OverclockedJesus Posted:

As for sweatshops: nothing wrong with them.

You got me there, I was mistaken in thinking that you were at all relying on people not being complete bumholes to each other at least to some degree. I guess for some reason I thought you were arguing that anarchocapitalism would benefit everyone but I guess you agree with Dobnits (Don’t think I forgot about you dobby Log in to see images!) and say “**** the poor” so long as it benefits those with money. I guess I just cannot agree with “**** the majority of the world” as a universal system of conduct.

OverclockedJesus Posted:

No, it isn’t. You cannot completely prevent competition except via legal fiat.

Because people are known for stringently following the law at all times. The government doesn’t create coercive monopolies just through legal fiat. It takes enforcement of said laws for it to work at all and I’m saying it’s absurd to say that just because it’s not written down somewhere doesn’t mean it cannot in principle be enforced in the same way. How often do people here complain about being banned for something that isn’t a rule written down somewhere? There is no special magical quality of influence that a government has that cannot be replicated through sheer financial power and if there is let’s hear it.

Edit: Almost forgot

OverclockedJesus Posted:

And yet these things happen because of government regulations.

No, they happen because a company does them, just because a government hadn’t planned for that contingency and/or made laws to prevent it from occurring doesn’t mean that it happened because of them. Using bans as an example again, it’s not BECAUSE of ET and JB not making a rule that people spam WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW in INCIT, it’s because people CHOSE to do that. It became a rule not to after the fact but they had no part in its occurring in the first place. The government didn’t force Wal-Mart to shut down their store when people tried to unionize, Wal-Mart executives decided that they would open up a can of worms by letting their workers unionize so they shut it down. The government had nothing to do with it at all.

OverclockedJesus Posted:

Because of government regulations.

Did the government regulate that Wal-Mart close down the store? Their tiptoeing around the rules means it was the governments fault? If it weren’t for the government, the legitimate attempt at unionization would have been successful and through theit hard work they would have an improved work situation instead of being unemployed?

OverclockedJesus Posted:

Yes there is. The power of trade is far different from the power of a gun.

Yet amazingly through the power of trade you can purchase the time of people who can then be equipped with guns who may do as you ask. Hired hitmen let’s say, thugs who will break your knees with a baseball bat. The power of money is amazing that way in that can purchase both goods AND services.

OverclockedJesus Posted:

It does. They wouldn’t be working in the so-called sweatshop if they didn’t think it would benefit them. But you go on and believe that value is objective and precisely what YOU think value should be. After all: you get to rule over everyone, right? Y’see: you don’t get to determine what is of benefit to someone else.

This is true, except that when your options are between starving to death in a gutter, theft and working in a sweatshop, some people will choose the method of survival that doesn’t involve jail. Having no other reasonable choice to survive doesn’t make it a choice when we have that pesky survival instinct moving us forward. And although there may well be other choices, it doesn’t help if people don’t know what they are through lack of education brought about by their socioeconomic status that was placed on them most often at birth.

you all need to shut the **** up.

words

ad homein w/ john galt and super knowledege of govermnt

Something is wrong on the internet.

Libertarians Posted:

The gubmint is totally suppressive all the time always!

Down with INGSOC!

Well, it’s been fun playing tennis with a brick wall.

politically oriented people are hilarious

OverclockedJesus Posted:

Thank you for your concession. Strawmen will do that, you know. Feel free to get some intellectual integrity. I will say that you at least made an effort—right up until you got too close to your core beliefs. Then you pulled a Brave Sir Robin.

If you say so. Congratulations on winning the war of atrophy by steadfastly repeating “It’s all the government’s fault” amidst some legitimate statements that have managed to depress me in that I have to acknowledge that people actually believe in them. Who knows, maybe I’ll be back if I care again but somehow I doubt that either of us would ever change the other’s mind on anything, which makes it a bit of a waste of time.