Libretarians privatizing Police

shanek said:

Even though they treat people in emergency rooms who can't pay? And why wouldn't they get paid for the investigation?
Click to expand...

So if your a victim of a crime the police will only respond if you pay them??? Is that good public policy??? Police protection for the rich only?
 
shanek said:
Even though they treat people in emergency rooms who can't pay? And why wouldn't they get paid for the investigation?
Click to expand...

I hate to give you this troll-sounding response but you leave me no option.

Hospitals treat people for free because there is a law forcing them to do so, are you going to force a private business(Police) to do something for free?
 
I give up with you f*cking bigots...Everything, and I mean EVERY LAST BIT OF FUD you people are slothing around is DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED by the REAL-WORLD EXAMPLES of this in action. And with that, I'm outta here. Have fun, trolls...
 
shanek said:
I give up with you f*cking bigots...Everything, and I mean EVERY LAST BIT OF FUD you people are slothing around is DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED by the REAL-WORLD EXAMPLES of this in action. And with that, I'm outta here. Have fun, trolls...
Click to expand...

Hissy-fit when cornered. Same old, same old...

Tell me something, shanek: Do you plan to exhibit the same uncontrollable behavior at TAM3?
 
DoubleStreamer said:
And then, of course, there are those who simply opt for not answering the questions they've been cornered by.
:eek:
Click to expand...

Who are you talking about?
 
Talk to the left cause you aint right!!!!


I dont see any real world examples other than talk of condo, mall. campus police. Those are all supplumental police forces, not replacement forces. Of cousre your gonna have less crime if you have a rental cop constantly patrolling the complex ON TOP of the regular police coverage.


Then there are a bunch of practicle quesdtions that have gone ignored by the pro private police side.
 
Originally posted by CFLarsen
Hissy-fit when cornered.

Originally posted by DoubleStreamer
And then, of course, there are those who simply opt for not answering the questions they've been cornered by.
:eek:

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Who are you talking about?
Click to expand...

I'm referring to your rather embarrassing performance in the "price gouging" thread.
 
DoubleStreamer said:
I'm referring to your rather embarrassing performance in the "price gouging" thread.
Click to expand...

Did I give answers to your questions, yes or no?
 
Now, that's a ridiculous statement! You might as well answer, "Why would private doctors want to end disease? They'd be putting themselves out of business."
Click to expand...

Yes, and many have argued that pharmaceutical companies (all other things being equal) prefer merely treating diseases instead of wiping them out entirely, and that they are thusly more likely to spend their money on potential treatments instead of potential cures. Cures, as I see it, are likely to get a substantial percentage of its support from charitable and scientific motivations instead of the motivations of profit. Although of course some cures can be very profitable, as situations vary from situation to situation.
 
CFLarsen said:
Did I give answers to your questions, yes or no?
Click to expand...

Well, somewhere along the line, you might have answered something, but in terms of some of the more important questions that were asked of you, more than once, that would be a resounding no. So would you like for me to repeat those questions for you here, or perhaps in the other thread, to give you a chance to redeem yourself?
 
Well if ShaneK is gone I guess Ill take over for him as the new "Captain Libertarian"!!!!


*ahem*............"Private industry good, Government BAAAAAAAD!! Did you know that without government regulation coal fired plants would shoot out rainbows and sunflowers from their smoke stacks!!! "

:p
 
DoubleStreamer said:
So would you like for me to repeat those questions for you here, or perhaps in the other thread, to give you a chance to redeem yourself?
Click to expand...

Show me. In the appriopriate thread. I am desperate to redeem myself in front of you.
 
Originally posted by DoubleStreamer
So would you like for me to repeat those questions for you here, or perhaps in the other thread, to give you a chance to redeem yourself?

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Show me. In the appriopriate thread. I am desperate to redeem myself in front of you.
Click to expand...

Ask and ye shall receive. In this thread, there is a question in the final post that you never answered, and three more quoted (and underlined) in the post that precedes it. Good luck.
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Which will come first?

1) Answers to your questions
2) A Shanek hissy fit

Ummmmm.....hmmmmm....that's a tough one! OK, I'll pick #2. :D
Click to expand...

shanek said:
I give up with you f*cking bigots...Everything, and I mean EVERY LAST BIT OF FUD you people are slothing around is DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED by the REAL-WORLD EXAMPLES of this in action. And with that, I'm outta here. Have fun, trolls...
Click to expand...

CFLarsen said:
Hissy-fit when cornered. Same old, same old...

Tell me something, shanek: Do you plan to exhibit the same uncontrollable behavior at TAM3?
Click to expand...

I'M PSYCHIC!!!!! Claus, now do you believe? Where is my million?
 
DoubleStreamer said:
Ask and ye shall receive. In this thread, there is a question in the final post that you never answered, and three more quoted (and underlined) in the post that precedes it. Good luck.
Click to expand...

I had expected that you were going to point to questions you think I had dodged several times - which was what you claimed.

Instead, you point to a question at the end of a thread that has died. So, you basically complain that I don't read all threads, especially not the ones where you post in.

As for the other questions, I have answered them, and you are well aware of it.

I'm really sorry, DoubleStreamer, but I cannot read and comment on all your posts. I have to admit that you are not a poster that is contributing in any particularly constructive way to this forum. You seem to want to pick personal wars instead.

Why don't you summarize the main contents of your posts, say, once a month? That should take you about two seconds. Until then, please don't waste my time anymore with your playground games, OK?
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:
I'M PSYCHIC!!!!! Claus, now do you believe? Where is my million?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but predicting that shanek will have a hissy fit is not a paranormal feat, it is stating the bleedin' obvious!
 
Originally posted by CFLarsen
Show me. In the appriopriate thread. I am desperate to redeem myself in front of you.
Click to expand...

I guess you didn't really mean it ...

Originally posted by DoubleStreamer
Ask and ye shall receive. In this thread, there is a question in the final post that you never answered, and three more quoted (and underlined) in the post that precedes it. Good luck.

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I had expected that you were going to point to questions you think I had dodged several times - which was what you claimed.
Click to expand...

Take another look. That's exactly what I did. That would be the three numbered, underlined questions in the "post that precedes it" that I referred to. Pay attention to what you read.



Instead, you point to a question at the end of a thread that has died.
Click to expand...

First, the question at the end of that thread appeared the very next day after the post of yours that it was in response to. So if the thread "died", it was because you did not respond.

And second, it wasn't "instead" of anything, but in addition to the three questions in the "post that precedes it". Pay attention to what you read.



So, you basically complain that I don't read all threads, especially not the ones where you post in.
Click to expand...

Uh, no, and you're not making sense. The only thread I linked to was one in which you posted, I responded, and over the course of our conversation, you dodged several relevant questions which, if clearly answered, would have made things go much more smoothly. Why you think that equates to a complaint that you "don't read all threads" is anybody's guess.



As for the other questions, I have answered them, and you are well aware of it.
Click to expand...

Nope. Not even close. You just keep right on asserting this, and I'll just keep right on disputing it. (Guess which position will bear scrutiny, and which won't.)

Once again, merely quoting somebody else's question, and then following it with what might be an answer to something else, doesn't qualify. See, answering a question like "Do you believe most voters are well educated about Libertarianism?" would be most effectively answered with a "yes" or a "no", which you did not do. At the very least, a real answer would actually communicate whether you believe most voters are well educated about Libertarianism, and you've posted absolutely nothing that makes this clear. Same goes for the question about the Adam/Bert hypothetical. And while the third question calls for more than a "yes" or a "no", it is directly relevant to the comments of yours that prompted my response in the first place, and you never came close to answering it either.

Continuing to claim you've answered questions you haven't even come close to answering, especially when you've recently posted comments about someone else's answers to questions, only makes you look foolish. But if you want to stick with that claim, the way to do so credibly would be to not only post those questions and answer them, but to do so by specifically quoting the exact statements/passages you already answered them with to support your claim.



I'm really sorry, DoubleStreamer, but I cannot read and comment on all your posts.
Click to expand...

I guess it's no surprise you'd post a comment like this to create the impression I'd asked you to do such an unreasonable thing, but what I actually asked for was much more reasonable, now wasn't it? To refresh your memory, that would be a clear answer to a few "tough, relevant" questions, which was something you yourself made an issue of with another poster.



I have to admit that you are not a poster that is contributing in any particularly constructive way to this forum.
Click to expand...

That doesn't reflect well on your ability to form sound conclusions. 'Cause what I've done in this case is expose yet another libertarian critic as an intellectual coward. That is certainly as constructive a contribution as anything you've posted, and something whose value should be appreciated by skeptics.



You seem to want to pick personal wars instead.
Click to expand...

Given that this whole thing started with you posting insulting comments that you've been unable to defend, your comment is a reflection of someone who can dish it out but can't take it.



Why don't you summarize the main contents of your posts, say, once a month? That should take you about two seconds. Until then, please don't waste my time anymore with your playground games, OK?
Click to expand...

And oh yeah, one more tactic that is typical of many libertarian critics is to deflect attention from their failures by feigning superiority over whoever is pointing out those failures.
:(

And speaking of "two seconds", and based on comments you yourself have posted, shouldn't most of the questions I've been asking have taken you only about two seconds to answer?
:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom