• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Economy limping back to strength

Phoenix said:
You don't think the wealthy landowners could hire someone to protect their investment?
Click to expand...

This makes absolutely no sense in the context of a conservation tax credit.

Without government to support deeds and legal land ownership, people would hire others to protect and enforce their land boundaries themselves.
Click to expand...

Which is essentially anarchy. The problem with that is the person with the bigger, better armed force is the one who owns all of the land. Would you buy land from someone else knowing that sooner or later the guy down the street with the tank is going to take it from you? What you propose is nothing more then 1990s Somalia.
 
obvious Child said:
Which is essentially anarchy. The problem with that is the person with the bigger, better armed force is the one who owns all of the land. Would you buy land from someone else knowing that sooner or later the guy down the street with the tank is going to take it from you? What you propose is nothing more then 1990s Somalia.
Click to expand...

Well, duh......I'd go buy a tank.....:2wave::mrgreen:

(anarchy is the absence of government)
 
Phoenix said:
Well, duh......I'd go buy a tank.....:2wave::mrgreen:

(anarchy is the absence of government)
Click to expand...

Tell me, did 1990s Somalia turn out well?

I find it hysterical how everyone who praises Anarchy runs away when I cited a place that actually had anarchy.

You people are so beholden to your ideology that you can't even see the forest for the trees.
 
Last edited:
Phoenix said:
FTR I wasn't proposing anything.
Click to expand...

obvious Child said:
Tell me, did 1990s Somalia turn out well?

I find it hysterical how everyone who praises Anarchy runs away when I cited a place that actually had anarchy.

You people are so beholden to your ideology that you can't even see the forest for the trees.
Click to expand...

Hello? McFlyy?
 
obvious Child said:
Tell me, did 1990s Somalia turn out well?

I find it hysterical how everyone who praises Anarchy runs away when I cited a place that actually had anarchy.

You people are so beholden to your ideology that you can't even see the forest for the trees.
Click to expand...

Somalia is just a strawman. Phoenix is not an anarchist.
 
For rational convenience there are some who have the tendency to reclassify Somalia into whatever is....... convenient. They will either back away or list pointless opinions.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
For rational convenience there are some who have the tendency to reclassify Somalia into whatever is....... convenient. They will either back away or list pointless opinions.
Click to expand...

1990s Somalia is a perfect example of what happens when there is no legal structure provided by a stable government. Essentially 1990s Somalia with the exception of Somaliland is an anarchist "country" for lack of better word. The underlying notions that Phoenix pushes were actually in play in Somalia. It was little more than rule by force. 1990s Somalia is a good example to bring up whenever anyone pushes the notion that violence is a good way of defining legal structure in the absence of an actual government as to why they are full of crap. Was there solid, non-questionable land valuations there? No because the basis was violence.
 
obvious Child said:
He may not be, but the argument he presented very much is. And his argument on the basis of actual practice is total and complete garbage.
Click to expand...

He was arguing against the rule of law?
 
Phoenix said:
Hello? McFlyy?
Click to expand...

Sure you weren't. You just argued that violence was effective in producing the legal structure required for land to be a form of wealth rather then how it is done in civilized countries. You disagreed with my original argument by presenting another argument without a devil's advocate disclaimer. What else am I to think?
 
yap, somalia has too much freedom and democracy.
 
the pirates are pure capitalists.
 
well, they agreed to let the pirates take the ship so they would not be drowned.

i think capitalism is more based on greed and non-interference by govt in the process of greed.
 
according to somalian law, the pirates are not doing anything wrong.
 
phattonez said:
Capitalism is based on VOLUNTARY AGREEMENTS. I can't believe that obvious child thanked you for that.
Click to expand...

It was hysterical. Generally, I laugh at most pirate jokes. Anyways, pure capitalism cannot exist with humans for the same reason that Communism can't. We don't accept the necessary frameworks that require those to operate and thus seek to change the framework into something radically different. We simply refuse to play by the rules.
 
voluntary agreement? so taxes are bad. we should have a bake sale to pay for the wars in iraq and afghanistan.
 
hoover believed in a purer form of capitalism. so did reagan. like deregulation. like deregulating the banking system and allowing things like subprime loans and credit default swaps.
 
obvious Child said:
It was hysterical. Generally, I laugh at most pirate jokes. Anyways, pure capitalism cannot exist with humans for the same reason that Communism can't. We don't accept the necessary frameworks that require those to operate and thus seek to change the framework into something radically different. We simply refuse to play by the rules.
Click to expand...

i agree with you.
 
scottsoperson said:
well, they agreed to let the pirates take the ship so they would not be drowned.

i think capitalism is more based on greed and non-interference by govt in the process of greed.
Click to expand...

You can think what you want, but capitalism is based on voluntary agreements.

scottsoperson said:
according to somalian law, the pirates are not doing anything wrong.
Click to expand...

So what? It's not capitalism.
 
obvious Child said:
It was hysterical. Generally, I laugh at most pirate jokes. Anyways, pure capitalism cannot exist with humans for the same reason that Communism can't. We don't accept the necessary frameworks that require those to operate and thus seek to change the framework into something radically different. We simply refuse to play by the rules.
Click to expand...

Stop trying to pigeon hole me. I'm fine with protection provided by government against intimidation.

scottsoperson said:
voluntary agreement? so taxes are bad. we should have a bake sale to pay for the wars in iraq and afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Taxes are bad. However, the prices we pay today are the way they are because we have protection. The only tax then that I can support is a flat sales tax that pays for police, military, and the courts.

scottsoperson said:
hoover believed in a purer form of capitalism. so did reagan. like deregulation. like deregulating the banking system and allowing things like subprime loans and credit default swaps.
Click to expand...

Reagan and Hoover were not pure capitalists. Not even close.
 
so deregulation is not capitalism either?
 
the somalian authorities voluntarily agree to let the pirates operate with impunity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom