Thank you for finally having enough backbone to respond to that post. I told you it wasn't over. Now then...
Consumariat:I inferred it from your apparent belief that charity could take up the slack if government was to withdraw. If I inferred wrongly then I take it back. Maybe you could clarify your opinion on the issue of charity as a substitute for welfare.
You're backpedaling pretty furiously on this one. So you said I made a claim, but now you're saying that you inferred a claim from what I said? In other words, I didn't make the claim that you said I made? And since you've now admitted to this, doesn't that mean you've now admitted to having lied? I can't think of any other way to look at this.
Consumariat:Yes, I am sure. At a time when the state provided little to no assistance to the poor, poverty was rampant. When the welfare state was introduced, this poverty declined. When in the 80's Neoliberalism began it's gradual assault on the welfare state, poverty began to increase again.
First I'll attack your charts. The first chart is for the US, not the UK. Its direct source is also from Blogspot, so I'm not sure whether to believe that it originally comes from the US Census Bureau. The second chart has no source listed on it, and its direct source is from a site called "leftfootforward.org". So basically I see no reason to put any stock in either of those charts. I won't even call it a nice try on your part.
Now then, what definition of "poverty" are you using? What definition of "rampant"? Do you understand that correlation does not imply causation? Were all other variables controlled for during the period in question? If not, then how can you be so sure that the reduction in "rampant" "poverty" was necessarily caused by introducing the welfare state?
You see, your entire position is intellectually bankrupt and it's simply a matter of blind religious faith to you. Yes, religious. I'll say it again and again if I deem it necessary.
Consumariat:It's only a proof given certain provisos such as the predicates being true. Of course, you then need to prove the predicates, which brings in the need to prove yet more auxiliary assumptions. As such, all individual claims to truth are interlinked and mutually contingent. Truth values are therefore spread over theories as a whole, not concentrated in individual statements. See the Duhem-Quine theory for a better explanation of what I am getting at.
See the Duhem-Quine theory for a better explanation of what I am getting at.
...
You don't seem to understand what I mean by "proof". Is the syllogism I presented logically consistent? Yes or no?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Jesus fucking christ. Do you even comprehend why people avoid responding to you? You're such an obnoxious twat that Gandhi would have difficulty engaging you without pulling his hair out.*
Just give up with the constant trolling and sniping and debate seriously for once.
* (which admitedly would be very difficult)
Consumariat: There are people that abuse the welfare system their whole lives by having so many children they recieve benefits and never have to work. Which means there will be a exponentially increasing number of poor people if the benefits aren't limited. So Consumariat is actually supporting poverty by insisting that the benefits still be provided so they can be abused. Malthus was saying that 150 years ago. It never happened, and the birth rate has been constantly falling since then despite the introduction of the welfare state. The fact you speak of other human beings in the same way you would vermin says a lot about you Serpentis.
There are people that abuse the welfare system their whole lives by having so many children they recieve benefits and never have to work. Which means there will be a exponentially increasing number of poor people if the benefits aren't limited. So Consumariat is actually supporting poverty by insisting that the benefits still be provided so they can be abused.
Malthus was saying that 150 years ago. It never happened, and the birth rate has been constantly falling since then despite the introduction of the welfare state. The fact you speak of other human beings in the same way you would vermin says a lot about you Serpentis.
The middle class and slightly wealthy are the ones who aren't having children at the moment, reason being that economic conditions are uncertain, so being intelligent people they come to the conclusion that now isn't a good time to have children. The poor on the other hand were already in bad shape, getting welfare by having children is the most logical course of action to them, after all why would you want to try to get a job and work for 8 hours a day when you can have children and recieve welfare. I grew up poor, was a bleeding heart Leftist until the age of 17 when I actually learned a little economics, and learned something so obvious I slapped myself when I realized it, that people respond to incentives. For poor people the incentive is to have children because of all the welfare benefits they can get, poor people are less likely to look at the long term, they just see that they can make some easy money, often times they neglect the children because the only reason they wanted them was for the benefits. Some even tell you straight out that thats what they are going to do. I was poor, I grew up around poor people, I still know some poor people, I'm even friends with some of them, thinking that I don't know what I'm talking about would be like telling a physicist he doesn't know physics.
I don't see people as inherently good or bad, I call it like I see it.
Consumariat:Jesus fucking christ. Do you even comprehend why people [sic] avoid responding to you? You're such an obnoxious twat that Gandhi would have difficulty engaging you without pulling his hair out.
Hey, like I said before, why dish it out if you can't take it?
Consumariat:Just give up with the constant trolling and sniping and debate seriously for once [sic].
You first.
But if I was actually trolling you, I wouldn't bother making any substantial points. And when I do debate, I debate seriously. Indeed, I consider debate to be serious by definition.
"Your point was to try to ease the tension and distract people from the dispute between Consumariat and myself."
that is true. Yes, I have failed at that.
"I couldn't care less how "immature" you may think I'm acting. Understand?"
I sense some anger towards me. We're on the same side. free markets.
what is your goal with consum? to convince him? or something else?
This was a post with absolutely no trolling or sniping. If anything, it was the opposite - being that it contained a small amount of contrition
"If I inferred wrongly then I take it back.".
This on the other hand was riddled with dismissive, accusatory, and childish one-upmanship.
"Thank you for finally having enough backbone" "You're backpedaling pretty furiously" "you've now admitted to having lied?" "I won't even call it a nice try on your part." "your entire position is intellectually bankrupt and it's simply a matter of blind religious faith to you. Yes, religious. I'll say it again and again if I deem it necessary." "You don't seem to understand what I mean by "proof""
"Thank you for finally having enough backbone"
"You're backpedaling pretty furiously"
"you've now admitted to having lied?"
"I won't even call it a nice try on your part."
"your entire position is intellectually bankrupt and it's simply a matter of blind religious faith to you. Yes, religious. I'll say it again and again if I deem it necessary."
"You don't seem to understand what I mean by "proof""
So no, you are not interested in debating seriously.
limitgov:I sense some anger towards me. We're on the same side. free markets.
You're a minarchist, aren't you? So we're not entirely on the same side. But regardless, I don't appreciate you trying to come between Consumariat and me.
limitgov:what is your goal with consum? to convince him? or something else?
My point is twofold. I want to show him how bankrupt his position and his ability to argue it are. I also want to retaliate against his attitude.
Consumariat:This was a post with absolutely no trolling or sniping. If anything, it was the opposite - being that it contained a small amount of contrition "If I inferred wrongly then I take it back.". This on the other hand was riddled with dismissive, accusatory, and childish one-upmanship. "Thank you for finally having enough backbone" "You're backpedaling pretty furiously" "you've now admitted to having lied?" "I won't even call it a nice try on your part." "your entire position is intellectually bankrupt and it's simply a matter of blind religious faith to you. Yes, religious. I'll say it again and again if I deem it necessary." "You don't seem to understand what I mean by "proof"" So no, you are not interested in debating seriously.
I am - if you are. But I don't think you are. I think your whole point is to try to lord it over me and the rest of us. That's normally been your point in this forum, as far as I can tell. So I'm giving you a taste of your own medicine. In other words, I'm showing you the same contempt that you've already shown for me and the rest of us. You sure don't seem to like it. Oh well - go complain to someone who cares. I don't see you as a victim here in the slightest. As far as I'm concerned, you deserve all of this at the very least.
Have I made myself clear? I sure hope so.
Aside from that, my point is also to show just how bad you are at arguing.
Incredible. Just incredible.
"You're a minarchist, aren't you?"
What is a miniarchist? compared to the average person, we are way on the same side.
"I want to show him how bankrupt his position is. I also want to retaliate against his attitude."
sounds like you just want to brow beat him. anger is only going to bring more anger. and by the way, don't waste any energy on anger with me...you are on my side...you promote free markets....I have love for you.
Consumariat:Incredible. Just incredible.
Feel free to point out anywhere you think I've characterized things inaccurately.
limitgov:What is a miniarchist? compared to the average person, we are way on the same side.
I consider a minarchist to be someone who advocates a free market in everything but the settling of disputes, if not also in protection.
limitgov:sounds like you just want to brow beat him. anger is only going to bring more anger.
So? Maybe I don't mind that.
limitgov:and by the way, don't waste any energy on anger with me...you are on my side...you promote free markets....I have love for you.
I'll "waste energy" on anger with you if I want to, thank you very much.
Feel free to point out anywhere you think I've characterized things inaccurately
When you said this:
I think your whole point is to try to lord it over me and the rest of us.
If this is the case, then name one point in this post where I was doing any 'lording' whatsoever. You had been repeatedly asking me to respond to points that I had failed to address. I did so in a very respectful manner, and yet the reply was this. So is it me or you who is 'lording'?
Explain to me why you're focusing on that one single post of yours. I see no honest reason for you to do so.
Forget it mate. I've never put anyone on ignore before. Congratulations on being the first.
"consider a minarchist to be someone who advocates a free market in everything but the settling of disputes, if not also in protection."
Well, then, I guess I would not be a miniarchist. I believe in no government whatsoever.
I'm gonna send so much love at you, it'll destroy all the anger coming at me.
How about you just try to make me forget it, hmm?
You can ignore me all you want, but I won't ignore you. Get it?
Also, by ignoring me, I consider you to be unconditionally conceding your position. If necessary, I'll ask others (who you haven't ignored) to ram that point home until you can't look away from it.
This isn't over.
God, I wish I could figure out where the ignore function actually is.
Oh so you lied again. Why am I not surprised.
Karma, thy name is Autolykos.
limitgov:Well, then, I guess I would not be a miniarchist. I believe in no government whatsoever.
Oh okay. Then we're completely on the same side. I stand corrected.
I guess your username is from way back?
limitgov:I'm gonna send so much love at you, it'll destroy all the anger coming at me.
Not sure if that's possible, but of course you're free to try.
Redistributing wealth to the poor is the same thing as distributing poverty to those near poverty. Imagine you distributed wealth to everyone equally, what would happen to prices if everyone in the world suddenly had equal amounts of money? Demand for and hence the prices of desired goods, with no corresponding increase in supply would skyrocket. An increased demand from some means a decreased demand from others. I do not see how inflation could result from this.
Redistributing wealth to the poor is the same thing as distributing poverty to those near poverty. Imagine you distributed wealth to everyone equally, what would happen to prices if everyone in the world suddenly had equal amounts of money?
Demand for and hence the prices of desired goods, with no corresponding increase in supply would skyrocket.
An increased demand from some means a decreased demand from others. I do not see how inflation could result from this.
The redistribution takes what would go to savings (investment) of the wealthier and turns that wealth to consumption, leading to shortages, stagnating or regressing rates of production and price inflation.