Libertarian Kvetchfest continued

[orange]

haha, you mean this 'he said' 'she said' *****fest is still going on?

[Kontiki]

Berz,

I really am tired of this arguement, so I'm going to leave it (for real this time ). I'll just make a few quick points, take from it what you will, and if you don't want to agree with me, then fine.

- You asked me to prove an assertion about the way you handle yourself in these debates. I provided evidence of what I claimed, you ignored it. I provided it again, and you changed the subject and said I was arguing a strawman. If you didn't want get into the debate, or if you disagreed with my position, why didn't you just say so in the first place? I'm sure you'll now respond to this by saying something along the lines of "do you deny you are arguing a strawman?" or "but you are arguing a strawman". Yeah, getting into the specifics of the Revolution was a little off topic, but there was also a side debate about your style, which YOU asked ME to explain.

- Yes, the Americans won some battles, even though prior to 1777, the British won more. Not the same as winning a war against a fully committed Britain, though. It's no different than pointing out that Germany won some battles in WWII before getting the crap kicked out of it. It doesn't change my arguement or conclusion.

- I haven't read "The First Salute", but I'll check it out. Does she actually draw the conclusion that the Americans would have won without outside assistance/intervention? If not, can you point me to a source that does? I'd (quite seriously) like to read it.

- I don't know why you persist on claiming I'm making left-wing arguements. The US, or any other country in the world, is the way it is because of the events that actually happened. I didn't say whether I thought they were good or not. If you want to claim, for example, that the building of the Hoover Dam was a major waste of money and grossly inefficient, go ahead. I'm not saying anything either way. The Hoover Dam did, however, allow for massive irrigation in California, not to mention provide much of its power for years, spurring its industrial development. That is not a political statement. I never said it ended the Great Depression, nor did I make any claims as to what started it. I think you are way too hung up on your political agenda to see that not everything is politicized.

[Agathon]

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

Yes it would. So let's follow my logic. The voluntary taxation system fails - a crisis occurs. So people voluntarily donate money to shore up the police. The crisis passes - people start free riding again. The voluntary taxation system fails - a crisis occurs. So people voluntarily donate money to shore up the police. The crisis passes - people start free riding again. So people voluntarily donate money to shore up the police. The crisis passes - people start free riding again.

And on and on ad infinitum....

This is a lousy solution since it is more expensive in the long run to have to continually re-estabish a police force that has collapsed than it is to pay the regular costs of keeping it going.

The sensible solution is to have the state impose compulsory taxation. Everyone will be happier since they know that when they pay everyone else does.

Problem solved in the exact way it has been solved by virtually every society I can think of.

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

And as for the stuff about the Depression and the New Deal, please don't confuse claims about what it's reasonable for people to believe with what's true (this would be to make an elementary philosophical mistake). One doesn't have to be a left winger to claim that the New Deal worked. One could be a misinformed right winger or any number of other things could be the case. There are a variety of situations under which a person can reasonably believe things, even if they are false. It is called "rational persuasiveness" by logicians.

For example, If the presence of igneous rocks indicate volcanic activity and I see igneous rocks then it is reasonable for me to conclude that there was volcanic activity. This is the case even if there was no volcanic activity and the rocks are there because someone moved them there. The point is, my belief is false, but it is still a reasonable belief to have, given the evidence available to me (i.e. I don't know that someone moved the rocks).

Therefore your assertion that one must be a left winger to believe the New Deal worked is simply false and agains shows your lack of logical sense. Whether one believes that the New Deal worked or not is down to the evidence you have, which is usually incomplete.

[Berzerker]

Kon tiki -

- You asked me to prove an assertion about the way you handle yourself in these debates.

I did? Possibly, but given just that info I wouldn't know what you're talking about.

I provided evidence of what I claimed, you ignored it. I provided it again, and you changed the subject and said I was arguing a strawman.

I mentioned the fact you entered this thread to start debating an issue you took out of context after claiming you read the thread. You changed the subject from the beginning... Fine, but at least recognise the context of the debate Agathon and I were having.

If you didn't want get into the debate, or if you disagreed with my position, why didn't you just say so in the first place?

I did say I disagree with your position and still do disagree. European assistance helped greatly, but I wouldn't then argue the Revolution would have been lost without it.

I'm sure you'll now respond to this by saying something along the lines of "do you deny you are arguing a strawman?" or "but you are arguing a strawman".

You did because you didn't read the thread enough to know what was being debated.

Yeah, getting into the specifics of the Revolution was a little off topic, but there was also a side debate about your style, which YOU asked ME to explain.

So you acknowledge you took the debate off topic? That's what I was saying...

- Yes, the Americans won some battles, even though prior to 1777, the British won more. Not the same as winning a war against a fully committed Britain, though.

That wasn't what you claimed, you said the Americans could not field an army to defeat the Brits without outside intervention.

It's no different than pointing out that Germany won some battles in WWII before getting the crap kicked out of it. It doesn't change my arguement or conclusion.

The Americans didn't get the crap beat out of them, that is your speculation as I speculated they would have won even without France, so it's not the same.

- I haven't read "The First Salute", but I'll check it out. Does she actually draw the conclusion that the Americans would have won without outside assistance/intervention?

Of course not, she's a scholar, not a prognasticator. She explains why the British lost and her focus is on the nature of warfare on this continent and Britain's logistical and decision making troubles. Remember the quote you offered about how the Brits could have technically continued the war after Yorktown because Gen Clinton had 10,000 troops in New York? That guy basicly spent the war in New York and he was part of the reason why Cornwallis got trapped. He also deserves alot of the blame for the defeat at Saratoga. He kept telling subordinates help was on the way and never sent the help. He was too afraid to leave New York vulnerable, and as a result, British armies lost important battles.

If not, can you point me to a source that does? I'd (quite seriously) like to read it.

Why would you want to read a source from someone offering their opinions about what would have happened? Sure, it can be fun and entertaining to speculate, but speculations are just that. The fact is we are both speculating about "what if".

- I don't know why you persist on claiming I'm making left-wing arguements.

Your statements about FDR's make work programs.

The US, or any other country in the world, is the way it is because of the events that actually happened. I didn't say whether I thought they were good or not. If you want to claim, for example, that the building of the Hoover Dam was a major waste of money and grossly inefficient, go ahead. I'm not saying anything either way. The Hoover Dam did, however, allow for massive irrigation in California, not to mention provide much of its power for years, spurring its industrial development. That is not a political statement. I never said it ended the Great Depression, nor did I make any claims as to what started it. I think you are way too hung up on your political agenda to see that not everything is politicized.

You said FDR's make work programs ended the Depression and made this country what it is today as I recall. That is a political statement made by left wingers here. As for Hoover Dam, sure, it spurred economic development in the LA basin, but paying for it took money out of the economy. When government "creates" a job, you won't see the job(s) that was destroyed by the expenditure. Why not build up an area with water already available instead of a dry region in need of more water.

Agathon -

Yes it would.

My God, this is like pulling teeth - I finally got an answer.

So let's follow my logic. The voluntary taxation system fails - a crisis occurs. So people voluntarily donate money to shore up the police.

You're forgetting the other forms of taxation like user fees and lotteries. It's not as if people are cruising along and a crisis pops up out of nowhere with no funds to deal with it.

The crisis passes - people start free riding again.

Give people a little credit for planning ahead. It's not like people without a cop will pay his salary for one week and forget the job disappears in a week. They'd pay him for a year and as the year was ending, they'd negotiate next year's salary.

The voluntary taxation system fails - a crisis occurs.

People in the private sector use budgets, housewives use budgets, but not free peoples?

This is a lousy solution since it is more expensive in the long run to have to continually re-estabish a police force that has collapsed than it is to pay the regular costs of keeping it going.

So people with a little intelligence plan ahead. Which aid came first to New Yorkers after 9/11? Voluntary donations or federal funds? It wasn't even close, people across the country poured money in while politicians made promises. No, private citizens react faster than government...

The sensible solution is to have the state impose compulsory taxation.

That isn't a moral solution and it isn't even smart IMO. Compulsory taxation leads to excess and bankruptcy once people start using taxes as a way to hand out favors. Many empires have fallen because of compulsory taxation and the corruption and waste it spawns. Who was it who said the USA would go bankrupt when the people discovered they could vote themselves other people's money? Is a national debt of ~20 trillion good for the country? It'll be a disaster when the baby boomers are retiring, but that is what complusory taxation is doing to us.

One doesn't have to be a left winger to claim that the New Deal worked. One could be a misinformed right winger or any number of other things could be the case. There are a variety of situations under which a person can reasonably believe things, even if they are false. It is called "rational persuasiveness" by logicians.

Then "odds" become relevant. Which is more likely, a right winger who has never heard the right wing arguments dealing with FDR's make work programs or a right winger who believes the left wing arguments about FDR?

Therefore your assertion that one must be a left winger to believe the New Deal worked is simply false and agains shows your lack of logical sense.

That would all be relevant had I said I knew for a certainty that Kon was a left winger, I didn't. That was my conclusion based upon what I hear from left and right wingers. Wanna bet he's a left winger? It's no coincidence left wingers think FDR was a great President and right wingers don't. Of all the Presidents Kon cites, he cites the most left wing of them all.

Now, where's your PD proving the contradictory nature of libertarianism?