Libertarian Kvetchfest continued

[TCO]

BERZ, you numskull! You brought the whole thing up yourself.

Here is a your quote: "GP said your PD's prove your case? Where? I'd like to see his support and his proof, maybe he can succeed where you keep failing. He claimed I don't know economics because of lotteries"


Which is true. You don't know economics because of your failure to keep up to intellectual speed in the lottery discussion.

I think you are starting to confuse yourself.

[Berzerker]

BERZ, you numskull! You brought the whole thing up yourself.

In another thread from more than two weeks ago, you moron. And where in that thread did I ignore your main point? Post your proof, don't just post a day/time and pretend your case has been made. In case you didn't notice, you were copying and pasting in that thread too, hypopcrite.

Which is true. You don't know economics because of your failure to keep up to intellectual speed in the lottery discussion.

I stopped posting in that thread a while ago, we have been posting in this thread, so where in this thread did I chop up your posts and ignore your main argument? Where in the other thread did I do this? I responded to your argument that government must maintain a monopoly on lotteries to raise revenue.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Berzerker


In another thread from more than two weeks ago, you moron. And where in that thread did I ignore your main point? Post your proof, don't just post a day/time and pretend your case has been made. In case you didn't notice, you were copying and pasting in that thread too, hypopcrite.



I stopped posting in that thread a while ago, we have been posting in this thread, so where in this thread did I chop up your posts and ignore your main argument? Where in the other thread did I do this? I responded to your argument that government must maintain a monopoly on lotteries to raise revenue.

God you are a moron. Let's stick to fact one that we can agree on. You and I did discuss lotteries! At this point, I'm just trying to pin you down on that. Jeez you're like a struggling moth. You want to change the subject after bringing up the kvetch yourself.

I bet you did get beaten up by all the public school kids.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Berzerker


In another thread from more than two weeks ago, you moron.

Here is how you brought it up,

Berz: "GP said your PD's prove your case? Where? I'd like to see his support and his proof, maybe he can succeed where you keep failing. He claimed I don't know economics because of lotteries"

And that was in the thread that was the forerunner to this one. And do you understand why I'm perplexed when you deny having a lottery discussion? After alluding to it yourself!?!?

This is pretty silly to even be arguing about. But if you are going to play tireless rebutter and come up with crap like this, I guess I will engage until I am tired.

You really are a puss though.

[Berzerker]

GP Here is a portion of our debate dealing with lotteries taken from your copy and paste job . The segments in quotes were my arguments followed by your responses:

Some lotteries have become regional, not because of inter-state competition, but to sweeten the pot.

Yeah....right. You probably think sin taxes are designed to reduce sin rather than to tax something that people will pay a lot of money for. Learn to read between the lines in a government justification.

That's another problem with your argument, government lotteries would have the advantage of volume private lotteries would lack.

That is an argument for any government-enforced monopoly. Why don't you strain your brain and think?

Would you play a lottery worth tens of millions or a private lottery worth a much smaller amount

What's to prevent private lotteries from acheiving large scale? DUH!!! We have some pretty big companies in this country. If the economic returns are there, than big private lotteries will develop. The only reason for those state lotteries being big is the government-sanctioned monopoly. If the market values scale, that will emerge. If it doesn't, you will have small lotteries. Let the market decide.

in addition to the motivation/purpose for the government lottery - paying for government.

You are really smoking some libertarian weed now. Last I checked people don't elect to send money to the government. Give them a choice of a lower tax product and watch them shift to it. The government lottery is just a privately run, government-enforced monopoly with a big tax.

You didn't answer my question: would you play a government lottery designed to raise revenue for government or a private lottery designed to enrich only the party running the lottery?

Would I prefer to smoke an untaxed cigarrete or a taxed one? Would I prefer to gamble in a casino with low taxes (and competition) or in a government controlled one? Would I prefer to buy my liquer in a Virginia ABC store or in any grocery store in California? Think about it.

Yup, and those who want to play the lottery can do that.

And I guess people who buy cigarettes can feel great about the taxes they are paying too.

As I said, and which you ignored, our state has a lottery, participates in a regional lottery, and allows legal Indian gambling which is well within reach of millions of people.

1. I guess it is "freer" (although you don't beleive in degrees of freeness...but humor me) to have a state lottery than no lottery. Sorta like having US Postal mail versus not being allowed to send letters.
----------------------------------------------------
Now, had I remained in the thread, I would have responded to your "rebuttals" with the following.

Yeah....right. You probably think sin taxes are designed to reduce sin rather than to tax something that people will pay a lot of money for. Learn to read between the lines in a government justification.

Unrelated to what i said.

That is an argument for any government-enforced monopoly. Why don't you strain your brain and think?

Unrelated to my position, I don't want government to outlaw private lotteries, therefore I wouldn't support government monopolies everywhere else because of volume. Does the government monopoly on military force argue for communism?

What's to prevent private lotteries from acheiving large scale? DUH!!!

The desire of Americans to fund government will ensure greater volume for government lotteries.

We have some pretty big companies in this country. If the economic returns are there, than big private lotteries will develop. The only reason for those state lotteries being big is the government-sanctioned monopoly. If the market values scale, that will emerge. If it doesn't, you will have small lotteries. Let the market decide.

The market would decide, people would have a choice between government lotteries to fund services they want and private lotteries to enrich the lottery owners.
The incentive for people to choose the government lottery is pretty clear.

You are really smoking some libertarian weed now. Last I checked people don't elect to send money to the government.

They don't now because taxes are forced and excessive, my position is that government funding would come from donations, lotteries and user fees with a much smaller budget. We get the government we are willing to pay for.

give them a choice of a lower tax product and watch them shift to it. The government lottery is just a privately run, government-enforced monopoly with a big tax.

And in the system I propose, the government lottery would be for funding needed government services. The whole point is that it is a tax, but not one added onto all the other taxes we're currently paying for to get a bunch of pork barrel projects from politicians. The profit derived from the private lotteries still have the same effect as a government tax - both lottery owners are taking a cut.

Would I prefer to smoke an untaxed cigarrete or a taxed one? Would I prefer to gamble in a casino with low taxes (and competition) or in a government controlled one? Would I prefer to buy my liquer in a Virginia ABC store or in any grocery store in California? Think about it.

If you were faced with not having a government service you want, like police, would you play a government lottery designed to fund the police or would you play a private lottery designed to enrich someone providing no police protection?

And I guess people who buy cigarettes can feel great about the taxes they are paying too.

Still missing the point.

I guess it is "freer" (although you don't beleive in degrees of freeness...but humor me) to have a state lottery than no lottery. Sorta like having US Postal mail versus not being allowed to send letters.

Pointless. Lotteries are voluntary, so why is it a matter of being "freer"? You didn't address why people here and in other parts of the country play lotteries when legal gambling is available to 10's of millions of people.

Now, you accused me of chopping up your posts and ignoring your main point. That is exactly what you did there. The main point I was making is that people would have the incentive to play the government lotteries because they are designed to pay for services they want. If I had the choice between 2 lotteries - one a government lottery to provide police protection and the other, a private lottery to enrich the owner, I'd be more inclined to play the one providing for police protection.
---------------------------------------------------------

God you are a moron.

Come up with your own insults.

Let's stick to fact one that we can agree on. You and I did discuss lotteries!

More than 2 weeks ago in another thread, I was referring to this thread.

At this point, I'm just trying to pin you down on that.

We might have discussed why the better part of your brain dribbled down your daddy's leg in a thread 2 months ago, but citing what was discussed almost 3 weeks ago in a different thread as if it occured in this thread is dis-ingenuous.

Jeez you're like a struggling moth. You want to change the subject after bringing up the kvetch yourself.

I'm not the one bringing up threads from the past. If you had asked me if we ever had a debate about lotteries, I wouldn't have known for sure. I had to check if we debated the issue in this thread.

I bet you did get beaten up by all the public school kids.

So we go from me being a doper to a nerd getting picked on in school? Fantasize all you want, but I was one of the jocks in school. Methinks you're projecting your childhood nightmares.

Here is how you brought it up,

Berz: "GP said your PD's prove your case? Where? I'd like to see his support and his proof, maybe he can succeed where you keep failing. He claimed I don't know economics because of lotteries"

And that was in the thread that was the forerunner to this one. And do you understand why I'm perplexed when you deny having a lottery discussion? After alluding to it yourself!?!?

I skimmed your posts to the others in this thread and correctly concluded you were indicting me too when you referred to "livertarians". I forgot about the other thread from December where the debate took place, but why would you conclude I was referring to the other thread from December when the quote you used contains references to Agathon's PD's and your alleged support? That quote is from this thread and Agathon and I had no discussion of PD's in the "purity" thread, just this one.

This is pretty silly to even be arguing about. But if you are going to play tireless rebutter and come up with crap like this, I guess I will engage until I am tired.

You were the one who accused me of chopping up your posts and ignoring your main argument, and you still haven't proven your accusation.

You really are a puss though.

And you can't prove your accusation because it's false and you can't admit being wrong. And you're a hypocrite for complaining about others copying and pasting because you do the same thing, and thanks for providing the proof - that "purity" thread.

[Kontiki]

Sigh...I don't know why I allow myself to get dragged back into this.

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kon tiki -

You have proof for that accusation?


It's funny how some of you complain about me trying to respond to your points and missing the thrust of your posts when not once have any of you supported your accusations.

Yep, on page 4 of this thread, I said "Yahoo for private donations. The point is..."

To which you made a seperate response to "Yahoo for private donations" and then the rest. I explicitly stated why the addition of private donations strengthened my original point, which was that the non-tax funded revolutionaries did not field a force capable of defeating the British alone. Or, perhaps you thought "Yahoo for private donations" was a different arguement altogether, even though I quite clearly explained that it wasn't in the rest of the post.

Let me spell it out for you, I NEVER SAID IT DID. I'd have to examine every battle and know everything about how the revolutionaries were funded, information you don't have either, yet you make the assertion when you lack that information too.

True, you never explicitly stated it did. It just seems like a logical conclusion to me that if you are going to invoke the American Revolution as a successful instance of lotteries and private donations funding a military, you would by default be arguing that the force it created was capable of achieving its aims itself. The crux of my entire arguement, which has been very clear, was that without fortuitous circumstances, namely other countries jumping at the chance to knock Britain down a peg, the revolutionaries would not have been successful. If your point wasn't to argue that the revolutionaries would have defeated the British (which was their only goal)without outside assistance, then I'm not sure what you're getting at. I could get 10 friends together and we could set up a little army. Of course its possible to form an army without taxation, but the effectiveness of that army is what really matters.

WHERE'S YOUR PROOF?

What kind of proof would you like, exactly? Obviously there was outside intervention, so there is no definitive "proof" in the historical record. However, from this source:

http://revolution.h-net.msu.edu/essays/carp.html

"It is probably not going too far to say that America owes its independence to foreign intervention and aid, especially from France. The French monarchy sent arms, clothing, and ammunition to America; it also sent soldiers and the French Navy. Most importantly, the French kept the United States government solvent by lending it the money to keep the Revolution alive."

and

"The importance of foreign intervention cannot be overemphasized. Many Americans assume that Yorktown ended the American Revolution. But technically, the British could have continued fighting. Ten thousand soldiers remained in New York City under General Clinton."

From here:

http://xenophongroup.com/mcjoynt/allianc2.htm

"1779
The major French military plan was an invasion of England. The assembly of French units along the coast of northern France alerted the English to the threat, and contributed significantly to constrained deployments of British naval resources to North America."

And from here:

http://www.samizdat.com/warren/rev25.html

"It does not always redound to the benefit of younger states and less affluent nations to become indebted to foreigners for large sums of money; but without this assistance from several of the European powers, it would have been impossible for the United States, under their complicated inconveniences and embarrassments, to have resisted so long the opulent and powerful nation of Britain. America was necessitated to borrow money abroad to support her credit at home; and had not the Dutch loan been obtained, it is impossible to calculate what would have been the consequences to the United States, who had not, at this period, even the weak support of an artificial medium, while their armies were unpaid, and their soldiers on the point of mutiny, for the want of immediate subsistence."

There are of course other sources from which I am making my claim. One of the better ones is from a political science textbook of mine from my undergrad years, "The Longman Guide to World Affairs"

"...the main contribution made by George Washington and the Continental Army was simply to survive, and thereby sustain the rebellion until other powers intervened....The decisive events events actually took place in Europe..."

THE PART WHERE YOU CLAIM THE REVOLUTION WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT DOWN. Actually, I don't recall you claiming the Revolution would have been put down. only that outside intervention was a factor, now you're expanding your argument.

First, my question about which part you were not getting was referring to your ignoring my point that, once again, was that the non-tax funded revolutionary army was not capable of victory on its own. Again, I explicitly stated this in my post on page 5, so the context was perfectly clear. Second, I did explicitly claim from the get go that it would have been put down, in my original post on page 3.

Fact: the Revolution was funded by lotteries and donations. Fact: the Revolution was fought by volunteers. Assertion: the Revolution would have failed if not for Europe. Assertion: green monkeys live on Mars.

Fact: I've already explained the relevance of my arguement about this. Fact: Actually, the revolution was funded in large part by loans from the French and Dutch governments, not from American sources. Asserition: the Revolution would have failed if not for Europe - true, but an easy conclusion to draw, as I've already posted.

Britain declared war on the Netherlands in Dec 1780 followed by Britain's attacks on the Netherland's Caribbean ports in 1781. My statement was accurate.

I'll concede to this. I was using an incorrect source, and later found the correct data. I apologize for my error, but it doesn't have any bearing on the arguement anyway, especially since the British declared war on the Netherlands to stop them from funnelling supplies to the Americans, as you mention below.

Excuse me, I'm the one who said they acted out of self-interest. The chronology is important, the Netherlands waging a war with Britain in 1781 was hardly crucial to the Revolution's success. In fact, Britain declared war on Holland to take their Caribbean ports. France's declaration in 1778 would have been more important, but by then, the Revolution had survived the crucial period of it's infancy.


France's actions actually had a negative effect, it brought the hawks to power in England which is why England later declared war on Holland. But you cannot prove your assertion and I cannot prove mine, but nothing you've said convinces me England could have won with her logistical problems of transporting the troops and supplies needed to win across the Atlantic




I doubt the leap you are making from European distractions to a failed Revolution.



Feel free to support that accusation. There are always distractions in the real world, even if France did not declare war on britain in '78, Britain still could not commit to an all out war with the colonies because the mere presence of humans across the channel posed a potential threat. Your argument is meaningless, no power could attempt to invade and conquer the USA free from distractions and without allies and friends of the USA attacking the invader.

Of course there's no absolute proof, again because historical events panned out the way they did. However, I have provided evidence that France was lining up troops for an invasion of England (whether it was a bluff or not is irrelevant). As for the logistical problems, what exactly were they? Obviously there was a great distance involved, but an otherwise unencumbered Britain could have done it. It's also well documented that Britain did not come close to using its full naval strength, which was quite capable of operating on the other side of the Atlantic. I've previously explained how the British still controlled Canada from which it could safely land whatever it needed and draw men and resources. On the other hand, you haven't given a single reason why Britain couldn't have more fully committed to NA if they weren't also committed in Europe. You mention the "mere presence of humans on the other side of the channel" posed a potential threat". While I suppose that threat is always there, I think it's safe to assume that had they not actually been at war with France directly from 1778, and indirectly from 1776 (France had been sending officers to the American colonies to assist the revolutionary army), they could have moved a few more troops and ships across the Atlantic.

As for the Netherlands, they had a sizeable fleet that tied up British naval resources as well, regardless of who declared war on whom. Plus, Spain declared war as well. Didn't mention that before, but there's another navy to contend with.

As for supporting my accusation about jumping back and forth between a fantasy world and the real world, I explained some of that in my last post. I'll explain more below.

Now you're assuming the USA would be poorly defended. Inspite of the mighty military we have now, the lack of libertarian ideals has made us enemies abroad. To paraphrase the Founders' views, free trade with all, but mind our own business.

It was poorly defended until WWI, and then again between the wars, relative to the major European powers. I'll get into this more below.


[QUOTE]It helped, it wasn't the decisive factor.[/QUOTE}

Already explained that one.

Were those French soldiers in the same Continental army that chased the Brits up the peninsula to be surrounded at Yorktown? Nope, they joined the Americans for the battle just as the French navy prevented the Brits from escaping. And the colonies traded with Europe, are you now claiming the fruits of that trade should be considered coercive?

Irrelevant. When the battle came, the French made up the bulk of the force, and they also blockaded the British from resupply via the sea. As for the trade with Europe, that created some wealth, but didn't directly fund the military. If it did, that would be coercive because it would have been taken from the people rightfully profitting from that trade. If it was given as a donation, so be it.

"Again"? I'm still waiting for proof I did this before.

Cute. You say that like I'm supposed to jump in during the middle of your reply and offer proof. I did in my previous post, you just ignored it. I'll do it again below.

You're assuming a libertarian system could not produce enough wealth to become a "superpower". Why are my assertions some fantasy world when your assertions are in the real world? This is the difference betwen left and right wingers, you think politicians spend our money more efficiently than the people who own it.

It's not a question of wealth, it's a question of developing the military capabilities and desire to be able to project power. Japan is incredibly wealthy, but hardly a superpower. Regardless, I still maintain that employing a libertarian system from day one, the US would not look as it does today. This is why I say your assertions are fantasy. To name just a few things that have built the US to where it is today that would be taboo under libertarianism (in no particular order):

The aforementioned expansion westward. You can claim that it would still happen, but you would have had to buy or otherwise negotiate the land, and I'm not sure what you would have to offer other than money. It's alot cheaper to just take the land from the natives and other colonial powers.

The construction of the Hoover Dam is largely responsible for the massive development that took place in California. Huge government expense and make-work project. Other major dams in the west (Grand Coolee, etc.) are other examples.

The huge military/industrial complex.

The massive populating of the plains via the offers of free land.

Switching away from this, and borrowing your tactics, where did I say I was left wing? Where did I say politicians could spend money more efficiently than the people who own it? Can't you make your own arguements without puting words in my mouth?

During a war in which we were attacked.

During a war in which you never should have been in, and wouldn't have been attacked, according to libertarians. Consult David on this one. Without the war, there would be no impetus to build them.

And I would have opposed the slaughter of Indians, that doesn't mean the colonies would not have expanded westward, just that it would have been done relatively peacefully.

Already partly address, but again I'll add much less efficiently (from a colonization perspective) and at much greater cost. Also almost sure to leave gaps since the non-slaughter or forced relocation of the the natives would mean that they'd control a sizeable chunk of the land. Finally, where would the money to buy the land come from? How many people in the east would volutarily chip in money to buy land in the west?

Russia and France sold us their "holdings". Mexico broke a deal with Texans and attacked them.

Yes, but that certainly doesn't explain the rest of the current US land.

I didn't say the US would look like it looks today, only that our economy would be even bigger because freedom is more efficient than statism.

Here's where you slip into fantasy again. If the US didn't have the same territory as today (ergo, the same amount of resources) and the same major government projects that did occur, among many other things, how could there be an even bigger economy? You can't take the current US situation, including territory, GDP, etc. and say that libertarianism would invariably make for a larger economy because it is more efficient. You have to think about what things would look like if libertarianism had been in place all along.

[Berzerker]

Kon tiki -

Yep, on page 4 of this thread, I said "Yahoo for private donations. The point is..."

To which you made a seperate response to "Yahoo for private donations" and then the rest.

So why are you complaining? You acknowledge I responded to what you said afterward.

I explicitly stated why the addition of private donations strengthened my original point, which was that the non-tax funded revolutionaries did not field a force capable of defeating the British alone. Or, perhaps you thought "Yahoo for private donations" was a different arguement altogether, even though I quite clearly explained that it wasn't in the rest of the post.

I responded to what you said after the "yahoo for private donations" remark. Why do you think I addressed that remark separately? Because you claimed I said only lotteries were used when I didn't. I was correcting you...

True, you never explicitly stated it did. It just seems like a logical conclusion to me that if you are going to invoke the American Revolution as a successful instance of lotteries and private donations funding a military, you would by default be arguing that the force it created was capable of achieving its aims itself.

That may be your logic, but it wasn't mine. I'm not ignoring all the factors involved in the war, I just don't ascribe the same relevance to them as you do. I believe the Revolution would have been won whether or not France and Holland were at war with England.

The crux of my entire arguement, which has been very clear, was that without fortuitous circumstances, namely other countries jumping at the chance to knock Britain down a peg, the revolutionaries would not have been successful.

And I disagree. Even if these other countries had not been at war with England, the Brits still could not commit to an all out war in America because just the existence of potential enemies on the European mainland would have been a distraction. I have more faith in the guerilla warfare of indigenous peoples than standing armies trying to occupy foreign land.

If your point wasn't to argue that the revolutionaries would have defeated the British (which was their only goal)without outside assistance, then I'm not sure what you're getting at. I could get 10 friends together and we could set up a little army. Of course its possible to form an army without taxation, but the effectiveness of that army is what really matters.

My point is that the Revolution would have been won without France and Holland being at war with England.

What kind of proof would you like, exactly? Obviously there was outside intervention, so there is no definitive "proof" in the historical record. However, from this source:

http://revolution.h-net.msu.edu/essays/carp.html

"It is probably not going too far to say that America owes its independence to foreign intervention and aid, especially from France. The French monarchy sent arms, clothing, and ammunition to America; it also sent soldiers and the French Navy. Most importantly, the French kept the United States government solvent by lending it the money to keep the Revolution alive."

and

"The importance of foreign intervention cannot be overemphasized. Many Americans assume that Yorktown ended the American Revolution. But technically, the British could have continued fighting. Ten thousand soldiers remained in New York City under General Clinton."

From here:

http://xenophongroup.com/mcjoynt/allianc2.htm

"1779
The major French military plan was an invasion of England. The assembly of French units along the coast of northern France alerted the English to the threat, and contributed significantly to constrained deployments of British naval resources to North America."

And from here:

http://www.samizdat.com/warren/rev25.html

"It does not always redound to the benefit of younger states and less affluent nations to become indebted to foreigners for large sums of money; but without this assistance from several of the European powers, it would have been impossible for the United States, under their complicated inconveniences and embarrassments, to have resisted so long the opulent and powerful nation of Britain. America was necessitated to borrow money abroad to support her credit at home; and had not the Dutch loan been obtained, it is impossible to calculate what would have been the consequences to the United States, who had not, at this period, even the weak support of an artificial medium, while their armies were unpaid, and their soldiers on the point of mutiny, for the want of immediate subsistence."

There are of course other sources from which I am making my claim. One of the better ones is from a political science textbook of mine from my undergrad years, "The Longman Guide to World Affairs"

"...the main contribution made by George Washington and the Continental Army was simply to survive, and thereby sustain the rebellion until other powers intervened....The decisive events events actually took place in Europe..."

I'm not going to respond to all of that so I put in bold the parts that raise doubts about your argument. I know that won't satisfy you but I'm not going to start responding to pasted pages that only show help was given, not proof the help was decisive inspite of the authors opinions. I can type in passages from "The First Salute" by Barbara Tuchman explaining why the British lost and that the French only joined the US in an open alliance because of the US victory at Saratoga in '77. She describes England's logistical problems relating to supply routes and the lousy decision making made by the Brits. Btw, Clinton was a terrible commander who did little more than sit on his butt in New York, Cornwallis was about the best they had and even he lost in the Carolinas before getting trapped at Yorktown.

First, my question about which part you were not getting was referring to your ignoring my point that, once again, was that the non-tax funded revolutionary army was not capable of victory on its own.

I didn't ignore it, you offered an opinion and I offered a conflicting opinion.

Fact: I've already explained the relevance of my arguement about this.

Fact: you mentioned green monkeys on Mars, so what?

Fact: Actually, the revolution was funded in large part by loans from the French and Dutch governments, not from American sources.

I don't know how much was given, but I never said foreigners didn't give money. The fact others gave money doesn't mean the colonists could not field an army to defeat the Brits (they certainly did at Saratoga) nor does it mean US forces were using money forcibly taken from Americans. France could have had a libertarian system and still given money in exchange for trade and concessions.

Asserition: the Revolution would have failed if not for Europe - true, but an easy conclusion to draw, as I've already posted.

I don't draw that conclusion. Even with this extreme test - a group of colonies against the world's greatest superpower - it can't be concluded the colonies would have failed in their revolution even with the American system of funding. But you've missed the point, I never raised the voluntary funding of the Revolution to prove how effective that system is, I raised it for Agathon who insists free riders will destroy a system of taxation involving voluntary donations, lotteries and user fees.

I'll concede to this. I was using an incorrect source, and later found the correct data. I apologize for my error, but it doesn't have any bearing on the arguement anyway, especially since the British declared war on the Netherlands to stop them from funnelling supplies to the Americans, as you mention below.

No reason to apologise. Yes, that was their stated reason, but they wanted to grab Holland's holdings to enrich themselves and they did using Holland's relationship with the US as a pretext.

Of course there's no absolute proof, again because historical events panned out the way they did. However, I have provided evidence that France was lining up troops for an invasion of England (whether it was a bluff or not is irrelevant).

Which was in '79 shortly after France's declaration of war. That would have impacted Britain's plans at the time, but it came ~3 years after the Revolution began and ~2 before Yorktown. I don't know the long term effect since it failed, it undoubtedly shook up the British, but this war with France also spurred Britain's war machine. One advantage the colonies had was the Brits continually under estimating them, and that advantage was not helped by an enhanced war machine to deal with other European nations. It's one thing to try and suppress a rebellion far across the Atlantic, it's another to see a possible invasion to motivate a country.

As for the logistical problems, what exactly were they? Obviously there was a great distance involved, but an otherwise unencumbered Britain could have done it.

I wouldn't say they were unencumbered, the US did have a semblance of a navy and the British navy was not as effective as one might think. The reason Britain could try to suppress a rebellion in the beginning was because they already had forces here. Once those forces became depleted they'd have to send more which takes a long time. The colonists could wage a guerilla war and prolong the conflict until fatigue and logistical problems were too much to overcome.

It's also well documented that Britain did not come close to using its full naval strength, which was quite capable of operating on the other side of the Atlantic. I've previously explained how the British still controlled Canada from which it could safely land whatever it needed and draw men and resources. On the other hand, you haven't given a single reason why Britain couldn't have more fully committed to NA if they weren't also committed in Europe.

Naval forces don't beat land forces. The revolutionaries could draw on their resources as well, but I did give you a reason why the Brits couldn't fully commit - the mere existence of people across the channel.

You mention the "mere presence of humans on the other side of the channel" posed a potential threat". While I suppose that threat is always there, I think it's safe to assume that had they not actually been at war with France directly from 1778, and indirectly from 1776 (France had been sending officers to the American colonies to assist the revolutionary army), they could have moved a few more troops and ships across the Atlantic.

The British got beat badly at Saratoga in '77 before France declared war. All the while the colonists were raising armies in the south. A big problem faced by the revolutionaries was that the US was divided into those loyal to the crown, those remaining neutral, and the revolutionaries. That problem hasn't existed since the Revolution (Civil War aside) and would not hinder a libertarian system. You see, the colonies are not even an example of a libertarian country because it wan't even a country yet.

As for the Netherlands, they had a sizeable fleet that tied up British naval resources as well, regardless of who declared war on whom. Plus, Spain declared war as well. Didn't mention that before, but there's another navy to contend with.

Spain was no longer the power it once was, but Holland didn't get involved until 1781, just a few months before the Revolution was effectively over. The Revolution was already ~4 years old by then and the tide clearly in favor of the revolutionaries.

It was poorly defended until WWI, and then again between the wars, relative to the major European powers. I'll get into this more below.

Geographic isolation has it's benefits, but we had the means to raise an army quickly to fend off any power of the day. Look at the firepower accumulated during the Civil War.

Irrelevant. When the battle came, the French made up the bulk of the force, and they also blockaded the British from resupply via the sea.

Greene and the southern commanders are why Cornwallis got trapped. He couldn't defeat them in the south so he kept moving northward through the Carolinas until he got trapped in Virginia. Sure, the French were indispensable at Yorktown, but the process by which Cornwallis got stuck matters.

As for the trade with Europe, that created some wealth, but didn't directly fund the military.

Some of the wealthy Americans donating money, like Robert Morris, were rich because of trade.

It's not a question of wealth, it's a question of developing the military capabilities and desire to be able to project power. Japan is incredibly wealthy, but hardly a superpower.

Because we limited what they can do militarily under the treaty from WWII, the same for Germany.

Regardless, I still maintain that employing a libertarian system from day one, the US would not look as it does today.

I never said it would.

This is why I say your assertions are fantasy.

Oh c'mon, you introduced the "what if" question, not me. You asked me to speculate on what the US would look like now.

The aforementioned expansion westward. You can claim that it would still happen, but you would have had to buy or otherwise negotiate the land, and I'm not sure what you would have to offer other than money.

That's how a free people obtain land - negogiate, buy, trade for goods. My God, do you know how under populated the west was? It's not like there were Indians everywhere with claims to land. Sadly for them, disease was de-populating huge ares of the country.

It's alot cheaper to just take the land from the natives and other colonial powers.

I don't know, if we had to fight the French for the land obtained in the Louisiana Purchase, the cost of war might surpass what was paid.

The construction of the Hoover Dam is largely responsible for the massive development that took place in California.

The gold rush drove California's economic development, but libertarianism doesn't prohibit people from building a dam, it just prohibits them from stealing money from others.

Huge government expense and make-work project. Other major dams in the west (Grand Coolee, etc.) are other examples.

All of which can be built without legalising theft. Alot of those make work programs were FDR's attempt to get us out of a Depression induced by government intervention in the first place.

The huge military/industrial complex.

A highly inefficient use of wealth.

The massive populating of the plains via the offers of free land.

Those lands wouldn't be free under libertarianism?

Switching away from this, and borrowing your tactics, where did I say I was left wing?

Your trumpeting of left wing policies.

Where did I say politicians could spend money more efficiently than the people who own it?

It's inherent to your position, you've been claiming the statist regime we've had for a century or so is responsible for our wealth and that freedom could not match it.

Can't you make your own arguements without puting words in my mouth?

Your words typed in this thread are your arguments.

During a war in which you never should have been in, and wouldn't have been attacked, according to libertarians.

Huh?

Consult David on this one. Without the war, there would be no impetus to build them.

You can debate David on that.

Already partly address, but again I'll add much less efficiently (from a colonization perspective) and at much greater cost. Also almost sure to leave gaps since the non-slaughter or forced relocation of the the natives would mean that they'd control a sizeable chunk of the land.

So? They control sizeable chunks of land now.

Finally, where would the money to buy the land come from? How many people in the east would volutarily chip in money to buy land in the west?

Commerce and people seeking resources to produce more wealth. Why did people head west to California in the 1840's? Gold.

Yes, but that certainly doesn't explain the rest of the current US land.

What land?

Here's where you slip into fantasy again. If the US didn't have the same territory as today (ergo, the same amount of resources)

You're making an assumption.

and the same major government projects that did occur, among many other things, how could there be an even bigger economy?

More assumptions. If a project is ecomomically viable, private interests will do it. Look at how much has been wasted on the space program.

You can't take the current US situation, including territory, GDP, etc. and say that libertarianism would invariably make for a larger economy because it is more efficient.

Why not?

You have to think about what things would look like if libertarianism had been in place all along.

I am.

[TCO]

Berz,

You really are a peice of work.

1. We did talk about lotteries. At least I've refreshed your hash brain on that. No...I really didn't expect you to have the grace to admit that you forgot something from two weeks ago. But you did.

2. What the heck is this crap about "in this thread". That wasn't part of your initial claims and counterclaims. You wormed it in later, when you realized you were wrong. And WHO CARES about which thread. It's a silly caveat anyway.

3. If I can refresh your memory, YOU were the one who alluded to our lottery discussion (form the Purity thread). With a remark in the 500-post thread that is a forerunner to this one!

--------------------------------

I've wasted enough time with you. Have fun, equivocater.

[Agathon]

Berz,

Kontiki has kicked your butt - i.e. he has produced answers for which your only reply is bluster, bluff, repetition and mere counter assertion. This is because he bothered to think about his answers before he posted them. He also did you the service of not distorting your comments and sticking to the main points you made. That's why he won this exchange.

More to the point: so has Ted, so have I and so has GP. And I'll bet over a number of years, so have many people on this forum.

You're a definite saddo.

[Berzerker]

GP -

You really are a peice of work.

1. We did talk about lotteries. At least I've refreshed your hash brain on that. No...I really didn't expect you to have the grace to admit that you forgot something from two weeks ago. But you did.

Too bad you don't have the grace to admit your accusation was false, I'm still waiting for proof and the "purity" thread shows you are a hypocrite for making the accusation since you were chopping up posts in that thread and ignoring my main argument.

Now, why didn't you make your accusation in that thread instead of creating the impression we talked about it in this thread? If your memory was so great, why did you mention how tough it was to track down a debate we had from December? Did you forget which thread? Btw, numbers games/private lotteries (except raffles) were outlawed long before state lotteries became commonplace, so it's illogical to argue private lotteries were outlawed to prevent competition with state lotteries. Just another of your many mistakes.

You wormed it in later, when you realized you were wrong.

We talked about lotteries in a thread from December, so what? You didn't make your accusation in that thread, you made it in this thread. And you still haven't backed up your accusation. Where did I chop up your post and ignore your main argument? You've been running from that BS ever since.

3. If I can refresh your memory, YOU were the one who alluded to our lottery discussion (form the Purity thread). With a remark in the 500-post thread that is a forerunner to this one!

No, I was talking about lotteries in this thread too, the other thread wasn't a factor. Didn't I explain that to you already? In this thread, you posted a response to David's post about casinos, true? And David raised casinos after I had been talking about lotteries. When I skimmed your posts in response to David, I saw you were hitting a subject similar to what I had mentioned and that registered with me when I made my comment about us discussing lotteries when we actually hadn't (in this thread). The confusion here was created by you when you tried to introduce a debate from 3 weeks ago into this thread without mentioning that you were talking about a different thread from December. Got that yet?

Agathon -

Kontiki has kicked your butt - i.e. he has produced answers for which your only reply is bluster, bluff, repetition and mere counter assertion.

Kon tiki has produced the opinions of authors, I can do the same but I'm not going to type out pages of what Barbara Tuchman wrote about the Revolution.

This is because he bothered to think about his answers before he posted them.

Is that why you haven't kicked anyone's butt? I know this comes as a shock to both you and Kon tiki, but I never said the voluntary method of funding the Revolutiuon was the most efficient. The Nazis made the trains run on time, but I wouldn't use their system as a model of a moral government. I mentioned the Revolution becasue you claimed free riders would cause failure in a system of voluntary taxation. Kon tiki claims to have read the other thread but seems to have missed all that somehow. Instead, he wants to debate the effectiveness of voluntarily funding the Revolution. When did I ever argue it was the most efficient means?

He also did you the service of not distorting your comments and sticking to the main points you made. That's why he won this exchange.

And you're about as unbiased as they come, right? Your self-serving comments carry no weight. You think winning a debate by proxy has value, I think it's sad. But Kon tiki is debating a strawman, the colonies were not a libertarian country, and the colonies weren't even unified in the Revolution.

More to the point: so has Ted, so have I and so has GP. And I'll bet over a number of years, so have many people on this forum.

When did you produce a PD showing libertarianism is contradictory? That was your big proposition some 500 posts ago.

You're a definite saddo.

For someone who allegedly teaches people to debate, you certainly don't understand the value of supporting your arguments. You never produced a PD showing that libertarianism is contradictory, but you won't admit it. Even someone on your side of the ideological spectrum (Orange) saw your BS and called you on it. And how did you defend yourself from Orange's analysis? You had a debate with yourself claiming me as a participant, gee, I hope you won that one.

[Kontiki]

Berz,

These cut and paste arguements are getting too long, so I'll just cut to the chase:

re: your dancing around issues
You asked for proof of my assertion. Take a look at my assertion - that you weren't addressing the main point of an arguement, but rather taking single points out of context. I think we've clearly established by now what my point was, especially since I explicitly and repeatedly stated it in my first few posts. You started breaking down what I said (of which there was only one main point), challenging the manner in which I said it. Despite the fact that I clarified repeatedly what my point was, you still hammered away about my lines "Yahoo for private donations" and "green monkeys from Mars". It should be clear enough that these sentences/phrases in and of themselves have no bearing on the arguement itself. In fact, you didn't even say that you disagreed with my arguement until later in our debate. The fact that you keep bringing them up proves my assertion. If you can't see that, then I can't help you.

re: the Revolutionary War

I made an arguement which you asked me to prove. Since we've established that nothing is 100% provable since history turned out a certain way and not the other, I supported my arguement by citing sources about the absolutely critical role foreign intervention and assistance played. You challenged that by selecting individual sentences and even phrases within sentences within my citations that you claim casts doubt on the arguements. Again, its called context, my boy. If you read the passages or use the links I provided, there is no ambiguity in those statements. If you have trouble understanding what the authors are saying, get someone else to read them and see if they understand it and can explain it to you. Alternatively, if you disagree with the conclusions, cite some evidence that concludes that the revolutionaries would have won without outside intervention and assistance. If it's compelling, we can agree to disagree.

As for your statement of "fact" that the revolution was paid for by lotteries and private donations, you clearly don't understand how the war was financed. I'd advise you to look at these three sites for starters:

http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/le960406.html

http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Our_Country_vol_2/militaryf_bbj.html

http://www.westga.edu/~cscott/history/mercan.html

The first one is even a libertarian site, and even though it discusses matter unrelated to this debate, it address some of the funding issues.

re: the possible development of the US under libertarianism

All I'm asking is for you to turn back the clock to 1782 or so and think about how the US would have turned out operating under the constraints of a libertarian system (eg: rights are absolute). Granted, its a complex task and I can't claim to come up with the 100% definitive answer any more than you can. But logic would dictate that if the government couldn't just take what it wanted via conquest, had to respect the individual rights of the natives, didn't get involved in foreign wars, didn't engage in huge public works projects, the likes of which private enterprise has never undertaken, etc. things would turn out differently, and most likely with a smaller US.

re: my political views/beliefs

You're incorrectly ascribing these things to me. Nowhere in this thread did I say I supported left-wing policies, or did I "trumpet them" as you say. It's not a left-wing, right-wing or centrist position to acknowledge that a military funded by "forced" taxation and/or via a required draft would be larger and more powerful than one funded through private sources and staffed by volunteers. As for the "statist regime" being responsible for US wealth, I'm simply saying that by not holding rights to be absolute and allowing totally free markets, and all the implications thereof, it has been much easier for the US to expand, build up internal wealth via trade barriers and put its roots down internationally. This is not a political position, and I never said whether or not it was a good or bad thing.

[TCO]

You rawk, Kontiki.

[Berzerker]

Kon tiki -

You asked for proof of my assertion. Take a look at my assertion - that you weren't addressing the main point of an arguement, but rather taking single points out of context.

You are still arguing a strawman. When I raised the Revolution, I was doing so to counter Agathon's argument that free riders in a voluntary system of taxation would cause the system to fail. Did you respond to what we were debating or did you introduce a new subject? You entered the debate and started arguing about the effectiveness of the voluntary funding of the Revolution even after you claimed to have read the thread.

I think we've clearly established by now what my point was, especially since I explicitly and repeatedly stated it in my first few posts.

Your point had nothing to do with the debate I was having with Agathon - that was the context.

You started breaking down what I said (of which there was only one main point), challenging the manner in which I said it. Despite the fact that I clarified repeatedly what my point was, you still hammered away about my lines "Yahoo for private donations" and "green monkeys from Mars".

Excuse me, but you said I claimed only lotteries were used to fund the Revolution, that wasn't true. Can't I correct your mistake without a big fuss? You acknowledged your mistake concerning who declared war between Britain and Holland without making a fuss and snide comments.

In fact, you didn't even say that you disagreed with my arguement until later in our debate. The fact that you keep bringing them up proves my assertion. If you can't see that, then I can't help you.

You make statements about my position that are false and my bringing them up proves your assertion?

I made an arguement which you asked me to prove. Since we've established that nothing is 100% provable since history turned out a certain way and not the other, I supported my arguement by citing sources about the absolutely critical role foreign intervention and assistance played. You challenged that by selecting individual sentences and even phrases within sentences within my citations that you claim casts doubt on the arguements. Again, its called context, my boy.

And I can type in pages from other sources explaining why the British lost with foreign factors contributing to the British defeat, but not claiming the foreign factors were required for victory. So why should we accept only your sources?

If you read the passages or use the links I provided, there is no ambiguity in those statements.

They are opinions.

If you have trouble understanding what the authors are saying, get someone else to read them and see if they understand it and can explain it to you.

They are opinions, you seem to have trouble understanding that.

Alternatively, if you disagree with the conclusions, cite some evidence that concludes that the revolutionaries would have won without outside intervention and assistance. If it's compelling, we can agree to disagree.

Those would be opinions too. I'm not going to type in pages from Barbara Tuchman's book on the Revolution.

As for your statement of "fact" that the revolution was paid for by lotteries and private donations, you clearly don't understand how the war was financed.

I never said the Revolution was paid for that way, I said lotteries and donations funded the Revolution. Nice try, but changing what I said won't fly. I've always known foreigners were helping, that just wasn't relevant to the debate I was having with Agathon.

I'd advise you to look at these three sites for starters:

http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/le960406.html

http://www.publicbookshelf.com/publ...itaryf_bbj.html

http://www.westga.edu/~cscott/history/mercan.html

The first one is even a libertarian site, and even though it discusses matter unrelated to this debate, it address some of the funding issues.

Strawman. I didn't say the revolutionaries never got outside help, I only raised the Revolution in response to Agathon's argument about free riders. I thought you said you read the thread?

All I'm asking is for you to turn back the clock to 1782 or so and think about how the US would have turned out operating under the constraints of a libertarian system (eg: rights are absolute).

I have, no slavery for starters, virtually no wars, just commerce and wealth creation with government doing very little and as a consequence, wasting very little.

Granted, its a complex task and I can't claim to come up with the 100% definitive answer any more than you can. But logic would dictate that if the government couldn't just take what it wanted via conquest, had to respect the individual rights of the natives, didn't get involved in foreign wars, didn't engage in huge public works projects, the likes of which private enterprise has never undertaken, etc. things would turn out differently, and most likely with a smaller US.

My God, why would private interests build dams when politicians steal our money to build them?

You're incorrectly ascribing these things to me. Nowhere in this thread did I say I supported left-wing policies, or did I "trumpet them" as you say. It's not a left-wing, right-wing or centrist position to acknowledge that a military funded by "forced" taxation and/or via a required draft would be larger and more powerful than one funded through private sources and staffed by volunteers. As for the "statist regime" being responsible for US wealth, I'm simply saying that by not holding rights to be absolute and allowing totally free markets, and all the implications thereof, it has been much easier for the US to expand, build up internal wealth via trade barriers and put its roots down internationally. This is not a political position, and I never said whether or not it was a good or bad thing.

You cited the make work programs of FDR as a primary cause of our wealth today, only a statist would make that connection. Are you liberal? Conservative? Libertarian? I know when I'm reading left wing arguments.

[Agathon]

Thrashed again, Berzerker.

You really are a masochist.

And you still haven't managed to provide a decent argument for why social sanctions would work in the case of taxation, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I've already pointed out to you that times of crisis are occasions when personal agendas are put aside, thus negating the prisoner's dilemma. But unfortunately times of crisis are few and far between, so your argument at most supports the claim that a voluntary scheme will work in a time of crisis (a reasonable claim), but not your claim, which is that it will work come what may.

Here's another example of your worthless drivel...

You cited the make work programs of FDR as a primary cause of our wealth today, only a statist would make that connection. Are you liberal? Conservative? Libertarian? I know when I'm reading left wing arguments.

There is no logically compelling reason to say that only a statist would make such a connection. Perhaps someone who disagreed with it would make the connection, but argue that we would have been better off with some other policy. Or perhaps someone might just be being honest - maybe the New Deal actually worked. After all one doesn't have to be of any political persuasion to acknowledge a physical fact. Must capitalists miraculously pretend that the Depression never happened? Must socialists fail to recognise the disintegration of the Soviet Bloc.

No.

Just another example of your slipshod thinking and your predilection for accepting one explanation when the evidence is neutral between many.

And here's another.

They are just opinions

What the **** is this!?!

Sure, but they are opinions that counter yours, so at least one of you must be wrong. In order to make sure it's not you, I suggest that you come up with some good reasons why his opinions must be wrong. Stating that they are opinions in no way establishes that they are false.

[Berzerker]

Kon tiki - You claimed the Americans could not field an army to defeat a Brit army without outside intervention. France allied with America and declared war on Britain in 1778. But, aside from their self-interest,
the reason France made this move was the American victory over the British at Saratoga in 1777. What help did France give Americans to account for all the battles won by the Americans, especially battles early on in the war? The Americans proved they could win major battles. What did France do to enable the victory at Saratoga?

Agathon -

And you still haven't managed to provide a decent argument for why social sanctions would work in the case of taxation, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

What overwhelming evidence? Litter?

I've already pointed out to you that times of crisis are occasions when personal agendas are put aside, thus negating the prisoner's dilemma.

And I've pointed out that having no government would be a crisis in the minds of most people, but you ignored that.

But unfortunately times of crisis are few and far between, so your argument at most supports the claim that a voluntary scheme will work in a time of crisis (a reasonable claim), but not your claim, which is that it will work come what may.

So if your city's police force disappeared due to lack of funding, that wouldn't be a crisis?

Here's another example of your worthless drivel...

Funny, now you're reading the debate I'm having with others while ignoring my responses to your arguments.

There is no logically compelling reason to say that only a statist would make such a connection.

A leftist would argue that FDR's make work programs made America what it is, not a right winger. The fact you don't know that is irrelevant...

Or perhaps someone might just be being honest - maybe the New Deal actually worked.

WWII ended the Depression, not FDR's make work programs.

After all one doesn't have to be of any political persuasion to acknowledge a physical fact.

But you'd have to be a leftist to think FDR's policies ended the Depression. Physical fact my a$$...

Must capitalists miraculously pretend that the Depression never happened?

Oh, you mean by us "capitalists", us right wingers?

Just another example of your slipshod thinking and your predilection for accepting one explanation when the evidence is neutral between many.

Most right wingers know the Depression was induced by government intervention and that FDR didn't solve the problem with make work programs. Most left wingers believe FDR did save us from the Depression, to ignore the ideological divide shows a detachment from the real world.

What the **** is this!?!

They are just opinions.

Sure, but they are opinions that counter yours, so at least one of you must be wrong.

Oh, so you can understand what I said. They are opinions and I can show opinions from scholars who agree with me, so what? Are we going to have a debate by pasting the opinions of scholars wo don't agree with each other? No thanks.

In order to make sure it's not you, I suggest that you come up with some good reasons why his opinions must be wrong.

Read "The First Salute" by Barbara Tuchman, I'm not going to type in pages from her book. Didn't you read my explanation to Kon tiki?

Stating that they are opinions in no way establishes that they are false.

My god, and you call me thick? Understanding they are opinions and not fact is relevant.

Where's your PD to show libertarianism is contradictory?
Either admit your original proposition upon entering the thread is false or produce the proof.

GP - where's your proof I chopped up your post in the "purity" thread and ignored your main argument? I posted proof here showing you were the one who did this, but I don't see your proof.