John Stossel: "I Was Brainwashed"

[Jekyll's Guest]

I'm not here to convince you (specifically you and others like you) that I am right, because you have long ago forsaken morality in favor of looting.

It's not my fault! They're just so delicious!

 

[DavidJames]

I still don't agree. What, precisely, is the basis by which the removal of coercive force from the government necessarily corresponds with a transition from the U.S. today to Somalia?

The basis is the fact that we are human and there are enough of us who will screw their fellow human the first chance they get. As evidence, look in the prisons.

Also, look at the politicians so despised by libertarians. Many float seamlessly between the worshiped capitalistic entities and hated government. Only a highly tuned sense of cognitive dissonance blinds libertarians to reality.

 

[clown]

I still don't agree. What, precisely, is the basis by which the removal of coercive force from the government necessarily corresponds with a transition from the U.S. today to Somalia?

That seems unlikely.
Assume that, tomorrow, the U.S. Congress decried that all criminal penalties for failing to pay taxes would be revoked, but that taxes would still be calculated and collected, and that the actual taxes paid (voluntarily) by each individual and business would be a matter of public record.Can you explain by what process this would cause the United States to become Somalia, and how long this process would take?

Okay, I'll buy. Let's assume that.

You'll know how much taxes you'll have to pay, but there will be no one to force you to pay them. During first year of that, 90% of people would still pay their taxes, fearing repeal of the law/decision. Next year, number of people paying will drop to less than 50%. The very next one, it will go to less than 10%, because people are bastards, no one likes to pay taxes and (once most of the people start looking around and feeling like idiots for paying those pesky things and having less money than their neighbour Bob) no one will feel the need to pay their taxes.

After second year, our schools, police force and even firemen will be thoroughly under funded and be forced to find new sources of income (see this thread to where that leads). After third year, even IRS, business administration and DMV will be unable to do their jobs, because of lack of funds (third year, because they'd still have "taxes" for services they actually provide paid after they provide them (like any other service on the market), services which mostly consist of imprinting things on official looking pieces of paper). On the fourth, there would be new elections (unless everything goes Somalia-poo by then) and the law will be repealed.

Your arguments against that scenario?

AvalonXQ, I say that your decision wouldn't work, except maybe in Japan or some other Asian country in which the family honour still has more worth than gold, but even there companies and people would stop doing it after say, ten years.

 

[brodski]

I still don't agree. What, precisely, is the basis by which the removal of coercive force from the government necessarily corresponds with a transition from the U.S. today to Somalia?

Put it this way, do you currently voluntarily, and with full knowledge, pay more tax than you need to? Do many other people? In an an-cap society would you do so? Would you expect many other people to do so?

In the absence of a functioning criminal justice system warlords flourish, in an an-cap society what would be the check against criminal gangs becoming local warlords?

My answers to the questions are.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Nothing.

 

[TmoonII]

Actually, like I stated, I'm provably correct. If we didn't have the right to kick people off their land to build highways this country would be significantly crappier less corrupt.

Lobbyist have profited from insider information such as highways.

 

[Upchurch]

John Stossel discusses the experience of his liberal brainwashing at the hands of Marxist college professors

Where is Marxist college?

 

[I Am The Scum]

Several people have argued that it is immoral to initiate violence. I would like to offer three scenarios that are not violent acts:

A man operates a motor vehicle while heavily intoxicated.
A man prints his own counterfeit currency in his basement.
A family does not bother to feed their child.

I live in a society were all of the above acts are illegal. If the perpetrator is found out, there are police offers who are willing and able to stop them, with force if necessary. This would be an initiation of violence. Why is this immoral?

 

[leftysergeant]

So Zep....

How big would they be without patent protections?

Wait a minute. Would ancap do away with the concept of patents? Would I be free to decompile Windows 7 and start making my own version of it?

Who would have moral authority to stop me?

 

[Magyar]

I'm not here to convince you (specifically you and others like you) that I am right, because you have long ago forsaken morality in favor of looting.

I am here to convince those who know there is something fundamentally wrong with the way our society operates.

The videos provide all the information necessary to refute your nonsense.

So in other words you are UNABLE to make a rational coherent argument for your point of view. You know this and therefor all you have left is to "preach to the converted"

Got it! No wonder libertarians are laguhed at! (besides that fact that their ideas are jusst wrong when it comes to real world applications that is)

 

[AvalonXQ]

Wait a minute. Would ancap do away with the concept of patents? Would I be free to decompile Windows 7 and start making my own version of it?

Who would have moral authority to stop me?

I don't see who would have the moral authority to stop you.
As I understand it, an-cap companies would rely on trade secrets and agreements with customers. If MS could come after you at all, it would have to be under a EULA rather than under patents.
Come to think of it, under an-cap, software might have even nastier DRM than we see today.

 

[lomiller]

But why should I be forced to pay for the investing? Should we really be trading individual liberty for utility?

Which do you prefer?
A) To be able to choose to access the internet or no to access it
B) Only being offered the choice to not access the internet because it doesn’t exist?
Are you seriously trying to say option B) offers you greater individual liberty?

 

[leftysergeant]

Come to think of it, under an-cap, software might have even nastier DRM than we see today.

So, morally, a software pirate would be even more entitled to his profit because he has to work so hard to overcome the DRM, right?

 

[lomiller]

Is that the stench of moving the goalposts I smell? It started with





and now the definition of "created by the government" is changed to include "happening in society that has any form of government", which is literally every society currently existing in the world.*

*Except for imaginary one in your mind.

IIRC he does acknowledge that failed states like Somalia don’t really have any form of government. At the very least he has rationalizations for why his personal freedom utopia hasn’t emerged in places with no government since he insists “it would be different here”.

 

[AvalonXQ]

So, morally, a software pirate would be even more entitled to his profit because he has to work so hard to overcome the DRM, right?

I like that argument. Just as a burgler is entitled to his profit as long as the house was really hard to break into, right?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Which do you prefer?
A) To be able to choose to access the internet or no to access it
B) Only being offered the choice to not access the internet because it doesn’t exist?
Are you seriously trying to say option B) offers you greater individual liberty?

I choose to live on land stolen from others well before I was born, and I'm greatful to have access to the land. That doesn't mean that I agree with the moral and political system that allowed the land to be stolen in the first place.

 

[PGH]

I'm sick and tired of complaints about the governments morals and use of force and coercion from someone who keeps LUNGING AT ME WITH A SWORD!

 

[marplots]

I'm sick and tired of complaints about the governments morals and use of force and coercion from someone who keeps LUNGING AT ME WITH A SWORD!

I don't think it's a sword. It's the LASER POINTER OF TRUTH!

 

[AvalonXQ]

I'm sick and tired of complaints about the governments morals and use of force and coercion from someone who keeps LUNGING AT ME WITH A SWORD!

Clearly you have not played enough Chrono Trigger (like the "CT" initials, BTW)? Crono is not lunging in that animation; he is at guarded stance, ready to defend his person and property from looters!

 

[lomiller]

I choose to live on land stolen from others well before I was born, and I'm greatful to have access to the land. That doesn't mean that I agree with the moral and political system that allowed the land to be stolen in the first place.

Not exactly relevant to the question at hand. It’s highly probable the internet wouldn’t exist if the government hadn’t developed it and later created incentives for private companies to use and supply it.

The choice here is: small tax + choice to use the internet, or no tax and no choice to use the internet, no other. Which of these offers the most freedom?

BTW since you bring up land, what is your moral justification for ownership of that land in the first place? IOW how do you morally justify ownership of something that exists on its own and isn’t the product of anyone’s effort?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Not exactly relevant to the question at hand. It’s highly probable the internet wouldn’t exist if the government hadn’t developed it and later created incentives for private companies to use and supply it.

It's pretty clear to me that the internet or something like it would have come into existence as the technology arose and became profitable, whether or not the government had actively subsidized it. And I certainly don't see the government as necessary for the future development of nifty technologies.