As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Young Conservative

moridinamaelmoridinamael Registered User regular
edited September 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
Hello,

I am fond of arguing politics with my brother. His usual tactic is to force people into making increasingly unpalatable assertions until they find themselves advocating something that doesn't make any sense or that they don't really believe, at which point he wins.

I am a "Libertarian." He refuses to define what he is.

Recently I joined an organization for "Young Conservatives" which he finds very offensive because everybody knows "conservatives" are insane people who bomb abortion clinics.

Joining this organization really galvanized our discussions, because he finds it unacceptable that I really believe in minimal government, and I find it unbelievable that he sees any benefit to government control.

So he says to me, "You talk too much, Mori. Your braying hurts my ears. You should just start a thread on PA." I took this to mean that
a) everybody on PA will disagree with me and
b) everybody on PA will be eager to explain why I am wrong and
c) posters on PA are knowledgeable and clever enough to actually convince me I am indeed wrong.

I am possibly the most open-minded person in the universe (which may clash with some individuals' definition of a conservative.) If I am demonstrably wrong about something, or even just ignorant of key views or facts, I would rather be illuminated than be "right" in my own mind.

tl;dr Libertarian (borderline Anarchist) officer in a Conservative organization invites you to convince him that he's wrong.

moridinamael on
«13456719

Posts

  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    See: ye olde ideology thread. It is here. We are pretty liberal. If your arguments suck, we will mock you mercilessly. God help you if you're a Randian.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I think your brother just wanted you to get banned.

    You both sound like you have no idea what you are talking about.



    for instance, you did not actually give any of your views for people to dispute; you only listed a sting of loosiely defined labels (and then refused to define them/)

    Evander on
  • Options
    KanamitKanamit Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Unless you are extremely fickle no one on the internet is going to convince you that you're wrong.

    Kanamit on
  • Options
    moridinamaelmoridinamael Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    I think your brother just wanted you to get banned.

    You both sound like you have no idea what you are talking about.



    for instance, you did not actually give any of your views for people to dispute; you only listed a sting of loosiely defined labels (and then refused to define them/)

    Thank you for your question!

    I believe that there is literally nothing the government does that would not be done better by private enterprise, with the POSSIBLE exception of the military.

    moridinamael on
  • Options
    Tiger BurningTiger Burning Dig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    edited September 2009
    Hmmm. First the Milgue Toast thread and now this. I smell a put on.

    Tiger Burning on
    Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I believe that there is literally nothing the government does that would not be done better by private enterprise, with the POSSIBLE exception of the military.

    I would like to hear your justification why firefighting would be done better by private enterprise, and what such a system would look like.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    I think your brother just wanted you to get banned.

    You both sound like you have no idea what you are talking about.



    for instance, you did not actually give any of your views for people to dispute; you only listed a sting of loosiely defined labels (and then refused to define them/)

    Thank you for your question!

    I believe that there is literally nothing the government does that would not be done better by private enterprise, with the POSSIBLE exception of the military.
    So support this by naming privatized police departments, fire departments, highway departments, environmental regulatory organizations, etc. that function better than government equivalents. Also note our privatized health care system performs quite a bit worse than more socialized systems.

    It doesn't matter what your beliefs are if you can't support them.

    Qingu on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I believe that there is literally nothing the government does that would not be done better by private enterprise, with the POSSIBLE exception of the military.

    Why?


    And even if this is the case, how do you ensure A) that the private sector WILL provide everything the government does not, and B) that the private sector will distribute everything equitably?

    And don't say free market. It doesn't work that way. The free market is trends over time, not a superhero that swoops in when there is need.

    Evander on
  • Options
    SarksusSarksus ATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Outline how a fire department would be run by private industry that does not result in people's houses burning down because they don't have coverage.

    Edit: Beated by Feral.

    Sarksus on
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    And if we're really going to do this here: see the awesometastic performance of military contractors in Iraq/Afghanistan to show how awesome private enterprise can be.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Don't forget about how privatization puts an unproportional stress on the impoverished.

    Imagine being unemployed in a world of privatized roads, where you can barely afford to feed yourself, but if you want to go out and hunt for jobs, you've got to scrounge up money for all of the tolls.

    Evander on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Don't forget about how privatization puts an unproportional stress on the impoverished.

    Imagine being unemployed in a world of privatized roads, where you can barely afford to feed yourself, but if you want to go out and hunt for jobs, you've got to scrounge up money for all of the tolls.

    Well, technically, just because something is privatized does not mean it is pay-for-play. Or vice versa. Those are two separate concepts, but to be fair, they're concepts even libertarians often conflate.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    I believe that there is literally nothing the government does that would not be done better by private enterprise, with the POSSIBLE exception of the military.

    I would like to hear your justification why firefighting would be done better by private enterprise, and what such a system would look like.

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/32825

    EDIT: Also, OCP gave Detroit Robocop so a privately-owned police force can't be all bad.

    emnmnme on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Don't forget about how privatization puts an unproportional stress on the impoverished.

    Imagine being unemployed in a world of privatized roads, where you can barely afford to feed yourself, but if you want to go out and hunt for jobs, you've got to scrounge up money for all of the tolls.

    Well, technically, just because something is privatized does not mean it is pay-for-play. Or vice versa. Those are two separate concepts, but to be fair, they're concepts even libertarians often conflate.

    understood, but in a world where EVERYTHING is privatized, how else are the road owners making money?

    toll road is the most logical.

    Evander on
  • Options
    DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    I think your brother just wanted you to get banned.

    You both sound like you have no idea what you are talking about.



    for instance, you did not actually give any of your views for people to dispute; you only listed a sting of loosiely defined labels (and then refused to define them/)

    Thank you for your question!

    I believe that there is literally nothing the government does that would not be done better by private enterprise, with the POSSIBLE exception of the military.

    Fire departments in poor areas.
    Police departments in poor areas.
    Building roads and related infrastructure.
    Funding parks.
    Enforcement of building codes.
    Protecting worker's rights - basically preventing indentured servitude.

    I think your brother doesn't have to reach very far to make you argue a ridiculous point - you are starting out with one.

    Doc on
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Also consider the concept of what an economy is.

    In order for an economy to even function, you need a basic infrastructure of laws. You need laws against theft and fraud. If people could freely break contracts and steal your property, nobody would trade; an economy would not exist.

    It's not a coincidence that high-functioning economies arise throughout history within strong governments that are able to maintain a rule of laws.

    Similarly, it's not a coincidence that high-functioning economies historically arise within government-created roads, militarily protected waters, and other "public" trade routes and infrastructure.

    The moral of the story here is that economies do not exist in a vacuum. They rely on infrastructure that is built and maintained by governments.

    Qingu on
  • Options
    DukiDuki Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Don't forget about how privatization puts an unproportional stress on the impoverished.

    Imagine being unemployed in a world of privatized roads, where you can barely afford to feed yourself, but if you want to go out and hunt for jobs, you've got to scrounge up money for all of the tolls.

    Well, technically, just because something is privatized does not mean it is pay-for-play. Or vice versa. Those are two separate concepts, but to be fair, they're concepts even libertarians often conflate.

    understood, but in a world where EVERYTHING is privatized, how else are the road owners making money?

    toll road is the most logical.

    presumably control over advertising, but even then thatd be impossible

    Duki on
  • Options
    MaceraMacera UGH GODDAMMIT STOP ENJOYING THINGSRegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Don't forget about how privatization puts an unproportional stress on the impoverished.

    Imagine being unemployed in a world of privatized roads, where you can barely afford to feed yourself, but if you want to go out and hunt for jobs, you've got to scrounge up money for all of the tolls.

    Well, technically, just because something is privatized does not mean it is pay-for-play. Or vice versa. Those are two separate concepts, but to be fair, they're concepts even libertarians often conflate.

    I don't know how a privatized fire department would stay in business if several months go by without fires.

    Macera on
    xet8c.gif
  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Macera wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Don't forget about how privatization puts an unproportional stress on the impoverished.

    Imagine being unemployed in a world of privatized roads, where you can barely afford to feed yourself, but if you want to go out and hunt for jobs, you've got to scrounge up money for all of the tolls.

    Well, technically, just because something is privatized does not mean it is pay-for-play. Or vice versa. Those are two separate concepts, but to be fair, they're concepts even libertarians often conflate.

    I don't know how a privatized fire department would stay in business if several months go by without fires.

    Arson.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Duki wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Don't forget about how privatization puts an unproportional stress on the impoverished.

    Imagine being unemployed in a world of privatized roads, where you can barely afford to feed yourself, but if you want to go out and hunt for jobs, you've got to scrounge up money for all of the tolls.

    Well, technically, just because something is privatized does not mean it is pay-for-play. Or vice versa. Those are two separate concepts, but to be fair, they're concepts even libertarians often conflate.

    understood, but in a world where EVERYTHING is privatized, how else are the road owners making money?

    toll road is the most logical.

    presumably control over advertising, but even then thatd be impossible

    indeed

    attempting to monetize roads through advertizements would be unwieldy, easily ignorable, and would likely increase incidence of accidents.



    There's a reason why there are plenty of toll roads out there, but few (if any) ad-paid roads.

    Evander on
  • Options
    emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    What about the internet? Created by the government yet owned by the ISPs. The government doesn't own the fiber optic cable nor the servers. That's privately owned infrastructure.

    emnmnme on
  • Options
    SarksusSarksus ATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Macera wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Don't forget about how privatization puts an unproportional stress on the impoverished.

    Imagine being unemployed in a world of privatized roads, where you can barely afford to feed yourself, but if you want to go out and hunt for jobs, you've got to scrounge up money for all of the tolls.

    Well, technically, just because something is privatized does not mean it is pay-for-play. Or vice versa. Those are two separate concepts, but to be fair, they're concepts even libertarians often conflate.

    I don't know how a privatized fire department would stay in business if several months go by without fires.

    The most obvious business model would be to sell insurance and charge monthly premiums.

    Sarksus on
  • Options
    CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Private police forces sound to me more like mafia than anything else, especially considering there would be no other body to enforce the laws against them.

    Insert comment about how current American police forces are already like mafia.

    Cervetus on
  • Options
    KhavallKhavall British ColumbiaRegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Wait your brother's "tactic" is to "force" you into advocating for things you don't actually believe that are stupid?


    Have you actually thought about any of your arguments before you make them so that this doesn't work?

    Because maybe you should actually think about your arguments so that that doesn't work.

    Khavall on
  • Options
    deadonthestreetdeadonthestreet Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Macera wrote: »
    I don't know how a privatized fire department would stay in business if several months go by without fires.

    Basically it works on the insurance model. You pay them a monthly fee or they don't put out your house when it catches on fire.

    deadonthestreet on
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    I always picture privatized fire departments as that scene in Gangs of New York where the two fire departments fight over a burning building, then set other buildings on fire so they can loot them.

    Government intervention is necessary because there are services vital to infrastructure that will never be profitable - highway systems, door-to-door mail delivery, certain types of health insurance coverage, subway systems, military, etc. The government is the only entity with enough resources to provide these services at a non-profit or subsidized level - nearly any for-profit private enterprise in these areas would only serve the wealthy, who need them the least.

    KalTorak on
  • Options
    moridinamaelmoridinamael Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Don't forget about how privatization puts an unproportional stress on the impoverished.

    Imagine being unemployed in a world of privatized roads, where you can barely afford to feed yourself, but if you want to go out and hunt for jobs, you've got to scrounge up money for all of the tolls.

    It doesn't put "unproportional" stress on anyone, it just removes the artificial removal of stress. Stress is a good motivator.
    Feral wrote: »
    I would like to hear your justification why firefighting would be done better by private enterprise, and what such a system would look like.

    I thought we already had volunteer firefighters. Furthermore, we already have homeowners associations and suchlike. I am not against people agreeing to get together and pool their money to fund a fire department. I don't see the problem.

    If your response to this is that "people won't pay for the fire department," then dumbasses lose their houses. Not complicated.
    Qingu wrote: »
    So support this by naming privatized police departments, fire departments, highway departments, environmental regulatory organizations, etc. that function better than government equivalents. Also note our privatized health care system performs quite a bit worse than more socialized systems.

    Police departments, fire departments etc. could work as small private security / emergency response forces which you pay some kind of fee to use. This is basically what we already have except we label them "Federal" or "State."

    Fire, police, and roads are the three things I always hear because they are very convenient to pick on. In truth, they are pretty cheap, and I think if the public option were removed, individuals more creative and clever than myself would come forward with even more effective and more economical solutions. Or, simple emergent pragmatic solutions.

    The fact that fire departments exist, for example, means that all of our homes are designed for fire DETECTION rather than fire PREVENTION. If there were no free, reliable fire department, maybe you would not have lit all those candles, and then your house would never have caught on fire in the first place?

    Bringing healthcare into the same picture as fire departments is a massive conflation of issues. Healthcare is messed up because it was regulated and legislated into an impossible position. It is not and has never been "free market." I am interested to see what would happen if it were given that chance.

    Sorry if I fucked up the quotes, obviously I'm new around here.

    moridinamael on
  • Options
    MaceraMacera UGH GODDAMMIT STOP ENJOYING THINGSRegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Macera wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Don't forget about how privatization puts an unproportional stress on the impoverished.

    Imagine being unemployed in a world of privatized roads, where you can barely afford to feed yourself, but if you want to go out and hunt for jobs, you've got to scrounge up money for all of the tolls.

    Well, technically, just because something is privatized does not mean it is pay-for-play. Or vice versa. Those are two separate concepts, but to be fair, they're concepts even libertarians often conflate.

    I don't know how a privatized fire department would stay in business if several months go by without fires.

    Arson.

    Ha! That makes me think of this Magic Card's flavor text:
    13793.jpg

    Macera on
    xet8c.gif
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Macera wrote: »
    I don't know how a privatized fire department would stay in business if several months go by without fires.

    Basically it works on the insurance model. You pay them a monthly fee or they don't put out your house when it catches on fire.

    so, in the end, you end up paying your taxes anyway, just in smaller amounts to different agencies.

    Evander on
  • Options
    werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Thank you for your question!

    I believe that there is literally nothing the government does that would not be done better by private enterprise, with the POSSIBLE exception of the military.

    The fire dept, highway service, national parks, primary education, and police would like to have a word for you before we even get into the things that are nominally "controversial" but shouldn't be like social services, healthcare, safety/labor standards, and so on. And if you happen to live in a rural area you're welcome for the electricity and telephone service (the government had to force private companies to provider service everywhere). Etc etc.

    edit: God damn the thread is either fast or I'm unusually slow.

    werehippy on
  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Stress is a good motivator.
    ...
    If your response to this is that "people won't pay for the fire department," then dumbasses lose their houses. Not complicated.
    ...
    If there were no free, reliable fire department, maybe you would not have lit all those candles, and then your house would never have caught on fire in the first place?

    Really?

    Really?

    So It Goes on
  • Options
    DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Don't forget about how privatization puts an unproportional stress on the impoverished.

    Imagine being unemployed in a world of privatized roads, where you can barely afford to feed yourself, but if you want to go out and hunt for jobs, you've got to scrounge up money for all of the tolls.

    It doesn't put "unproportional" stress on anyone, it just removes the artificial removal of stress. Stress is a good motivator.

    It's not. People often aren't under-employed because they want to be.

    Doc on
  • Options
    QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    KalTorak wrote: »
    The government is the only entity with enough resources to provide these services at a non-profit or subsidized level - nearly any for-profit private enterprise in these areas would only serve the wealthy, who need them the least.
    Well, in the immediate term they need them the least.

    In the long-term, wealthy people also depend on nonprofit infrastructure and law enforcement a great deal. If poor people can't travel to work, wealthy people have no workers for their companies. If police do not protect property, wealthy people have to spend a lot of money hiring private security guards as they will be the main targets of theft.

    The system works for wealthy people as well as poor people. Building and maintaining infrastructure and law enforcement is a nonzero-sum game.

    Qingu on
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    What about the internet? Created by the government yet owned by the ISPs. The government doesn't own the fiber optic cable nor the servers. That's privately owned infrastructure.

    Lots of areas are still without broadband (i.e. it's impossible to buy it from any ISP at any price) because it's not profitable to put the wires out there.

    edit: Not to mention the areas where one ISP (Comcast...) has a monopoly on broadband service. No competition = free market doesn't work = customer gets boned.

    KalTorak on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Don't forget about how privatization puts an unproportional stress on the impoverished.

    Imagine being unemployed in a world of privatized roads, where you can barely afford to feed yourself, but if you want to go out and hunt for jobs, you've got to scrounge up money for all of the tolls.

    It doesn't put "unproportional" stress on anyone, it just removes the artificial removal of stress. Stress is a good motivator.

    So you've clearly never taken an econ class, yes?

    $5 for me is not that big a deal.

    $5 for a guy living on the street might be all that he has.



    And don't try telling me that all that guy on the street needs is a little motivation. There are MANY factors in his life, and he is not where he is SOLELY through laziness.

    People are not born with equal opportunities, as much as you might want to claim it.




    How old are you?

    Evander on
  • Options
    CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    If there were no free, reliable fire department, maybe you would not have lit all those candles, and then your house would never have caught on fire in the first place?

    This has got to be the most retarded argument I've ever seen. Well actually I've listened to my share of Fox News pundits, so probably the dumbest I've seen in 24 hours. People are not sitting around in their homes nonchalantly playing with fire because they already pay for the fire department and thus they have nothing to lose from their house burning down.

    Cervetus on
  • Options
    FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    I believe that there is literally nothing the government does that would not be done better by private enterprise, with the POSSIBLE exception of the military.
    I would like to hear your justification why firefighting would be done better by private enterprise, and what such a system would look like.

    I thought we already had volunteer firefighters. Furthermore, we already have homeowners associations and suchlike. I am not against people agreeing to get together and pool their money to fund a fire department. I don't see the problem.

    If your response to this is that "people won't pay for the fire department," then dumbasses lose their houses. Not complicated.

    That wasn't actually a response to my inquiry.

    You're describing basically a firefighting cooperative. I'd like to know why you think such an entity would perform better than government-run firefighting districts.

    Edit:
    In truth, they are pretty cheap, and I think if the public option were removed, individuals more creative and clever than myself would come forward with even more effective and more economical solutions. Or, simple emergent pragmatic solutions.

    This implies that you don't actually know the answer to my question. You instead hope that somebody out there does.
    The fact that fire departments exist, for example, means that all of our homes are designed for fire DETECTION rather than fire PREVENTION. If there were no free, reliable fire department, maybe you would not have lit all those candles, and then your house would never have caught on fire in the first place?

    Actually this is patently untrue. One of the functions of public fire departments is to inspect construction to ensure that it is up to the fire code.

    Do you think fire code inspections should be privatized, too?

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • Options
    MaceraMacera UGH GODDAMMIT STOP ENJOYING THINGSRegistered User regular
    edited September 2009
    Macera wrote: »
    I don't know how a privatized fire department would stay in business if several months go by without fires.

    Basically it works on the insurance model. You pay them a monthly fee or they don't put out your house when it catches on fire.

    But that raises this hypothetical question: What if my house is insured but my neighbor's isn't, and his catches fire?

    Macera on
    xet8c.gif
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited September 2009
    This is either a troll or a child.

    Probably both.

    Evander on
  • Options
    DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2009
    Bringing healthcare into the same picture as fire departments is a massive conflation of issues. Healthcare is messed up because it was regulated and legislated into an impossible position. It is not and has never been "free market." I am interested to see what would happen if it were given that chance.

    Interesting like 9/11, I guess.
    That is to say, we would find out some stuff about how crazy people are, and shit-ton of people would die.

    Doc on
Sign In or Register to comment.