Libertarian Kvetchfest continued

[TCO]

Originally posted by Berzerker
GP -

Then don't read, this thread has had several hundred posts and all you've done is contribute insults and false accusations.

Oh...I'll eventually give up. The 4 armed rebutter who types the same half-assed crap always wins.

[Berzerker]

GP -

Wait...you said we did talk about lotteries!!!

No, you and David talked about casinos and you accused me of chopping up your post about lotteries and ignoring your main argument. I never responded to your post, R-E-A-D S-L-O-W-E-R.

[orange]

Berzerker - go nuts.

After quotes like this

HEY!

What's that smell???



Oh nothing, just Berz talking **** again.

He He He

...and Agathon trying to say that you don't make arguments...I could care less

[TCO]

Originally posted by Berzerker
GP -

That's hilarious coming from you. You accused me of chopping up your post about lotteries and ignoring your main point when I didn't even respond to your post in the first place. Then, ignoring the fact I never responded to your post, you tried to justify your false accusation by claiming I was part of the discussion.

I'm talking about your response on 29-12-2002 20:21 in the Libertarian Purity thread. Let's see.

1. You did respond to my lottery post with cutting and pasting (and ignoring the main argument, but let's leave that out)

2. Please don't come up with some Clintonian explanation. Just admit you were wrong and move on.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The reason that there were no monopolies before the Civil War was because mass production and economies of scale didnt exist. These huge monopolies were formed when they either 1. bought off other competitors, or 2. ran them into the ground with low prices. This worked especially well during bust times because the bigger companies had enough capital to sustain, and thus bought the little ones for cheap prices

As soon as the competitors are gone, the monopoly jacks the price up as far as it can. THis depends on the elasticity of the good. Something like Gasoline can go a lot higher then say fruit juice, because there is no cheap and readily avaialable substitute for gasoline.

Now lets say a new company joins to add 'competition' First of all, having only two suppliers is essentially the same as a monopoly, except that they call it an Oligarchy. They will usually divide up the market and charge whatever they want in their respective zones, or will conspire to keep the prices high. (remeber, there is no government controls) And now what? People can't go without gasoline, and everything that depends on gasoline will see its price rise. And there you have it, a shock on the supply curve, and you have prices and unemployment rising

Something which Keynes didn't expect

[TCO]

Originally posted by Berzerker
GP -

No, you and David talked about casinos and you accused me of chopping up your post about lotteries and ignoring your main argument. I never responded to your post, R-E-A-D S-L-O-W-E-R.

"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"

From the earlier locked thread.

[TCO]

Do you know how much time I wasted finding that crap to prove you wrong, you little weasel?

You really suck, Berz. I bet when you were a boy, you got picked on all the time. (Or should have been.)

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

Yeah, that was his argument, but it was also his response to my counterargument regarding the special circumstances of crises (floods, wars, etc.).

No, you said the crisis posed by the Revolution could not be used to argue that voluntary taxation would be effective in non-crisis/ordinary times. And my response was that having no government services would constitute a crisis compelling the voluntary funding of government. You aren't very effective at making your own arguments so don't start trying to make mine, you're neither honest or unbiased enough to speak for me.

If you'd read the previous thread (all 500 posts of it) you would have seen that this is all he does.

Yeah, that's all I do. When someone asks a question and ignores my answer, I'm inclined to repeat my answer until they stop ignoring it. For them to then complain that I'm repeating myself is ridiculous and hypocritical.

The argument against the Libertarian is that if they refuse to kill and thus allow more killings to occur it is hard to see why they objected to killing in the first place.

Because it matters who is doing the killing. Libertarians (some anyway) don't want to murder people because it violates their morality. You would murder 10 million to prevent 10 million and 1 being murdered by someone else.

GP -

You were the first one to raise the stupid we talked about lotteries thing anyway.

I raised the issue of lotteries, and David began talking about casinos. You responded to his post about casinos. You're still running from your false accusation, I never chopped up your post about lotteries and ignored your main argument - that's a fact and you're too much of a wimp to admit it.

Do you know how much time I wasted finding that crap to prove you wrong, you little weasel?

You really suck, Berz. I bet when you were a boy, you got picked on all the time. (Or should have been.)

Did I respond to your post about lotteries or casinos? No. How does that prove your accusation that I chopped up your post and ignored your main point?

[Agathon]

One must live to have liberty

Not according to you who seems to think that liberty is just non-interference by other people.

"non interference by other people when I'm alive". What difference does that make? Can't a corpse be interfered with? Is there nothing wrong with necrophilia?

Or does being alive magically bring with it liberty? Liberty for the worms and trees everyone!

Just for people? Why? What's the magic difference?

Does it mean "being able to choose, and not being interfered with by others"? What if I'm knocked out by a falling tree and I can't choose what to do - if no one is interfering with me I still have my liberty according to you because natural events can't take it from me.

But, oh no! when my death is a natural event, how can I ever lose my liberty since it can only every be compromised by others?

Oh no! Aporia!

See - how do you like someone pedantically raising every possible silly and sophistical objection by imposing the most ridiculous interpretation possible on single sentences or sentence fragments?

Hypocrite.

(Actually I reckon I could get a decent argument against you out of this, which is more than I can say for your rubbish).

[TCO]

Originally posted by Berzerker


GP -

I raised the issue of lotteries, and David began talking about casinos. You responded to his post about casinos. You're still running from your false accusation, I never chopped up your post about lotteries and ignored your main argument - that's a fact and you're too much of a wimp to admit it.



Did I respond to your post about lotteries or casinos? No. How does that prove your accusation that I chopped up your post and ignored your main point?

Here is the text of your post. So yes you did discuss lotteries with me. And yes you did cut and paste. You miserable equivocater.

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

GP - quote:
Dave, Isn't it wrong for the state to prevent private individuals from buying or selling private lottery?


Who said private lotteries would be illegal?

quote:
Berz, There is competition accross state lines (one reason why states get together). If private lotteries were authorized the state lottery would have to be competetive.


And that's a bad thing? Some lotteries have become regional, not because of inter-state competition, but to sweeten the pot. That's another problem with your argument, government lotteries would have the advantage of volume private lotteries would lack. Would you play a lottery worth tens of millions or a private lottery worth a much smaller amount in addition to the motivation/purpose for the government lottery - paying for government. 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?

quote:
And wouldn't make much money.


Why not?

quote:
People who want to donate money to the government can do that independently of a lottery.


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

quote:
competition. States prevent independent lotteries for the same reason that they prevent independent letter delivery.


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.

quote:
Dave, cheering for a state lottery because people play it freely is like cheering for the post office because people choose to send letters through it (vice doing without).


Government has made it illegal to send 1st class mail through anyone but the post office so your analogy is invalid.

[MRT144]

i bet bezerker thinks he actually wins debates when peopel just give up trying to explain things to him

[TCO]

29-12-2002 20:21 in the Libertarian Purity thread.

Read it Berz.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MRT144
i bet bezerker thinks he actually wins debates when peopel just give up trying to explain things to him

Yes. But I won't let him do that.

[Berzerker]

GP - Starting on p23, here is what you said to David:

This is another example of your lack of thought.

1. What you are saying could be extended to any industry. Chemical plants, autos, whatever. What makes you think government should start businesses? Is that a role for government?

2. Where will the government raise money to finance its casinos?

3. How will the government be competetive with private industry casinos?

Here is what you said to Orange:

Why would anyone invest in a government run casino? Is it a good risk? Will it operate well? Look at the way a typical government beareau operates. Marvel of efficiency? Lots of business sense? no. So why postulate that they will be able to operate a business competetively and get finacing for it.

Don't make me get all Jacky Chan on you and bring in Roland and Sten to discuss raising capital!

And you said this to Agathon:

That's the thing about you livertarians, you don't really understand the free market and incentives. You just like to debate hypotheticals. Well....IF government could operate a business competetively with no special advantages...blablabla. Forget it! Give me one example to show where they've been able to pull it off.
libertarians

You are wasting your time here. These libertarians here are not Milton Friedman. They are pretty juvinile in their econ knowledge. Sometimes they even say stuff that is anti-libertarian without knowing it.

I didn't respond to your posts at all. Now you claim my "offense" was made in a different thread? And you call me a weasel?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The reason that there were no monopolies before the Civil War was because mass production and economies of scale didnt exist. These huge monopolies were formed when they either 1. bought off other competitors, or 2. ran them into the ground with low prices. This worked especially well during bust times because the bigger companies had enough capital to sustain, and thus bought the little ones for cheap prices

As soon as the competitors are gone, the monopoly jacks the price up as far as it can. THis depends on the elasticity of the good. Something like Gasoline can go a lot higher then say fruit juice, because there is no cheap and readily avaialable substitute for gasoline.

Now lets say a new company joins to add 'competition' First of all, having only two suppliers is essentially the same as a monopoly, except that they call it an Oligarchy. They will usually divide up the market and charge whatever they want in their respective zones, or will conspire to keep the prices high. (remeber, there is no government controls) And now what? People can't go without gasoline, and everything that depends on gasoline will see its price rise. And there you have it, a shock on the supply curve, and you have prices and unemployment rising

Something which Keynes didn't expect