In a truly free market (2 Viewers)

[Lentern]

Yet it performs so poorly? Also it's not left to chance, it's left entirely to the chance that the government can fund it.

Except in sort of Mugabe circumstances a community whereby a government is all but penniless is not likely to have the sort of cash floating around that would allow the luxury of a grandiose charity system.

 

[Slide]

Personally I believe all Orphans should be used as Slave Labour.

Makes our products cheaper.

If the ipad was made in the US it would cost $12 000.

 

[Lolsmith]

DOCS is a lot less left to chance.

How isn't it

 

[Lentern]

How isn't it

Well charities will tend to acquire the money then decide what to do with it, governments will tend to decide what they need to money for then acquire said amount of money. Give or take 40 billion dollars.

 

[Blastus]

Well charities will tend to acquire the money then decide what to do with it, governments will tend to decide what they need to money for then acquire said amount of money. Give or take 40 billion dollars.

I think Orphans are a decent test but also an edge case. It's not like someone's going to suddenly turn the light on and go 'oh well I guess a philosophy based on non-coercion is suddenly untenable because of the chilldrenz'

 

[abbeyroad]

Well charities will tend to acquire the money then decide what to do with it, governments will tend to decide what they need to money for then acquire said amount of money. Give or take 40 billion dollars.

yeah well except governments acquire their money the same way criminals acquire theirs: through (the threat of) force and violence. I know what you're trying to do but "plz think of da childzenzzz" is nothing but empty rhetoric, you can't refute a principle through argumentum ad consequentiam.

go ahead contrive an utilitarian equation justifying socialism and the existence of the coercive state.

 

[Lentern]

yeah well except governments acquire their money the same way criminals acquire theirs: through (the threat of) force and violence. I know what you're trying to do but "plz think of da childzenzzz" is nothing but empty rhetoric, you can't refute a principle through argumentum ad consequentiam.

go ahead contrive an utilitarian equation justifying socialism and the existence of the coercive state.

Why not? Free marketeers do it all the time, they tell us that socialism has wonderful ideas and principles about alleviating poverty and helping the less fortunate but it's the actual results that count. Also don't use latin expressions like that unless you want to sound like a crawling first year law student.

 

[abbeyroad]

Why not? Free marketeers do it all the time, they tell us that socialism has wonderful ideas and principles about alleviating poverty and helping the less fortunate but it's the actual results that count. Also don't use latin expressions like that unless you want to sound like a crawling first year law student.

firstly I'm not a "free marketeer". secondly"lulz dey do it 2" is a red herring, two wrongs don't make a right etc. lastly I can use whatever fucking expressions I want who the fuck are you to tell me otherwise you authoritarian cunt.

your fallacious logic might convince some credulous morons on some socialist forums but it would never fly here.

 

[Lentern]

firstly I'm not a "free marketeer". secondly"lulz dey do it 2" is a red herring, two wrongs don't make a right etc. lastly I can use whatever fucking expressions I want who the fuck are you to tell me otherwise you authoritarian cunt.

your fallacious logic might convince some credulous morons on some socialist forums but it would never fly here.

Oh so you believe in market regulation do you?

 

[Garygaz]

Why not? Free marketeers do it all the time, they tell us that socialism has wonderful ideas and principles about alleviating poverty and helping the less fortunate but it's the actual results that count. Also don't use latin expressions like that unless you want to sound like a crawling first year law student.

why help the poor and less fortunate? in a country such as australia anyone can succeed given they have the will to do so. i do not in any way support the reallocation of wealth from individuals who prosper due to their hard work. removing the incentive to be successful and increasing the incentive to do nothing is a horrible way to run a society.

socialists are scum

 

[powlmao]

why help the poor and less fortunate? in a country such as australia anyone can succeed given they have the will to do so. i do not in any way support the reallocation of wealth from individuals who prosper due to their hard work. removing the incentive to be successful and increasing the incentive to do nothing is a horrible way to run a society.

socialists are scum

I agree with this so much.

In Australia, we have so much resources that anyone could do anything if they put effort into it.

 

[Lolsmith]

I agree with this so much.

In Australia, we have so much resources that anyone could do anything if they put effort into it.

lol

lolololololol

yes lololol definitely like manufacturing right

because our manufacturing isn't already propped up a whole heap by the state

 

[Lentern]

why help the poor and less fortunate? in a country such as australia anyone can succeed given they have the will to do so. i do not in any way support the reallocation of wealth from individuals who prosper due to their hard work. removing the incentive to be successful and increasing the incentive to do nothing is a horrible way to run a society.

socialists are scum

A hypothetical seven year old girl whose family are all dead has the capacity to succeed via sheer will?

 

[abbeyroad]

Oh so you believe in market regulation do you?

hahahahahahahahaha "ur either wif us or ur against uzzzz111!!"

gg bro

 

[Lentern]

hahahahahahahahaha "ur either wif us or ur against uzzzz111!!"

gg bro

Well sort of yes, fair dinkum you can either believe in a complete free market or not. This isn't a debate about Marxv Keynes v Chicago it's about the complete abolition of any restrictions on economic freedom. I would have thought the basic welfare of infants was one of the first and most fundamental roles of a welfare state so there really isn't much wriggle room in this to say you don't believe in the free market but you do think looking after orphans is too far to the left wing.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

socialism rides on the premise that all people are selfish arseholes who will not help each other, thus they need some selfish arsehole to tyrannically rule all the other arseholes because otherwise magically society would just collapse and everybody would die. Of course we all know this is simply not true.

charities exist and will take in orphans we all again know this.

your arguement is that they will be ineffective.

Blastus has already pointed government programs are just as ineffective

of course what u have all forgotten to factor in is the wealth of the community determines how well looked after these orphans will be (if they are to be looked after at all)

What Lentern is trying to do as most of u can see is trying to justify the existence of government by attempting to pull the heart strings of the individual.

again using the old socialist argument we know how to spend your money better than u do.

again we all know this is simply not true

you can replace orphans with anything government run you will get the same result that it is ineffective.

what you Lentern have to understand that even if charities are just as ineffective as government run programs, at least nobody had their money stolen by force to fund it

 

[funkshen]

The government can appropriate the funds it needs to ensure the welfare of orphans.
A charity must necessarily brand its orphan welfare services and thenceforth be at the mercy of the vicissitudes of the market.

Whether competition will result in better orphan welfare services is not immediately knowable. What's important is that it is a transparent operation, involving checks and balances, that ensures a modicum of accountability in its delivery. This will deliver better outcomes for orphans. Such operating conditions could exist in free-market or state-run welfare services (or both). But it's not hard to see that an orphan welfare service that can appropriate funds has its advantages, though this is a pissweak argument for the existence of the state.

 

[abbeyroad]

Well sort of yes, fair dinkum you can either believe in a complete free market or not. This isn't a debate about Marxv Keynes v Chicago it's about the complete abolition of any restrictions on economic freedom. I would have thought the basic welfare of infants was one of the first and most fundamental roles of a welfare state so there really isn't much wriggle room in this to say you don't believe in the free market but you do think looking after orphans is too far to the left wing.

seriously are you that daft I said I'm not one of those "free marketeers" you referred to, not tht I don't support the free market. your so called free marketeers is but a straw man as no free market advocates with half a brain would actually bother with logical fallacies they'd just tell you straight up why socialism is fucking stupid see scuba_steve2121 blastus etc etc

 

[Lentern]

socialism rides on the premise that all people are selfish arseholes who will not help each other, thus they need some selfish arsehole to tyrannically rule all the other arseholes because otherwise magically society would just collapse and everybody would die. Of course we all know this is simply not true.

charities exist and will take in orphans we all again know this.

your arguement is that they will be ineffective.

Blastus has already pointed government programs are just as ineffective

of course what u have all forgotten to factor in is the wealth of the community determines how well looked after these orphans will be (if they are to be looked after at all)

What Lentern is trying to do as most of u can see is trying to justify the existence of government by attempting to pull the heart strings of the individual.

again using the old socialist argument we know how to spend your money better than u do.

again we all know this is simply not true

you can replace orphans with anything government run you will get the same result that it is ineffective.

what you Lentern have to understand that even if charities are just as ineffective as government run programs, at least nobody had their money stolen by force to fund it

What scuba steve is trying to do is attack arguments which have not yet been made and claim a higher ground on account of it.

 

[Lentern]

seriously are you that daft I said I'm not one of those "free marketeers" you referred to, not tht I don't support the free market. your so called free marketeers is but a straw man as no free market advocates with half a brain would actually bother with logical fallacies they'd just tell you straight up why socialism is fucking stupid see scuba_steve2121 blastus etc etc

What did you interpret "free marketeer" to mean other than someone who is opposed to market regulation?