You Are Being Lied to About Pirates

  • Thread starter Thread starter lutherblsstt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Invalid Link Removed


















































Invalid Link Removed
 
lutherblsstt said:
Your M.O.is:


1. Red herring- a deliberate attempt to change a subject or divert an argument

2. Straw Man-To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.(example:your claiming that I think America is evil and does nothing good.)
Click to expand...

Seriously? You hack 99.9% of your posts from others words, and you have the audacity to call a red herring to others?

You have to be kidding me.

Adams
 
DAdams91982 said:
Seriously? You hack 99.9% of your posts from others words, and you have the audacity to call a red herring to others?

You have to be kidding me.

Adams
Click to expand...

This.



:lol:
 
Forget it Luther. If you suggest a steel tarrif went up because someone in the steel industry aggitated for it and benefited from it, it's not controversial or even questioned. Expand the analysis to war, however legitimate the point or the method, and people will refuse to buy it whatever evidence you bring to bear. A better work on this issue is Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy, by Murray Rothbard.

That some people profit from, and thus encourage and push for war and interventionist foreign policy, however painfully obvious, is not a popular thing to say nor something people want to hear when they send their kids off to die. The absurdity of cost plus contracts not withstanding.

lutherblsstt said:
Yes,a tin foil hat [how original!],I wear it as does the author of War is a Racket:

War Is a Racket is the title of two works, a speech and a booklet, by retired U.S. Marine Major General Smedley Darlington Butler, one of only 19 people to be twice awarded the Medal of Honor, in which Butler frankly discusses from his experience as a career military officer how business interests have commercially benefited from warfare.

It contains this key summary:

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

In his 1987 biography of Butler, Maverick Marine, Hans Schmidt gave a brief review:

"Butler's particular contribution was his recantation, denouncing war on moral grounds after having been a warrior hero and spending most of his life as a military insider. The theme remained vigorously patriotic and nationalistic, decrying imperialism as a disgrace rooted in the greed of a privileged few."

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
 
hardknock said:
You mean all the valuables that are garnered through illegal means? Here is a news flash...it's not legal to hold money from drug deals and illegal transportation of alcoholic beverages.

So, let's just say this: Someone who produces moonshine can be considered in the right, even though it's illegal?

Hmmm, so, when someone who has a firearm, with NO license, is pulled over and ends up being arrested due to not having a registration for his weapon, it's wrong?

You are lost my friend, sorry, not attacking you, but you are seriously lost friend.
Click to expand...

No, that applies to you, as you are apparently such an extreme legal positivist that right and wrong, ethical and unethical, moral and immoral, mean the same things as legal and illegal in your mind. Is there no such thing in your world as an unjust law, or is the legislative process perfect, never having done nor being capable of doing any ethical or moral wrong in your mind?
 
Red Dog said:
I see -- what's the difference IYO? I'm not being inflammatory, I'm just not sure what you're differentiating between the two.
Click to expand...

Big L Libertarians tend to push the party line too much in my opinion. They're doctrinare, which I have no problem with, but they push a privatized world as if it would be all kisses, roses, and wonderousness. It would be an imperfect world just as our current world is imperfect. Plus a lot of them are anarcho capitalists who simply don't admit as much to themselves or others. At heart I am too, but I tell people that at least. I let them know that's my ideal, what my 'perfect world' would be so to speak. The big L ones are also less likely in my experience to deal with the major problem of their ideology, that being people want government. Impatience, the same thing that in the end drives interest rates, is what drives the demand for government because rather than having to wait until enough capital accumulates that a problem will show up on the market's radar and get taken care of, the government can simple redistribute resources. And while the end result is economically destructive in all cases, ask a mother or father whose kid is dying of some rare disease if they want to wait until enough capital accumulates on the market to make finding the treatment/cure marginally profitable, or if they'd rather see a little theft going in their favor. Big L Libertarians often don't want to face the fact that not everyone who uses the government to steal is a monster or a true parasite. Also, they have no transition plan. I'm all for Mises' quote of not replacing a fire when you put it out, but I think we can perhaps extinguish the fire of government in an orderly fashion that puts people through as little pain as possible, whereas big L libs seem to simply want to win office and then start slashing anywhere and everywhere.

Lastly, there will likely always be government and to the extent it does exist to pdo things which amount to wealth transfer, those options should always be made to be an absolute last resort by making them hell to go through. For example I'm all for government providing health care to people after it's proven they can't afford it themselves and after an attempt is made to match them up with a charity or doctor who will see them treated at a discount or for free. But, the only way to stop or at least slow the inevitable economic consequences of government intervention in the market is to make the government option be voluntarily the last option anyone would want. That particular insight escapes most people.

I agree -- putting non-violent drug users in general population isn't the most appropriate thing to do (major dealers are another story as I'm a believer in the punishment should fit the crime kind of thing) -- but what should we do instead? or are you saying we shouldn't imprison them at all or should give them some sort of alternative punishment?
Click to expand...

I'm saying they shouldn't be in prison at all. Criminalizing trade between consenting adults because you disagree with their choice of intoxicant is ridiculous. Nor does making such trades legal as they should be mean we all of a sudden have to tolerate robberies, burglaries, rapes, or murders on the part of anyone, much less addicts. Such are much more less likely anyway as contrabant prices go down to market prices and potency drops.

Again, I think the difference lies in the intent of the doer. Our government isn't aiming to harm or threaten innocent individuals
Click to expand...

It isn't? Aside from the minutia of staging armed, paramilitary style raids to serve warrants on people who are legally innocent of anything until proven guilty in a court of law, the legality of the action is secondary to morality an ethicality due to the fact that is the presence/absence of the state that's at question vis a vi the actions here.

I'm not sure I understand the DMV analogy -- can you explain?
Click to expand...

There's a commentary out there concerning "The Gun Under the Table." The point of the analogy was that, should I actively resist registering my car or abiding by any such law, the government will eventually send someone with a gun and an ultimatim: obey or die. The oft forgotten fact is all government authority is backed by threat of violence and death. Ifyou don't obey and actively resist to the point they deem it necessary to do so, they will shoot you. Just like the pirates.

I think this is just a question of whether you want to be governed or let alone to do your own thing. In your remark, are you referring to things like taxes? or what specifically is the government telling you to do that you have a problem with? Personally, I don't mind being governed in order to live in the US. Yes, the taxes are an increasing burden and I have a major issue with that, but I feel safe with a state government in effect locally, and a federal government in effect nationally.
Click to expand...

So the govermment needs to tell you how to make onion rings? Or what you can or can't buy? Who you can or can't hire or work for? Etc. No, I do not want to be governed. I am moderately accepting of the idea that I may give up a bit of income to support a justice system but I want it centered on stopping aggression and enforcing contracts, not protecting me from myself. As to the onion rings, look it up. The proper, and legally enforcable way to make onion rings, is actually listed in either the federal and/or New York code. I saw it once when looking up health codes for restaurants.

I'm not trying to be an ass, but Webster's does include "the absence of order" and "disorder" as the second definition of anarchy (although a lack of political government is the primary definition!).
Click to expand...

And this is a political context.

Also, I see your point, but I'm not disputing the government's effect on language or science (funding might be an issue though). Some systems may arrange themselves, but true anarchy, IMO, won't ever work since you would need everybody acting morally acceptable (whatever that means) in order for it to succeed.
Click to expand...

Why? Are you honestly suggesting that the only possible way to deal with the immoral or criminal is through the state? Let's say Joe makes a contract with me to mow my lawn for fifty bucks. I give him the 50, he says, "Screw you!" and runs away, leaving me with tall grass. What are my options in an anarchist society? Well one, I can smear his name to hell and back as there is no liable law. Property rights in the opinions others hold of you are nonexistent. Two, I can file a complaint with an independent agency who keeps such records for people just like me so reliable business partners can be found. In fact I likely should have checked with them beforehand. Three, I will likely have a personal insurance agency with whom I would log a complaint of fraud and/or contract violation. Said agency would then try and contact Joes' agency if he had one, or him directly, and get my money back or get my lawn mowed. Now neither outcome is guaranteed, but then neither are they guaranteed in our current system. And do you honestly think a person like Joe would get far in such a society where your reputation counts so much that it's literally tracked and graded, much like a credit score is today?

Anarchism doesn't require man be moral or trustworthy. It merely says there are private ways to deal with such things and to pursue remedies as alternatives to the state. Do they have the final authority of the state? No. Technically neither does the state for someone skilled and determined enough. But then again that's kind of the point. Anarcho capitalists are against the institutionalized violence of the state. They view that as a greater evil than any other. And, in all fairness they have points few people will concede. Such as Somalia. Why, if a central government is so necessary, does this country still exist, much less thrive in many ways? Also when you research history and look at what are traditionally considered public goods like roads and lighthouses, etc., they were all provided for privately at one point in time, and some asre being provided for currently in Somalia. Again, perfectly? No. But if such solutions spring up so quickly in a society which after years os socialist rules is now for all intents and purposes is stateless, it says something very powerful about the market and what it can achieve. All anarcho capitalists do is extend the logic of the market to functions traditionally monopolized by the state.




I didn't mean to imply everyone would do that -- but to offset the majority of rational thinking people (like you returning a tv), there are a substantial minority of irrational, unthinking murderers and criminals who would undoubtedly use force instead of words and civility to solve their problems.
Click to expand...

As they do now. If the state is such a deterant, why the continued existence of these crimes? Consider alternatives as well as the problems with the current system. For example Joe kills a family member of yours. You are now to provide him in part with room, board, cable TV, weights and other fitness equipment, education, pyschiatric counseling, etc., for 25 years to life, at which point he may get out and kill someone else again at worst, or at best be a low level worker in some plant somewhere, likely on welfare. Of course most people don't think of it that way, but it is tax dollars which support these people once they're in prison, if found guilty. And since there's no money to be made solving a murder, do you think it will be a priority?

How about a private alternative that forces Joe to pay for his crime, pay you and your family, either in monetary terms or labor, or have him ostracized out of society altogether, never to do business there again? Not orthodox, but would you rather be buying a quotal share of this guy's breakfast for the next couple of decades? The state takes an offense against you and transfers it to them. It then prosecutes and puts the offender in prison, forcing you through tax dollars to pay for that person's stay there. What do you, as you know, the actual victim, get? Like I said, private alternatives exist. They are not the same remedies as the state would offer, but they are possibilities.

I see the point with insurance companies, but why would people even go to the insurance companies if there is no government to enforce the laws?
Click to expand...

I want to do business with you. First thing you do, check my credentials. Do I have insurance? Who vouches for me? Who have I done business with in the past and are they satisfied? Etc., etc., etc. And I do the same. All of this is perfectly accessible and usable information, and in a society without a government it is also profitable for an agency to collect it and share it, and near impossible to live and interact with society without a good rep. Right now the role is abdicated to the state. I want to invest who ensures I'm doing business with a good firm? The SEC. Think of Bernie Maddoff(sp?). wOuld you not concede that he, in part at least, got away with his scheme for so long because some people assumed if he were crooked the government via the SEC would have had his ass on a platter? The same function can be served privately, and by multiple agencies with an incentive to do a good job and no guaranteed budget next election cycle even if they screw up.

And in effect what you're asking about is already taking place. Ever use ebay? Notice the user ratings? Gonna buy from someone with a majority negative rating? What's to stop that person from fleecing the ebay public? His rep is being monitored, plain and simple. Now think to yourself and try to come up with any reason why that's not practically extendable to the rest of society. I can't find one. And of course in a private society you would have the option to live completely off the grid, but your options would be limited by default. The general incentive is to be a well behaved part of society.

If it works then why do they need to attack, board, and ransom commercial vessels and their crews? Over 40% of that country is below the poverty line, average life expectancy is less than 50 years old, less than 40% are literate, and while the overall GDP may be increasing a bit over the last few years, the GDP per capita (a mere $600) hasn't changed in years while clan and militia warfare are rampant. It may be working for a handful of powerful leaders, but certainly not in general IMO.
Click to expand...

You miss the point: according to most people it shouldn't be working at all. Also it's not a perfect example. These people are coming out of Christ knows how long of hard ass government rule and central planning, and I doubt are seeking n anarcho capitalist paradise but fighting over who gets to be top dog. The point is even in that setting, private enterprise is thriving. Are these problems caused by a lack of government? They seem to exist in systems with government, it's just the government causing the problems and renaming/alternatively justifying its actions. As that essay I posted works, aside from the platitudes and jargon aside, what the pirates are doing the government does every day.

IMO, jury > two guys left to work things out on their own).
Click to expand...

Why? You want a bunch of dipsticks who couldn't lie their way out of service under the charge of a judge who couldn't care less about you deciding things rather than yourself?

I see the point here, but what if a pill was manufactured such that upon consumption a person would undoubtedly manifest uncontrollable tendencies of extreme violence and ravenous hostility, and was effective in eliciting these effects 100% of the time without error? Granted you are not locked inside a room that is inescapable, you are virtually guaranteed to cause harm to others -- is it still okay to take it IYO?
Click to expand...

Yes. The action per se is not harmful to anyone. Scenario is called the Godzilla pill, I think Walter Block dealt with it in more detail in his book Defending the Undefendable.

I worded this part of my previous response incorrectly -- I was simply inquiring about the seemingly odd designation of drug activity (which alters the mind) as illegal, and the consumption of alcohol (which alters the mind) as legal. However, if drugs weren't prohibited or controlled, what kind of society would we live in? IYO, do you think that because there is no authorization in the Constitution to control drug use, that we should let it run rampant and unregulated, and simply do away with substance control laws?
Click to expand...

Not quite. Since it's not constitutionally authorized, if people want to control the substances then they should damn well do it the right way: at the state level and in accordance with their constitutions; and/or at the federal level by ammending the constitution itself.

As for running rampant, how so? Do you know a lot of people who are just waiting for the price to drop to become meth heads and heroin addicts? The demand for drugs is inelastic. That's why all but the most harsh penalties do diddly squat to affect demand. The plus side of that is the same inelasticity means even with a dramatic price drop the increase in users will be minimal. You also lose the potency effect of prohibition, you lose the crime surrounding manufacture and distribution which is an effect of the policy of prohibition, not the drugs themselves. If it were the drugs themselves MGD and Budweiser would be shooting it out in the streets same as any other drug dealers, and as they were during alcohol prohibtion. You get rid of the prohibition, you get rid of the violence surrounding production and sale. You get rid of a lot of the violence surround procurement as users no longer have to pay black market prices. You see drops in corruption in the legal and political systems because the massive profits making such corruption dry up. See The Economics of Prohibition by Mark Thornton. It's really the only book out there, even among anti prohibition tracts, that looks at the policy and the overall situation seriously.
 
Shoot, I think we're actually being too nice to them. They brought over that 18 year old pirate to the US and he's going to have a trial and get much better food in prison. Sorry Luther but these pirates need to be killed ASAP, even if we have to go hunt them down in Somalia.
 
Iron Warrior said:
Shoot, I think we're actually being too nice to them. They brought over that 18 year old pirate to the US and he's going to have a trial and get much better food in prison. Sorry Luther but these pirates need to be killed ASAP, even if we have to go hunt them down in Somalia.
Click to expand...

They probably feel the same about Americans who dump sh*** in their waters.
 
Irish Cannon said:
Isn't he 15?
Click to expand...

I don't know but the phucker had a smile on his face when he arrived in the USA. He needs to be tried as an adult even if he's 15. Make him spend the rest of his life with hardened gangsters who have the same mercy for him that he had for our fellow Americans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top