Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
The Solicialist Utopia of Venezuela has Issues...
Comments
-
Fun fact, Hondo has no gag reflex.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Holy Berniebro...2001400ex said:
I have to keep my word count down so I don't go over the limit. Here is the message, I'll type it slowly so you understand.Fenderbender123 said:
The way you worded your question makes it difficult to answer. It's not about me and what I can do...it's about everyone and what we would all do in the absence of government. It's about free choice/free market/voluntarism (whatever you want to call it) being a more efficient and valuable method of solving problems because there is more accountability and flexibility. If we can solve our problems more efficiently, then we will have capacity to solve other problems, which means more problems overall get solved.2001400ex said:
If you like rivers that catch on fire, sewage in the water, terrible smog, no infrastructure, etc.Fenderbender123 said:Here's the thing, Hyundai. Yes, that city is a bigger shithole than anywhere in America. But a country's type of government is not the biggest determinant of standard of living. Culture, work ethic, habits, problem-solving, ability to obtain resources, etc...those are the things that make up our quality of life.
Just like how that city in India is considered a better place to live than other places in India, America would be a much better place too with a government that has a smaller or non-existent role.
Shut the fuck up. America is great right now. Seriously, what's so intrusive about the government right now that you can't live your life as you want?
Nobody in America wants any of the things you listed. If government stopped addressing those issues, and didn't place any barriers on people trying to solve problems, then people would go out and solve those problems of their own free will. If nobody attempts to solve a certain problem, then it's either because:
A ) The problem isn't deemed worthy of solving by Americans, which means if government was solving it, then government wasn't doing it's job and reflecting the values of the people.
or
B ) There is not an efficient way to solve the problem or there are more valuable uses of the time and resources required to solve it, which means if government was solving it, then they were being wasteful.
The latter describes the reason there is a lack of problem-solving in countries like India. That's why nobody...not the free market, not the government...can solve some of the problems they face.
America, though, has gobs of resources, talent, and people with excess time and energy. That's why America can solve problems with government. But, it's also why we can solve problems without government.
Government hasn't invented anything, built anything, cleaned anything, or educated anyone. All of that gets done by people. Government just uses threats of (and actual) violence to influence people. So essentially, you're arguing that we need to threaten people with violence to get them to do things that make society better for people. I'm not saying that isn't a method that yields results, but it's less efficient.
Think about it...if the vast majority of Americans want children to get an education and go to school, why the hell would we need to use violence/coercion on everyone to influence them to do specific things (pay taxes, acquire jobs, construct buildings, etc) that result in the current school system we have today?
The point is that just because government takes charge on solving a certain problem, it doesn't mean that it's the only way. For example, we often ignore free market solutions (how many people have taken action to lower their carbon footprint, donate to charity, or clean up a park?). Also, when government steps in to solve a problem, it decreases/eliminates the incentives people have to address the issue of their own free will, sometimes by making it illegal to do so, but almost always by lessening the problem enough that diminishing returns do not make any additional investments worthwhile (sunk cost).
If the government passed a law stating that we all need to start paying 5% more in taxes to give to people to make soap and distribute to everyone, would you then say we shouldn't get rid of the soap tax because otherwise there would be no way for people to obtain soap?
Read the bold parts if TLDR. And before you ask, yes, I do need to get laid.
If the government doesn't rule the country, then big business will. Big business are not people, my friend. And will rape and pillage the environment and anything else they can to make a profit. -
Until another company comes in and decides to get their piece of the pie which in turn lowers prices and margins. Funny how that works.2001400ex said:
So you disagree that, if given the opportunity, corporations won't rape and pillage? Corporations need free will to invent, improve, etc. But they also need to be provided some rules or they will take advantage of everything and let the country rot. Basically like India.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Holy Berniebro...2001400ex said:
I have to keep my word count down so I don't go over the limit. Here is the message, I'll type it slowly so you understand.Fenderbender123 said:
The way you worded your question makes it difficult to answer. It's not about me and what I can do...it's about everyone and what we would all do in the absence of government. It's about free choice/free market/voluntarism (whatever you want to call it) being a more efficient and valuable method of solving problems because there is more accountability and flexibility. If we can solve our problems more efficiently, then we will have capacity to solve other problems, which means more problems overall get solved.2001400ex said:
If you like rivers that catch on fire, sewage in the water, terrible smog, no infrastructure, etc.Fenderbender123 said:Here's the thing, Hyundai. Yes, that city is a bigger shithole than anywhere in America. But a country's type of government is not the biggest determinant of standard of living. Culture, work ethic, habits, problem-solving, ability to obtain resources, etc...those are the things that make up our quality of life.
Just like how that city in India is considered a better place to live than other places in India, America would be a much better place too with a government that has a smaller or non-existent role.
Shut the fuck up. America is great right now. Seriously, what's so intrusive about the government right now that you can't live your life as you want?
Nobody in America wants any of the things you listed. If government stopped addressing those issues, and didn't place any barriers on people trying to solve problems, then people would go out and solve those problems of their own free will. If nobody attempts to solve a certain problem, then it's either because:
A ) The problem isn't deemed worthy of solving by Americans, which means if government was solving it, then government wasn't doing it's job and reflecting the values of the people.
or
B ) There is not an efficient way to solve the problem or there are more valuable uses of the time and resources required to solve it, which means if government was solving it, then they were being wasteful.
The latter describes the reason there is a lack of problem-solving in countries like India. That's why nobody...not the free market, not the government...can solve some of the problems they face.
America, though, has gobs of resources, talent, and people with excess time and energy. That's why America can solve problems with government. But, it's also why we can solve problems without government.
Government hasn't invented anything, built anything, cleaned anything, or educated anyone. All of that gets done by people. Government just uses threats of (and actual) violence to influence people. So essentially, you're arguing that we need to threaten people with violence to get them to do things that make society better for people. I'm not saying that isn't a method that yields results, but it's less efficient.
Think about it...if the vast majority of Americans want children to get an education and go to school, why the hell would we need to use violence/coercion on everyone to influence them to do specific things (pay taxes, acquire jobs, construct buildings, etc) that result in the current school system we have today?
The point is that just because government takes charge on solving a certain problem, it doesn't mean that it's the only way. For example, we often ignore free market solutions (how many people have taken action to lower their carbon footprint, donate to charity, or clean up a park?). Also, when government steps in to solve a problem, it decreases/eliminates the incentives people have to address the issue of their own free will, sometimes by making it illegal to do so, but almost always by lessening the problem enough that diminishing returns do not make any additional investments worthwhile (sunk cost).
If the government passed a law stating that we all need to start paying 5% more in taxes to give to people to make soap and distribute to everyone, would you then say we shouldn't get rid of the soap tax because otherwise there would be no way for people to obtain soap?
Read the bold parts if TLDR. And before you ask, yes, I do need to get laid.
If the government doesn't rule the country, then big business will. Big business are not people, my friend. And will rape and pillage the environment and anything else they can to make a profit. -
And destroy the environment to provide lower prices. Funny how that works.greenblood said:
Until another company comes in and decides to get their piece of the pie which in turn lowers prices and margins. Funny how that works.2001400ex said:
So you disagree that, if given the opportunity, corporations won't rape and pillage? Corporations need free will to invent, improve, etc. But they also need to be provided some rules or they will take advantage of everything and let the country rot. Basically like India.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Holy Berniebro...2001400ex said:
I have to keep my word count down so I don't go over the limit. Here is the message, I'll type it slowly so you understand.Fenderbender123 said:
The way you worded your question makes it difficult to answer. It's not about me and what I can do...it's about everyone and what we would all do in the absence of government. It's about free choice/free market/voluntarism (whatever you want to call it) being a more efficient and valuable method of solving problems because there is more accountability and flexibility. If we can solve our problems more efficiently, then we will have capacity to solve other problems, which means more problems overall get solved.2001400ex said:
If you like rivers that catch on fire, sewage in the water, terrible smog, no infrastructure, etc.Fenderbender123 said:Here's the thing, Hyundai. Yes, that city is a bigger shithole than anywhere in America. But a country's type of government is not the biggest determinant of standard of living. Culture, work ethic, habits, problem-solving, ability to obtain resources, etc...those are the things that make up our quality of life.
Just like how that city in India is considered a better place to live than other places in India, America would be a much better place too with a government that has a smaller or non-existent role.
Shut the fuck up. America is great right now. Seriously, what's so intrusive about the government right now that you can't live your life as you want?
Nobody in America wants any of the things you listed. If government stopped addressing those issues, and didn't place any barriers on people trying to solve problems, then people would go out and solve those problems of their own free will. If nobody attempts to solve a certain problem, then it's either because:
A ) The problem isn't deemed worthy of solving by Americans, which means if government was solving it, then government wasn't doing it's job and reflecting the values of the people.
or
B ) There is not an efficient way to solve the problem or there are more valuable uses of the time and resources required to solve it, which means if government was solving it, then they were being wasteful.
The latter describes the reason there is a lack of problem-solving in countries like India. That's why nobody...not the free market, not the government...can solve some of the problems they face.
America, though, has gobs of resources, talent, and people with excess time and energy. That's why America can solve problems with government. But, it's also why we can solve problems without government.
Government hasn't invented anything, built anything, cleaned anything, or educated anyone. All of that gets done by people. Government just uses threats of (and actual) violence to influence people. So essentially, you're arguing that we need to threaten people with violence to get them to do things that make society better for people. I'm not saying that isn't a method that yields results, but it's less efficient.
Think about it...if the vast majority of Americans want children to get an education and go to school, why the hell would we need to use violence/coercion on everyone to influence them to do specific things (pay taxes, acquire jobs, construct buildings, etc) that result in the current school system we have today?
The point is that just because government takes charge on solving a certain problem, it doesn't mean that it's the only way. For example, we often ignore free market solutions (how many people have taken action to lower their carbon footprint, donate to charity, or clean up a park?). Also, when government steps in to solve a problem, it decreases/eliminates the incentives people have to address the issue of their own free will, sometimes by making it illegal to do so, but almost always by lessening the problem enough that diminishing returns do not make any additional investments worthwhile (sunk cost).
If the government passed a law stating that we all need to start paying 5% more in taxes to give to people to make soap and distribute to everyone, would you then say we shouldn't get rid of the soap tax because otherwise there would be no way for people to obtain soap?
Read the bold parts if TLDR. And before you ask, yes, I do need to get laid.
If the government doesn't rule the country, then big business will. Big business are not people, my friend. And will rape and pillage the environment and anything else they can to make a profit. -
lol @ comparing big business to India.
Businesses have to earn their customers. Government doesnt. Businesses have competition. Government doesn't. Which one is more likely to rape and pillage again?
If people value a rape and pillage free society, they will just not do business with people who rape and pillage. -
I once had some dipshit liberal tell me that if businesses went unregulated by government, that eventually one company would have a monopoly on everything and would be able to do and charge whatever they want. No joke.greenblood said:
Until another company comes in and decides to get their piece of the pie which in turn lowers prices and margins. Funny how that works.2001400ex said:
So you disagree that, if given the opportunity, corporations won't rape and pillage? Corporations need free will to invent, improve, etc. But they also need to be provided some rules or they will take advantage of everything and let the country rot. Basically like India.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
Holy Berniebro...2001400ex said:
I have to keep my word count down so I don't go over the limit. Here is the message, I'll type it slowly so you understand.Fenderbender123 said:
The way you worded your question makes it difficult to answer. It's not about me and what I can do...it's about everyone and what we would all do in the absence of government. It's about free choice/free market/voluntarism (whatever you want to call it) being a more efficient and valuable method of solving problems because there is more accountability and flexibility. If we can solve our problems more efficiently, then we will have capacity to solve other problems, which means more problems overall get solved.2001400ex said:
If you like rivers that catch on fire, sewage in the water, terrible smog, no infrastructure, etc.Fenderbender123 said:Here's the thing, Hyundai. Yes, that city is a bigger shithole than anywhere in America. But a country's type of government is not the biggest determinant of standard of living. Culture, work ethic, habits, problem-solving, ability to obtain resources, etc...those are the things that make up our quality of life.
Just like how that city in India is considered a better place to live than other places in India, America would be a much better place too with a government that has a smaller or non-existent role.
Shut the fuck up. America is great right now. Seriously, what's so intrusive about the government right now that you can't live your life as you want?
Nobody in America wants any of the things you listed. If government stopped addressing those issues, and didn't place any barriers on people trying to solve problems, then people would go out and solve those problems of their own free will. If nobody attempts to solve a certain problem, then it's either because:
A ) The problem isn't deemed worthy of solving by Americans, which means if government was solving it, then government wasn't doing it's job and reflecting the values of the people.
or
B ) There is not an efficient way to solve the problem or there are more valuable uses of the time and resources required to solve it, which means if government was solving it, then they were being wasteful.
The latter describes the reason there is a lack of problem-solving in countries like India. That's why nobody...not the free market, not the government...can solve some of the problems they face.
America, though, has gobs of resources, talent, and people with excess time and energy. That's why America can solve problems with government. But, it's also why we can solve problems without government.
Government hasn't invented anything, built anything, cleaned anything, or educated anyone. All of that gets done by people. Government just uses threats of (and actual) violence to influence people. So essentially, you're arguing that we need to threaten people with violence to get them to do things that make society better for people. I'm not saying that isn't a method that yields results, but it's less efficient.
Think about it...if the vast majority of Americans want children to get an education and go to school, why the hell would we need to use violence/coercion on everyone to influence them to do specific things (pay taxes, acquire jobs, construct buildings, etc) that result in the current school system we have today?
The point is that just because government takes charge on solving a certain problem, it doesn't mean that it's the only way. For example, we often ignore free market solutions (how many people have taken action to lower their carbon footprint, donate to charity, or clean up a park?). Also, when government steps in to solve a problem, it decreases/eliminates the incentives people have to address the issue of their own free will, sometimes by making it illegal to do so, but almost always by lessening the problem enough that diminishing returns do not make any additional investments worthwhile (sunk cost).
If the government passed a law stating that we all need to start paying 5% more in taxes to give to people to make soap and distribute to everyone, would you then say we shouldn't get rid of the soap tax because otherwise there would be no way for people to obtain soap?
Read the bold parts if TLDR. And before you ask, yes, I do need to get laid.
If the government doesn't rule the country, then big business will. Big business are not people, my friend. And will rape and pillage the environment and anything else they can to make a profit. -
Cause no one shops at Walmart, right? The vast majority of people will just buy the cheapest shit. Then complain that the corporations destroyed the environment.Fenderbender123 said:lol @ comparing big business to India.
Businesses have to earn their customers. Government doesnt. Businesses have competition. Government doesn't. Which one is more likely to rape and pillage again?
If people value a rape and pillage free society, they will just not do business with people who rape and pillage.
And yes government is different than corporations. When was the last time a government dumped raw sewage in the water in the name of profit? -
The greatest part is that your environmental problems is a philosophical illustration of the problem of collective (SOCIALIST!!1) ownership. But you'll never see it.2001400ex said:
Cause no one shops at Walmart, right? The vast majority of people will just buy the cheapest shit. Then complain that the corporations destroyed the environment.Fenderbender123 said:lol @ comparing big business to India.
Businesses have to earn their customers. Government doesnt. Businesses have competition. Government doesn't. Which one is more likely to rape and pillage again?
If people value a rape and pillage free society, they will just not do business with people who rape and pillage.
And yes government is different than corporations. When was the last time a government dumped raw sewage in the water in the name of profit? -
Rio 2016.2001400ex said:
Cause no one shops at Walmart, right? The vast majority of people will just buy the cheapest shit. Then complain that the corporations destroyed the environment.Fenderbender123 said:lol @ comparing big business to India.
Businesses have to earn their customers. Government doesnt. Businesses have competition. Government doesn't. Which one is more likely to rape and pillage again?
If people value a rape and pillage free society, they will just not do business with people who rape and pillage.
And yes government is different than corporations. When was the last time a government dumped raw sewage in the water in the name of profit? -
No need to travel that far, frenTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Rio 2016.2001400ex said:
Cause no one shops at Walmart, right? The vast majority of people will just buy the cheapest shit. Then complain that the corporations destroyed the environment.Fenderbender123 said:lol @ comparing big business to India.
Businesses have to earn their customers. Government doesnt. Businesses have competition. Government doesn't. Which one is more likely to rape and pillage again?
If people value a rape and pillage free society, they will just not do business with people who rape and pillage.
And yes government is different than corporations. When was the last time a government dumped raw sewage in the water in the name of profit?
-
I was specifically asked for the last time.GrundleStiltzkin said:
No need to travel that far, frenTierbsHsotBoobs said:
Rio 2016.2001400ex said:
Cause no one shops at Walmart, right? The vast majority of people will just buy the cheapest shit. Then complain that the corporations destroyed the environment.Fenderbender123 said:lol @ comparing big business to India.
Businesses have to earn their customers. Government doesnt. Businesses have competition. Government doesn't. Which one is more likely to rape and pillage again?
If people value a rape and pillage free society, they will just not do business with people who rape and pillage.
And yes government is different than corporations. When was the last time a government dumped raw sewage in the water in the name of profit?
