at its altar.

Prove the existence of this market.


Prove the existence of this market.

Is this some French existential postmodernist nonsense you've got going on here? 'Prove the existence of the market'?

We could have used you on [a/ last week athens.
F**king feminist explosion out of nowhere.

Wait what?
What the f**k...?
Feminism on /a/!?

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric ADministration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food & Drug Administration.
At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards & Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level
determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to a house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and the fire marshal's inspection, which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.
I then log on to the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on web about how GOVERNMENT is BAD because the government can't do anything right.
Pic related, the world's leading anarcho-capitalist.

Not OP, and a socialist so definitely not defending his views, but that's just a really sh*tty argument. Sure, he lives off the government and it works decently, but that doesn't necessarily mean that anarcho-capitalism wouldn't work better than the current system.


Is this some French existential postmodernist nonsense you've got going on here? 'Prove the existence of the market'?

No, prove a market exists. Define it. What is it?

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric ADministration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US Department of Agriculture inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food & Drug Administration.
At the appropriate time as regulated by the US Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards & Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level
determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.
After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to a house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and the fire marshal's inspection, which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.
I then log on to the internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and post on web about how GOVERNMENT is BAD because the government can't do anything right.
Pic related, the world's leading anarcho-capitalist.

Also, nice implied ad hominem from your picture.


Those are things that ALL americans benefit from, hence all of them should pay a little. I have health insurance and enough money to support myself... the government shouldn't be taking from me to give to those that are too f**king awful at life to earn these things. social darwinism: if your in tons of debt and can't pay for your diabetes medication then you deserve to be weeded out of the gene pool, not get your hand held through life by the rest of society.

>Implying companies will better/more fairly distribute those services
>Implying poverty is always the fault of the individual
I guess a man who works for fifty years who watches his funds evaporate because of corrupt banking practices he has no control over or knowledge of is an EVIL LEECH ON SOCIETY.
Grow the f**k up and learn to economics. You also have a vested interest in health care for all of society, since they effect you. Sick people can't work well, and provide the services needed for capitalism to exist. Diseases that may have been easily treated may spread because people don't have medical treatment. Crime rates over economic burdens imposed by health care companies and their unfair abuse of their power hurt others.
Socialized medicine decreases crime rates, improves the abilities of all members of society to function, stimulates the economy (money spent on universal health care is substantially less than that of the money spent on private health care, and empirically speaking, the tax increase is less than the average cost for private medicine) In your own words...
>>Those are things that ALL americans benefit from, hence all of them should pay a little.


Why do they deserve that? Because YOU are a sociopath? I would rather keep diabetics around than you. Perhaps we should gather up people like you, declare you unfit for modern society and kill you?

That's not gonna happen. I'm useful to society. A person trying to live above their means is not. Be bitter all you want, the basic fact of the matter is that ultimately people like me come out on top because we understand how life works. If you manage to get enough power to have me eliminated, you've earned it.


>Implying companies will better/more fairly distribute those services
>Implying poverty is always the fault of the individual
I guess a man who works for fifty years who watches his funds evaporate because of corrupt banking practices he has no control over or knowledge of is an EVIL LEECH ON SOCIETY.
Grow the f**k up and learn to economics. You also have a vested interest in health care for all of society, since they effect you. Sick people can't work well, and provide the services needed for capitalism to exist. Diseases that may have been easily treated may spread because people don't have medical treatment. Crime rates over economic burdens imposed by health care companies and their unfair abuse of their power hurt others.
Socialized medicine decreases crime rates, improves the abilities of all members of society to function, stimulates the economy (money spent on universal health care is substantially less than that of the money spent on private health care, and empirically speaking, the tax increase is less than the average cost for private medicine) In your own words...
>>Those are things that ALL americans benefit from, hence all of them should pay a little.

>Corrupt banking practices
The most corrupt banking practice is the Fed setting artificially low interest rates.


Oh yes, where would we be without the omnipotent state. Without its benevolent presence I would not be able to even think, let alone articulate my thoughts into language! And I'd be at a hospital (oh wait, those wouldn't exist!) dying from food poisoning without mummy government to hold my hand. That is, if I didn't die from watching prohibited programmes on TV!
Funny, almost all the things it mentions are either a) attributable to the market, b) could be provided by the market but for the state's interventions or c) projects of the state that the market expanded upon and which took off with knowledge it had provided to begin with. The glorious state, all bow at its altar.

I agree with your points, but having many services provided by the state is rather convenient.
I mean, can you imagine a private police agency checking your subscription while you're being robbed to make sure you're a subscriber? I get that they could save you and then bill you, but what if you can't pay? Can you tell the police officer available to not save you because you can't afford it? It just seems needlessly cumbersome for some services.
We could have used you on [a/ last week athens.
F**king feminist explosion out of nowhere.

lol, it wasn't that bad. That new f**king show, B Gata or whatever it's called, is accurately characterizing the degradation of chivalry in western society. That's why the main girl is such a slut.


Oh yes, where would we be without the omnipotent state. Without its benevolent presence I would not be able to even think, let alone articulate my thoughts into language! And I'd be at a hospital (oh wait, those wouldn't exist!) dying from food poisoning without mummy government to hold my hand. That is, if I didn't die from watching prohibited programmes on TV!
Funny, almost all the things it mentions are either a) attributable to the market, b) could be provided by the market but for the state's interventions or c) projects of the state that the market expanded upon and which took off with knowledge it had provided to begin with. The glorious state, all bow at its altar.

It's funny how you assume that the market has any function but to generate as much profit as possible.


I agree with your points, but having many services provided by the state is rather convenient.
I mean, can you imagine a private police agency checking your subscription while you're being robbed to make sure you're a subscriber? I get that they could save you and then bill you, but what if you can't pay? Can you tell the police officer available to not save you because you can't afford it? It just seems needlessly cumbersome for some services.
lol, it wasn't that bad. That new f**king show, B Gata or whatever it's called, is accurately characterizing the degradation of chivalry in western society. That's why the main girl is such a slut.

>I mean, can you imagine a private police agency checking your subscription while you're being robbed to make sure you're a subscriber?
Nah, I agree with law and order as a public good. I certainly don't believe in tying their hands behind their backs though, or getting rid of castle law doctrines.
As I said before, anarcho-capitalists are wrong when they assert states have an invariable tendency to grow. That's not true, DEMOCRATIC states have an invariable tendency to grow because of reasons Mill outlined two centuries ago. So long as the festering disease called democracy can be put down, we can have limited government and keep it that way.


>Corrupt banking practices
The most corrupt banking practice is the Fed setting artificially low interest rates.

Really? And here I thought it was whatever caused the biggest financial crisis since the great depression.


It's funny how you assume that the market has any function but to generate as much profit as possible.

>profit
That's where you're wrong, the market doesn't operate on a profit basis. It operates on a profit AND LOSS basis. Wherein the losses are more important than the profits, because it's the LOSSES that get rid of bad and inefficient business practices.


>I mean, can you imagine a private police agency checking your subscription while you're being robbed to make sure you're a subscriber?
Nah, I agree with law and order as a public good. I certainly don't believe in tying their hands behind their backs though, or getting rid of castle law doctrines.
As I said before, anarcho-capitalists are wrong when they assert states have an invariable tendency to grow. That's not true, DEMOCRATIC states have an invariable tendency to grow because of reasons Mill outlined two centuries ago. So long as the festering disease called democracy can be put down, we can have limited government and keep it that way.

I agree, authoritarian states are well known to not interfere overly in public life.
Oh no wait, they're not for the exact opposite of that.


Wait what?
What the f**k...?
Feminism on /a/!?

Not really feminism, just a few very persistent feminists lambasting some new shows because they "unfairly" characterize women as loose and emotionally unstable, a characterization they attribute to "sexist" authors.


>Implying companies will better/more fairly distribute those services
>Implying poverty is always the fault of the individual
I guess a man who works for fifty years who watches his funds evaporate because of corrupt banking practices he has no control over or knowledge of is an EVIL LEECH ON SOCIETY.
Grow the f**k up and learn to economics. You also have a vested interest in health care for all of society, since they effect you. Sick people can't work well, and provide the services needed for capitalism to exist. Diseases that may have been easily treated may spread because people don't have medical treatment. Crime rates over economic burdens imposed by health care companies and their unfair abuse of their power hurt others.
Socialized medicine decreases crime rates, improves the abilities of all members of society to function, stimulates the economy (money spent on universal health care is substantially less than that of the money spent on private health care, and empirically speaking, the tax increase is less than the average cost for private medicine) In your own words...
>>Those are things that ALL americans benefit from, hence all of them should pay a little.

you're forgetting that americas' health care companies are the by far the most innovative left because they still have the motivation of profit. take that away and you'll never see a cure for aids, diabetes, and other diseases that could be beneficial to the working poor.
Also, we are 13 trillion dollars in debt already. let's not make it worse by implementing a system that will be an expensive mess for such a huge population. but I need to learn economics right? pro-tip, don't spend money you don't have old-timer.


>Corrupt banking practices
The most corrupt banking practice is the Fed setting artificially low interest rates.

Herp derp Austrian business cycle herp derp central banks are privately run entities working in the interests of the major corporations herp derp gold standard is the only solution herp derp


Really? And here I thought it was whatever caused the biggest financial crisis since the great depression.

No, subprime was caused by three things.
First was deficit spending, under successive administrations that devalued the dollar.
Second was the artificially low interest rates the Fed employed.
Third was forcing banks to lend to low income earners (the CRA and the tightening up of its regulatory conditions on banks in the 90s).
Of course, you can blame 'banksters' all you want, but that's a boogeyman invented by regulatory f**ktards and governments to increase their oversight. Seriously, if people like you had your way, we'd have 10 different layers of regulation... And guess what! It still wouldn't fix the problem, it would only add to it.


you're forgetting that americas' health care companies are the by far the most innovative left because they still have the motivation of profit. take that away and you'll never see a cure for aids, diabetes, and other diseases that could be beneficial to the working poor.
Also, we are 13 trillion dollars in debt already. let's not make it worse by implementing a system that will be an expensive mess for such a huge population. but I need to learn economics right? pro-tip, don't spend money you don't have old-timer.

>you're forgetting that americas' health care companies are the by far the most innovative left because they still have the motivation of profit
This is also why they're so incredibly cost-inefficient and corrupt.


>Corrupt banking practices
The most corrupt banking practice is the Fed setting artificially low interest rates.

The Fed derives its power independent of the majority of government. Try again, newf**.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm

Oh yes, where would we be without the omnipotent state. Without its benevolent presence I would not be able to even think, let alone articulate my thoughts into language! And I'd be at a hospital (oh wait, those wouldn't exist!) dying from food poisoning without mummy government to hold my hand. That is, if I didn't die from watching prohibited programmes on TV!
Funny, almost all the things it mentions are either a) attributable to the market, b) could be provided by the market but for the state's interventions or c) projects of the state that the market expanded upon and which took off with knowledge it had provided to begin with. The glorious state, all bow at its altar.

All of the things it mentions are a result of cooperation between the public and private sectors. What you ought to be advocating as an anarcho capitalist is the abolishment of the governmental moderation that is practiced here. Neither the state nor the private sectors are complete benevolent or completely corrupt, but historically and logically speaking, both of them work well when they operate to counteract each other's flaws.
The State isn't there to hold your hand; it is there to hold back the hands of the corporations uninterested in the wellbeing of their customers.


No, subprime was caused by three things.
First was deficit spending, under successive administrations that devalued the dollar.
Second was the artificially low interest rates the Fed employed.
Third was forcing banks to lend to low income earners (the CRA and the tightening up of its regulatory conditions on banks in the 90s).
Of course, you can blame 'banksters' all you want, but that's a boogeyman invented by regulatory f**ktards and governments to increase their oversight. Seriously, if people like you had your way, we'd have 10 different layers of regulation... And guess what! It still wouldn't fix the problem, it would only add to it.

>Third was forcing banks to lend to low income earners
Dohoho. What.


I agree, authoritarian states are well known to not interfere overly in public life.
Oh no wait, they're not for the exact opposite of that.

The most authoritarian state in existence is the one we have now. The results are there for you to see with your own eyes. Tax rates under this system of universal compulsory democracy make the economic load endured by serfs seem modest. Government debt has risen to breathtaking levels. Gold has been replaced by Government manufactured paper currency with a continually diminishing value. Every detail of private life, property, trade and contract is regulated by ever higher mountains of paper law (legislation). In the name of social, public or national security our caretakers 'protect' us from global warming and cooling, the extinction of animals and plants, from husbands and wives, parents and employers, poverty, disease, disaster, ignorance, prejudice, racism, sexism, homophobia and countless other public enemies and dangers.

Herp derp Austrian business cycle herp derp central banks are privately run entities working in the interests of the major corporations herp derp gold standard is the only solution herp derp

Funny how it was the Austrians who saw it come, eh? When every Keynesian was foretelling unlimited growth for the next century and a half.

Not really feminism, just a few very persistent feminists lambasting some new shows because they "unfairly" characterize women as loose and emotionally unstable, a characterization they attribute to "sexist" authors.

hm, I'll keep an eye out.


>you're forgetting that americas' health care companies are the by far the most innovative left because they still have the motivation of profit
This is also why they're so incredibly cost-inefficient and corrupt.

profit seeker != corrupt
making a medicine expensive because people will pay for it is fair, regardless of what it costs to make. They will then use that profit to make a better medicine that you have to pay for AGAIN. its progress. if you can pay for it, you will, because its better. government set prices will cease their reason to continue making a better product. americans bite the bullet for PROGRESS in medical fields. its worth it.


The most authoritarian state in existence is the one we have now. The results are there for you to see with your own eyes. Tax rates under this system of universal compulsory democracy make the economic load endured by serfs seem modest. Government debt has risen to breathtaking levels. Gold has been replaced by Government manufactured paper currency with a continually diminishing value. Every detail of private life, property, trade and contract is regulated by ever higher mountains of paper law (legislation). In the name of social, public or national security our caretakers 'protect' us from global warming and cooling, the extinction of animals and plants, from husbands and wives, parents and employers, poverty, disease, disaster, ignorance, prejudice, racism, sexism, homophobia and countless other public enemies and dangers.

Funny how it was the Austrians who saw it come, eh? When every Keynesian was foretelling unlimited growth for the next century and a half.

hm, I'll keep an eye out.

All Austrians foresee bad sh*t happening in the future. They are the biggest alarmists in the field, like if Alex Jones was preaching economics.
Want proof? This page pretty much examines every claim Schiff made in the past decade. It's a fun read:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/peter-schiff-was-wrong.html

If a govt was run by volunteers, there would be only 100 percent mega millionares rather than the 95 percent comfortably weathy millionaires.
Not paying any wage would encourage graft.
/thread.

I'm a big fan of Hayek, but I don't completely disregard Keynes, especially Keynesian inspired modeling.
It's one of those situations where the movement gets out of hand and turns the founder into a demigod.
On the other side of the debate, I fear Friedman is slowly becoming a demigod as well, especially since his death.


The Fed derives its power independent of the majority of government. Try again, newf**.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm

All of the things it mentions are a result of cooperation between the public and private sectors. What you ought to be advocating as an anarcho capitalist is the abolishment of the governmental moderation that is practiced here. Neither the state nor the private sectors are complete benevolent or completely corrupt, but historically and logically speaking, both of them work well when they operate to counteract each other's flaws.
The State isn't there to hold your hand; it is there to hold back the hands of the corporations uninterested in the wellbeing of their customers.

>Fed derives its power independent of the majority of government.
Theoretically independent or no, there is no need for a central institution setting interest rates.
>The State isn't there to hold your hand; it is there to hold back the hands of the corporations uninterested in the wellbeing of their customers.
Yeah, just like The Clean Air Act of the 1970s right? lol.

>Third was forcing banks to lend to low income earners
Dohoho. What.

Are you unaware of the Community Reinvestment Act?
>Securitization of affordable housing loans expanded, as did the secondary market for these loans, in part reflecting a 1992 law that required the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to devote a large percentage of their activities to meeting affordable housing goals.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/Bernanke20070330a.htm
The government also "streamlined" the regulatory requirements for CRA loans in 1995, allowing and indeed pressuring banks to make such loans without the benefit of many traditional credit-worthiness criteria, such as the size of the mortgage payment relative to income, savings history, and even income verification! Instead, the Fed told banks that participation in a credit-counseling program, many of which are federally funded, could be used as "proof" of a low-income applicant's ability to make his mortgage payments. In other words, federal bank regulators required banks to make bad loans based on nonexistent credit standards.


The most authoritarian state in existence is the one we have now. The results are there for you to see with your own eyes. Tax rates under this system of universal compulsory democracy make the economic load endured by serfs seem modest. Government debt has risen to breathtaking levels. Gold has been replaced by Government manufactured paper currency with a continually diminishing value. Every detail of private life, property, trade and contract is regulated by ever higher mountains of paper law (legislation). In the name of social, public or national security our caretakers 'protect' us from global warming and cooling, the extinction of animals and plants, from husbands and wives, parents and employers, poverty, disease, disaster, ignorance, prejudice, racism, sexism, homophobia and countless other public enemies and dangers.

Funny how it was the Austrians who saw it come, eh? When every Keynesian was foretelling unlimited growth for the next century and a half.

hm, I'll keep an eye out.

>The most authoritarian state in existence is the one we have now.
And here's me thinking Stalinist Russia was bad!


No, subprime was caused by three things.
First was deficit spending, under successive administrations that devalued the dollar.
Second was the artificially low interest rates the Fed employed.
Third was forcing banks to lend to low income earners (the CRA and the tightening up of its regulatory conditions on banks in the 90s).
Of course, you can blame 'banksters' all you want, but that's a boogeyman invented by regulatory f**ktards and governments to increase their oversight. Seriously, if people like you had your way, we'd have 10 different layers of regulation... And guess what! It still wouldn't fix the problem, it would only add to it.

>First was deficit spending, under successive administrations that devalued the dollar.
I'm sure the devaluation of the dollar has absolutely nothing to do with the private institutions that account for at least 75-85$ of the US GDP.
>Second was the artificially low interest rates the Fed employed.
As another anon said earlier, the Fed is independent of government. Also, the Fed did this because they and bank owners who wanted to make a f**kton more money.
>Third was forcing banks to lend to low income earners (the CRA and the tightening up of its regulatory conditions on banks in the 90s).
I'd like to see a link for this.
>Of course, you can blame 'banksters' all you want, but that's a boogeyman invented by regulatory f**ktards and governments to increase their oversight.
You say its invented but you don't provide a source. Lulz
>Seriously, if people like you had your way, we'd have 10 different layers of regulation... And guess what! It still wouldn't fix the problem, it would only add to it.
I don't want more government, what I want is basic infrastructure to be provided for all. I firmly believe in reasonably determined equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

I'm a big fan of Hayek, but I don't completely disregard Keynes, especially Keynesian inspired modeling.
It's one of those situations where the movement gets out of hand and turns the founder into a demigod.
On the other side of the debate, I fear Friedman is slowly becoming a demigod as well, especially since his death.

I blame bullish economic neoliberalism for the Neo-Keynesian vomit.


profit seeker != corrupt
making a medicine expensive because people will pay for it is fair, regardless of what it costs to make. They will then use that profit to make a better medicine that you have to pay for AGAIN. its progress. if you can pay for it, you will, because its better. government set prices will cease their reason to continue making a better product. americans bite the bullet for PROGRESS in medical fields. its worth it.

The best response to any statist who seriously propounds price controls (do serious price control advocates still exist?) is this:
"How can sellers be greedy if buyers determine prices?"


The most authoritarian state in existence is the one we have now. The results are there for you to see with your own eyes. Tax rates under this system of universal compulsory democracy make the economic load endured by serfs seem modest. Government debt has risen to breathtaking levels. Gold has been replaced by Government manufactured paper currency with a continually diminishing value. Every detail of private life, property, trade and contract is regulated by ever higher mountains of paper law (legislation). In the name of social, public or national security our caretakers 'protect' us from global warming and cooling, the extinction of animals and plants, from husbands and wives, parents and employers, poverty, disease, disaster, ignorance, prejudice, racism, sexism, homophobia and countless other public enemies and dangers.

Funny how it was the Austrians who saw it come, eh? When every Keynesian was foretelling unlimited growth for the next century and a half.

hm, I'll keep an eye out.

>The most authoritarian state in existence is the one we have now
Where? America, or the west in general?


The best response to any statist who seriously propounds price controls (do serious price control advocates still exist?) is this:
"How can sellers be greedy if buyers determine prices?"

>"How can sellers be greedy if buyers determine prices?"
Because they don't?


I blame bullish economic neoliberalism for the Neo-Keynesian vomit.

That's probably a fair assessment, though there has got to more to it.


>First was deficit spending, under successive administrations that devalued the dollar.
I'm sure the devaluation of the dollar has absolutely nothing to do with the private institutions that account for at least 75-85$ of the US GDP.
>Second was the artificially low interest rates the Fed employed.
As another anon said earlier, the Fed is independent of government. Also, the Fed did this because they and bank owners who wanted to make a f**kton more money.
>Third was forcing banks to lend to low income earners (the CRA and the tightening up of its regulatory conditions on banks in the 90s).
I'd like to see a link for this.
>Of course, you can blame 'banksters' all you want, but that's a boogeyman invented by regulatory f**ktards and governments to increase their oversight.
You say its invented but you don't provide a source. Lulz
>Seriously, if people like you had your way, we'd have 10 different layers of regulation... And guess what! It still wouldn't fix the problem, it would only add to it.
I don't want more government, what I want is basic infrastructure to be provided for all. I firmly believe in reasonably determined equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.

Wait, what are you talking about? It's not private institutions that are printing money to fund deficit spending you idiot.
>As another anon said earlier, the Fed is independent of government.
So the f**k what?!
It's still a central institution SETTING INTEREST RATES.
Again, theoretically independent or not - That is not the market determining interest rates by any means.
>I'd like to see a link for this.
see

>Fed derives its power independent of the majority of government.
Theoretically independent or no, there is no need for a central institution setting interest rates.
>The State isn't there to hold your hand; it is there to hold back the hands of the corporations uninterested in the wellbeing of their customers.
Yeah, just like The Clean Air Act of the 1970s right? lol.

Are you unaware of the Community Reinvestment Act?
>Securitization of affordable housing loans expanded, as did the secondary market for these loans, in part reflecting a 1992 law that required the government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to devote a large percentage of their activities to meeting affordable housing goals.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/Bernanke20070330a.htm
The government also "streamlined" the regulatory requirements for CRA loans in 1995, allowing and indeed pressuring banks to make such loans without the benefit of many traditional credit-worthiness criteria, such as the size of the mortgage payment relative to income, savings history, and even income verification! Instead, the Fed told banks that participation in a credit-counseling program, many of which are federally funded, could be used as "proof" of a low-income applicant's ability to make his mortgage payments. In other words, federal bank regulators required banks to make bad loans based on nonexistent credit standards.

Are you seriously claiming you didn't know the CRA existed?

>I don't want more government
Yes you do. Every time a crisis happens you blame the private sector and ensure a new layer of regulation is added.
How many times are you going to do this until you realize it's regulation and intervention that's the problem in the first place?


>The most authoritarian state in existence is the one we have now
Where? America, or the west in general?

>The most authoritarian state in existence is the one we have now
well then i for one welcome our new authoritarian overlords because highest standard of living in existence is the one we have now.

I'm a big fan of Hayek, but I don't completely disregard Keynes, especially Keynesian inspired modeling.
It's one of those situations where the movement gets out of hand and turns the founder into a demigod.
On the other side of the debate, I fear Friedman is slowly becoming a demigod as well, especially since his death.

>Friedman
Fun fact: his son is quite the anarcho-capitalist.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Friedman


>"How can sellers be greedy if buyers determine prices?"
Because they don't?

Then get back to economics 101. The price-level is determined by the total of individual purchases (for every SELLER there must be a BUYER), and this sum total is determined by conditions with which individual buyers have very little to do, but on a given price level the relative prices at which various commodities and services are sold are determined almost exclusively by the purchases of individual buyers.

>The most authoritarian state in existence is the one we have now
Where? America, or the west in general?

Any democratic republic. America is still more free though as the statists are inhibited by the constitution, I have no doubt that Hussein will try to find a way around that though.


>The most authoritarian state in existence is the one we have now
well then i for one welcome our new authoritarian overlords because highest standard of living in existence is the one we have now.

Correlation does not equal causation. Real wages increase as a result of productivity, not Government intervention.

>Theoretically independent or no, there is no need for a central institution setting interest rates.
Thanks for conceding it is independent, broski.
>Yeah, just like The Clean Air Act of the 1970s right? lol.
I have no problem with the government working to enforce clean air standards, which have contributed to an improvement in human health and longer life spans. Are you going to dispute the effect of smog and carbon monoxide on humans? Moreover, the act had the largest impact on the private sector since, y'know, industry pollutes much more than most individuals.


Well then it's good that the community I'm a part of has banded together and purchased police protection from a PMC. So if you do that you'll be hunted down and probably killed

and what if my community (which is bigger and richer) sides with me and decides we should take over all your land and kill everyone of you?


>"How can sellers be greedy if buyers determine prices?"
Because they don't?

lo f**kin l... yes the buyers do. if people refuse to buy, they have to lower prices. if enough buy it to make a corporation money, then that's a job well done. so i'd appreciate and explanation as to your resentment of supply and demand.
corporations aren't evil satanic entities guys, they are just people trying to make money like you and me. just because the CEO is stinking rich and powerful doesn't mean he can force you to buy his product. a company can dick you into paying more than you want to, but its your decision.


Correlation does not equal causation. Real wages increase as a result of productivity, not Government intervention.

>Real wages increase as a result of productivity, not Government intervention
I'm sure that the people of Chinese factory #33981 approve of your economic plan; however, your premise is flawed. In China, thanks to their government's lack of intervention in business, there has been a substancial increase in productivity due to the exploitation of workers. The government lets businesses do as they please, with very little regard for human life. Unfortunately, the productivity of the workers doesn't correlate with the money they are paid. As an anarcho capitalist, I imagine you aspire to be a coal minor, correct? Because that's what you'll get if the government doesn't moderate business practices.

>Theoretically independent or no, there is no need for a central institution setting interest rates.
Thanks for conceding it is independent, broski.
>Yeah, just like The Clean Air Act of the 1970s right? lol.
I have no problem with the government working to enforce clean air standards, which have contributed to an improvement in human health and longer life spans. Are you going to dispute the effect of smog and carbon monoxide on humans? Moreover, the act had the largest impact on the private sector since, y'know, industry pollutes much more than most individuals.

When did I claim it wasn't independent? I claimed it was centrally planned intervention that led in no small part to subprime.
>which have contributed to an improvement in human health and longer life spans. Are you going to dispute the effect of smog and carbon monoxide on humans? Moreover, the act had the largest impact on the private sector since, y'know, industry pollutes much more than most individuals.
Uhuh. That's why prior to its enactment in 1970, air pollution was being reduced in the United States.
From 1950 until 1970, the amount of volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide in the nation's air fell by more than 20 percent, even though total vehicle-miles traveled in the country rose by 120 percent, from 458 billion to 1.1 trillion. The level of sulfur dioxide in the air began falling as far back as 1920, and the total amount of airborne particulate matter has been reduced by 79 percent since 1940.
See: "How Deadly is Air Pollution?" Consumers' Research (February 1997)


Wait, what are you talking about? It's not private institutions that are printing money to fund deficit spending you idiot.
>As another anon said earlier, the Fed is independent of government.
So the f**k what?!
It's still a central institution SETTING INTEREST RATES.
Again, theoretically independent or not - That is not the market determining interest rates by any means.
>I'd like to see a link for this.
see

Are you seriously claiming you didn't know the CRA existed?

>I don't want more government
Yes you do. Every time a crisis happens you blame the private sector and ensure a new layer of regulation is added.
How many times are you going to do this until you realize it's regulation and intervention that's the problem in the first place?

The CRA is such a worthless scapegoat you nutjobs use. You realize most of the mortgage lenders weren't regulated under the CRA?
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm
http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/speeches/archives/2008/chairman/spdec1708.html
Also, funnily enough - loans made by CRA regulated institutions tended to give out less subprime mortgage loans.
http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf

There's a really good article about Statism by Ian Bremmer, but the Statists won't let me post it here.


>Real wages increase as a result of productivity, not Government intervention
I'm sure that the people of Chinese factory #33981 approve of your economic plan; however, your premise is flawed. In China, thanks to their government's lack of intervention in business, there has been a substancial increase in productivity due to the exploitation of workers. The government lets businesses do as they please, with very little regard for human life. Unfortunately, the productivity of the workers doesn't correlate with the money they are paid. As an anarcho capitalist, I imagine you aspire to be a coal minor, correct? Because that's what you'll get if the government doesn't moderate business practices.

Capitalism in China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.
That's possibly the worst example you could have used dude.
And China's productive capacity has increased due to workers simply working longer hours? Not because of technology? Are you f**king SERIOUS?!

If there are no governments, what institution defines the value of money?


Correlation does not equal causation. Real wages increase as a result of productivity, not Government intervention.

i see your point, but the hallmark of malignant authoritarian leadership is sacrificing their constituents standards of living and power to feed their own. perhaps it's getting worse, but i don't see how the west's current governments are more authoritarian then say, north korea's or nazi germany's or etc.


The CRA is such a worthless scapegoat you nutjobs use. You realize most of the mortgage lenders weren't regulated under the CRA?
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/kroszner20081203a.htm
http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/speeches/archives/2008/chairman/spdec1708.html
Also, funnily enough - loans made by CRA regulated institutions tended to give out less subprime mortgage loans.
http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf

>nutjobs
>printing lots of money to fund deficit spending has no ill effects upon the economy!
Heh.
>You realize most of the mortgage lenders weren't regulated under the CRA?
This is such patent bullsh*t. The CRA apologists have been claiming ever since a couple of years ago that it had no contribution to the meltdown but it's a patent lie, but don't let me say that, let the President of Fannie Mae speak in his own words:
>HUD [the Department of Housing and Urban Development will soon require us to dedicate 50% of our business to low- and moderate-income families
>- Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae
Furthermore, the truth is, nobody has accurate data about the number of CRA loans because many of those secured by middlemen didn't count as CRA loans and the datasets themselves were 'opaque'.

Anarcho Capitalist here. I believe that the best way to run government is through complete and total voluntarism. Ask me anything, I'm happy to defend my point of view.

I'm sure this will probably sound uneducated and cliche, but how do you propose we protect the weak and innocent if there is no governing body?


i see your point, but the hallmark of malignant authoritarian leadership is sacrificing their constituents standards of living and power to feed their own. perhaps it's getting worse, but i don't see how the west's current governments are more authoritarian then say, north korea's or nazi germany's or etc.

There's just an unfortunate knee-jerk reaction among some to respond to economic issues with increased regulations without considering the potential ills of those regulations.

Edward Pinto (former Chief Credit Officer of Fannie Mae) spoke about it recently in testimony also:
>Understanding CRA lending performance is of vital importance because it is now clear that CRA-related single family mortgages totaled trillions of dollars over the period of 1993-2007;
>Over time CRA origination volume became a growing and ultimately significant portion of conventional conforming origination volume, growing from an estimated 7% of originations in 1993 to 19% in 2007;
>As H.R. 1479 points out, announced CRA commitment volume totaled over $6 trillion since CRA's inception in 1977. Starting in 1992, volume exploded. Over the 17 year period 1992-2008, there were a total of $6 trillion in announced CRA commitments. This is an astounding 680 times the cumulative volume of $9 billion for such commitments over the entire first 15 years of CRA's existence;
>Ninety-four percent of this $6 trillion in commitments were made by banks and thrifts that were or ended up being owned by just four banks: Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America;
http://www.alacrastore.com/storecontent/voxantcq/2009te09167303d32
Truth is, CRA apologists are nothing but ardent wealth redistributors. You don't even have the f**king guts to admit when you were wrong. But hey, keep on making the same mistakes.


I'm sure this will probably sound uneducated and cliche, but how do you propose we protect the weak and innocent if there is no governing body?

>how do you propose we protect the weak and innocent if there is no governing body?
Rational self-interest.
More poor people = more desperate people = more crime.
It's in our best interests to alleviate poverty, but it's a bit unrealistic to assume we can eliminate it.


>how do you propose we protect the weak and innocent if there is no governing body?
Rational self-interest.
More poor people = more desperate people = more crime.
It's in our best interests to alleviate poverty, but it's a bit unrealistic to assume we can eliminate it.

But isn't it in my best interest if I can get away with raping some defenseless woman when nobody will reprimand me for my actions? I gain sexual gratification and that's where the deal ends, regardless of my socioeconomic status.


>how do you propose we protect the weak and innocent if there is no governing body?
Rational self-interest.
More poor people = more desperate people = more crime.
It's in our best interests to alleviate poverty, but it's a bit unrealistic to assume we can eliminate it.

That's assuming giving money to the poor is cheaper then say, hiring more security.
If just hiring more security is cheaper, a rational man will say f**k the poor.


There's just an unfortunate knee-jerk reaction among some to respond to economic issues with increased regulations without considering the potential ills of those regulations.

The EPA inparticular is a joke in the US, putting it's useless role to one side for a moment, the number of 'mistakes' it has made is breathtaking. Here's just one example:
>In 1994, under threat of lawsuit, the EPA forced the Pennsylvania state legislature to spend $145 million of taxpayers' money on the construction of 86 automobile emissions test centers. Later that same year, EPA officials realized that the project was a mistake, but forced the legislature to buy the empty buildings nonetheless.


>how do you propose we protect the weak and innocent if there is no governing body?
Rational self-interest.
More poor people = more desperate people = more crime.
It's in our best interests to alleviate poverty, but it's a bit unrealistic to assume we can eliminate it.

>More poor people = more desperate people = more crime = buy yourself a couple extra guards = leave the majority to squalor

How would we transition to an anarchistic society?
What would we do with roads, schools and other government owned infrastructure?
Just auction it out?
So some rich dude can own a piece of highway no one can use?


Those are things that ALL americans benefit from, hence all of them should pay a little. I have health insurance and enough money to support myself... the government shouldn't be taking from me to give to those that are too f**king awful at life to earn these things. social darwinism: if your in tons of debt and can't pay for your diabetes medication then you deserve to be weeded out of the gene pool, not get your hand held through life by the rest of society.

>implying I benefit from roads and public transportation while flying around in my private jet

LIVE FREE OR DIE


>More poor people = more desperate people = more crime = buy yourself a couple extra guards = leave the majority to squalor

Give them money instead, that's worked so well with the blacks. I mean they're so appreciative of all the money white taxpayers give them that black on white crime is virtually non-existent in the US!
Oh wait....
All socialists eventually run out of other people's money, only problem is, now they've started to simply print it to cover up their deficits.


>how do you propose we protect the weak and innocent if there is no governing body?
Rational self-interest.
More poor people = more desperate people = more crime.
It's in our best interests to alleviate poverty, but it's a bit unrealistic to assume we can eliminate it.

If you want to use self-interest of taxpayers as a metric, additional security (whether private or public) spending has a much greater bang/buck ratio in reducing crime than social spending does.
Which isn't to say a certain degree of social spending isn't worth doing just for the sake of doing it, but, doing it for security is a silly thing because spending on direct crime prevention does more with less.

Abolishing the pathetic monetary system would solve everything.
Too bad humanity is too retarded to ever see a change and advancement like this in the next 100 years.


>nutjobs
>printing lots of money to fund deficit spending has no ill effects upon the economy!
Heh.
>You realize most of the mortgage lenders weren't regulated under the CRA?
This is such patent bullsh*t. The CRA apologists have been claiming ever since a couple of years ago that it had no contribution to the meltdown but it's a patent lie, but don't let me say that, let the President of Fannie Mae speak in his own words:
>HUD [the Department of Housing and Urban Development will soon require us to dedicate 50% of our business to low- and moderate-income families
>- Franklin Raines, CEO of Fannie Mae
Furthermore, the truth is, nobody has accurate data about the number of CRA loans because many of those secured by middlemen didn't count as CRA loans and the datasets themselves were 'opaque'.

Edward Pinto (former Chief Credit Officer of Fannie Mae) spoke about it recently in testimony also:
>Understanding CRA lending performance is of vital importance because it is now clear that CRA-related single family mortgages totaled trillions of dollars over the period of 1993-2007;
>Over time CRA origination volume became a growing and ultimately significant portion of conventional conforming origination volume, growing from an estimated 7% of originations in 1993 to 19% in 2007;
>As H.R. 1479 points out, announced CRA commitment volume totaled over $6 trillion since CRA's inception in 1977. Starting in 1992, volume exploded. Over the 17 year period 1992-2008, there were a total of $6 trillion in announced CRA commitments. This is an astounding 680 times the cumulative volume of $9 billion for such commitments over the entire first 15 years of CRA's existence;
>Ninety-four percent of this $6 trillion in commitments were made by banks and thrifts that were or ended up being owned by just four banks: Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America;
http://www.alacrastore.com/storecontent/voxantcq/2009te09167303d32
Truth is, CRA apologists are nothing but ardent wealth redistributors. You don't even have the f**king guts to admit when you were wrong. But hey, keep on making the same mistakes.

>citing the president of Freddie and Fannie Mac as a source
You realize that they accounted for 10% or less of actual subprime mortgage? Again, MOST LENDING INSTITUTIONS WERE NOT REGULATED BY THE CRA AND THERE WERE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN FORECLOSURE RATES BETWEEN THE REGULATED ONES AND NON-REGULATED ONES. For f**ks sakes, I can show you more sources:
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/workpaper/2007/wp0724.pdf
http://www.occ.gov/ftp/release/2008-136.htm
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/cre-and-the-cra/
I know that even with sufficient evidence you won't ever believe me. You'll continue clinging to your guns as you've always done because the CRA is the last resort you have to employ to ever try and justify the claim that government intervention was one of the principal reasons for the crisis. Hard to believe such a master of propaganda studies at a really prestigious Russell group institution.

How would we transition to an anarchistic society?
What would we do with roads, schools and other government owned infrastructure?
Just auction it out?
So some rich dude can own a piece of highway no one can use?

Toll-roads are actually a good idea.
People complain about the lack of rail transportation in the US, while neglecting to mention the reason a lot of it went out of business is because it was taxed while its 'competition', i.e. roads, were subsidized. Now what happens when you subsidize one competing good and tax another?
But I've already said I'm not an anarcho capitalist, even if anarcho capitalism came to be, some proto-state would form amongst respected business elements anyway.

OP - back in ancient, pre-imperialist Rome, they used to consider being a dictator a civic duty in emergencies and a chore.
I think that is a wonderful paradigm. Agree? y/n



>citing the president of Freddie and Fannie Mac as a source
You realize that they accounted for 10% or less of actual subprime mortgage? Again, MOST LENDING INSTITUTIONS WERE NOT REGULATED BY THE CRA AND THERE WERE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN FORECLOSURE RATES BETWEEN THE REGULATED ONES AND NON-REGULATED ONES. For f**ks sakes, I can show you more sources:
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/workpaper/2007/wp0724.pdf
http://www.occ.gov/ftp/release/2008-136.htm
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/cre-and-the-cra/
I know that even with sufficient evidence you won't ever believe me. You'll continue clinging to your guns as you've always done because the CRA is the last resort you have to employ to ever try and justify the claim that government intervention was one of the principal reasons for the crisis. Hard to believe such a master of propaganda studies at a really prestigious Russell group institution.

The CRA DID impact the crisis, just not directly.
What it did was create a pool of loans that companies were forced to make but didn't want to hold the risk for. CDO's were inspired by banks trying to figure out how to sell off bad CRA loans, and when other investors were retarded enough to take on the risk for low costs, that made the people selling off the risk from the bad CRA loans realize they could do it for any loan in general, cue the practice going mainstream and everything blowing up.
So no, CRA loans were a minor part of the total losses, but, they were a catalyst that caused the bad behavior to start in the first place because in their experience GTFOing of their CRA risk lenders learned that they could sign bad mortgages, sell off the risk, and pocket the free money.

>There is no state, and all forms of government are done through contractual agreement. So security and legislation are handled by private entities. You voluntarily join these entities.
How the f**k do you regulate access to scare resources without a government? What do you do once all the fish are destroyed within a generation? Or all the rivers are poisoned and the air is unbreathable? What do I do when the value of my home is destroyed by the smelting plant erected next door? How do you protect children without a state? What's to stop me from opting out of the national-defence payment but still reaping the benefits because everyone else is paying it? How do you control epidemics of infectious diseases without a state? How do you develop herd immunity without national vaccination programs? How do you conduct research that doesn't have immediate commercial applications?
What do contracts even mean without a state? Who enforces the contract?

Abolishing the pathetic monetary system would solve everything.
Too bad humanity is too retarded to ever see a change and advancement like this in the next 100 years.

Tell me, how would you acquire a computer if we had no monetary system?


Tell me, how would you acquire a computer if we had no monetary system?

Humanity is currently technologically capable of so much more than people assume.


Humanity is currently technologically capable of so much more than people assume.

Not after brownskins drive down our IQ, well the IQ of the west anyway.



>citing the president of Freddie and Fannie Mac as a source
You realize that they accounted for 10% or less of actual subprime mortgage? Again, MOST LENDING INSTITUTIONS WERE NOT REGULATED BY THE CRA AND THERE WERE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN FORECLOSURE RATES BETWEEN THE REGULATED ONES AND NON-REGULATED ONES. For f**ks sakes, I can show you more sources:
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/workpaper/2007/wp0724.pdf
http://www.occ.gov/ftp/release/2008-136.htm
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/cre-and-the-cra/
I know that even with sufficient evidence you won't ever believe me. You'll continue clinging to your guns as you've always done because the CRA is the last resort you have to employ to ever try and justify the claim that government intervention was one of the principal reasons for the crisis. Hard to believe such a master of propaganda studies at a really prestigious Russell group institution.

>You realize that they accounted for 10% or less of actual subprime mortgage?
Only when discounting non-bank mortgage lenders like countrywide, that's the point. Furthermore, the figures are distorted due to the fact that CRA regulated loans began to fall under the aegis of institutions not subject to CRA regulation, see:
>"Second, changes in the structure of the financial industry have resulted in many financial transactions that fell under the CRA umbrella having become increasingly the province of nondepositories not subject to CRA, including companies owned by banks or bank holding companies. Holding companies' nonbank affiliates, for instance, can be included in the CRA assessment of the banking institution at the discretion of the bank but need not be. Most mortgages are now packaged by brokers, and nearly two in three mortgages are originated by nondepositories not covered by the CRA. Nonbank institutions, such as payday lenders, check cashers, and remittance agents, are important sources of financial services in low- and moderate-income communities. In some cases, nonbank service providers offer convenience to customers but at prices that have raised concerns."
>(Carr and Schuetz, 2001, and Barr, 2004)
FM promised to buy these loans, so private banks made them due in part because CRA allows groups to hassle them if they don't make certain types of loans to non-marketable borrowers. CRA was a part of the bigger government bank mess undoubtedly, and it didn't play as large a role as low interest rates, but it certainly played a significant role nonetheless.
>master of propaganda studies
Oh, so you're a proponent of bogus tabula rasa theories of cognitive development too?


Not after brownskins drive down our IQ, well the IQ of the west anyway.

>implying you can drag down aggregate IQ

>There is no state, and all forms of government are done through contractual agreement. So security and legislation are handled by private entities. You voluntarily join these entities.
How the f**k do you regulate access to scare resources without a government? What do you do once all the fish are destroyed within a generation? Or all the rivers are poisoned and the air is unbreathable? What do I do when the value of my home is destroyed by the smelting plant erected next door? How do you protect children without a state? What's to stop me from opting out of the national-defence payment but still reaping the benefits because everyone else is paying it? How do you control epidemics of infectious diseases without a state? How do you develop herd immunity without national vaccination programs? How do you conduct research that doesn't have immediate commercial applications?
What do contracts even mean without a state? Who enforces the contract?

Iceland uses a private property basis solution to solve overfishing problems, guess what, it works and the CFP of the EU is a miserable failure.


Iceland uses a private property basis solution to solve overfishing problems, guess what, it works and the CFP of the EU is a miserable failure.

you mean like a quota system, of the type that is set up by a government, the thing you want to abolish?


you mean like a quota system, of the type that is set up by a government, the thing you want to abolish?

No, the CFP is a quota system - And it doesn't work. Iceland's system basically involves selling off parts of their territorial waters.
>want to abolish
Hey, I want a limited, undemocratic Government. Not no Government.


No, the CFP is a quota system - And it doesn't work. Iceland's system basically involves selling off parts of their territorial waters.
>want to abolish
Hey, I want a limited, undemocratic Government. Not no Government.

Undemocratic like China or what?


Undemocratic like China or what?

I'm a Monarchist. So a constitutional monarchy of some kind, counterbalanced by an aristocracy.


I'm a Monarchist. So a constitutional monarchy of some kind, counterbalanced by an aristocracy.

And how would you prevent misuse of the powers the government has? The monarch and the aristocracy could have their own goals that could hurt the market and the society


And how would you prevent misuse of the powers the government has? The monarch and the aristocracy could have their own goals that could hurt the market and the society

>The monarch and the aristocracy could have their own goals that could hurt the market and the society
The Monarch owns the country's capital stock, whereas the democratic 'caretakers' merely own it usufruct, he has a vested interest in maintaining the value of that capital stock and not exploiting it on a short term basis like aforementioned 'caretakers' do.
Democracy is what engenders big Government in the first place. Once you've laid down open entry into Government, everyone else's property becomes fair game.


No, the CFP is a quota system - And it doesn't work. Iceland's system basically involves selling off parts of their territorial waters.
>want to abolish
Hey, I want a limited, undemocratic Government. Not no Government.

>No
Do you have a source for this? Because AFAIK Iceland has fishing quotas

>textforthetextgod

Anarcho Capitalist here. I believe that the best way to run government is through complete and total voluntarism. Ask me anything, I'm happy to defend my point of view.

Why should we be anything can be voluntary?
That is to say, what in the f**k makes you think free-will is real?


>The monarch and the aristocracy could have their own goals that could hurt the market and the society
The Monarch owns the country's capital stock, whereas the democratic 'caretakers' merely own it usufruct, he has a vested interest in maintaining the value of that capital stock and not exploiting it on a short term basis like aforementioned 'caretakers' do.
Democracy is what engenders big Government in the first place. Once you've laid down open entry into Government, everyone else's property becomes fair game.

>Democracy is what engenders big Government in the first place. Once you've laid down open entry into Government, everyone else's property becomes fair game.
You should read Powers of Freedom, by Nicolas Rose.

So is the discussion over?

No comments:

Post a Comment