Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
lol, still using this fake argument?
Everybody knows that pirates has short clothes and often use to stay without shirt.
So is natural that climate influence their number..
:P
Serioulsy: only you can use this answer.
It is an argument. Not a prove.
Any man still alive intellectually would have read and make his idea about, but you're as dead. You already know what to think, before to read and before to know..
Everybody knows that pirates has short clothes and often use to stay without shirt.
So is natural that climate influence their number..
:P
Serioulsy: only you can use this answer.
It is an argument. Not a prove.
Any man still alive intellectually would have read and make his idea about, but you're as dead. You already know what to think, before to read and before to know..
You make a logical fallacy ('correlation = causality'), and I'm intellectually dead? :')
The pirate-thing was of course a joke. The point though is that correlation does not equal causality. You once again seem to have missed the point.
The pirate-thing was of course a joke. The point though is that correlation does not equal causality. You once again seem to have missed the point.
I got the point,
still I miss what the hell it has to do with my post.
I showed evidences of something. Something that has nothing to do with your ideology..
you don't believe liberism create happyness, you never said it. I think you're not so dumb.
so what?
still I miss what the hell it has to do with my post.
I showed evidences of something. Something that has nothing to do with your ideology..
you don't believe liberism create happyness, you never said it. I think you're not so dumb.
so what?
I showed evidences of something.
Just to be sure, what do you think that happiness report proves?
you don't believe liberism create happyness, you never said it.
First of all, I'm going to assume you mean liberalism here (as a classical concept).
Of course liberalism doesn't create happiness. Classical liberalism creates an environment in which people can become happy, in which they can go for the goals they want.
Just to be sure, what do you think that happiness report proves?
you don't believe liberism create happyness, you never said it.
First of all, I'm going to assume you mean liberalism here (as a classical concept).
Of course liberalism doesn't create happiness. Classical liberalism creates an environment in which people can become happy, in which they can go for the goals they want.
Just to be sure, what do you think that happiness report proves?
that countries with big state intervention doesn't affect happyness (as that study defy it, obviously! happyness is not something you can measure.. for real!!!)
Classical liberalism creates an environment in which people can become happy, in which they can go for the goals they want.
ok, if you really believe it I quit.
There's nothing so far from reality in my point of view. I think there were some king of ideologic claim under your position (better poor and free, better unsure and free, better anything and free etc), but is only blinded propaganda, and unreal statements.
that countries with big state intervention doesn't affect happyness (as that study defy it, obviously! happyness is not something you can measure.. for real!!!)
Classical liberalism creates an environment in which people can become happy, in which they can go for the goals they want.
ok, if you really believe it I quit.
There's nothing so far from reality in my point of view. I think there were some king of ideologic claim under your position (better poor and free, better unsure and free, better anything and free etc), but is only blinded propaganda, and unreal statements.
that countries with big state intervention doesn't affect happyness
Quite frankly, it doesn't prove that. It shows that happiness is the biggest in countries with certain characteristics, like big level of taxation, rule of law, development, ... That doesn't mean that big state intervention doesn't affect happiness. Everyone with some knowledge on the matter of statistics will realize that. Numbers are dangerous if you don't know how to interpret them.
Quite frankly, it doesn't prove that. It shows that happiness is the biggest in countries with certain characteristics, like big level of taxation, rule of law, development, ... That doesn't mean that big state intervention doesn't affect happiness. Everyone with some knowledge on the matter of statistics will realize that. Numbers are dangerous if you don't know how to interpret them.
ok, ok..
just keep on repeating your mantra (Classical liberalism creates an environment in which people can become happy, in which they can go for the goals they want. ).
just keep on repeating your mantra (Classical liberalism creates an environment in which people can become happy, in which they can go for the goals they want. ).
That's exactly what I don't believe. The examples you've given: the free market can provide for those services too.
yes, free market can provide for these services, but can they do it more effective than government?
you really think that 'private services' can watching out for environmental problems more effectively than government? and if your answer is yes, then how would they put controls into place to stop those who pollute?
and natural disasters. do you think that private enterprise would be able to cover a massive natural disaster BETTER that the government?. Really??
yes, free market can provide for these services, but can they do it more effective than government?
you really think that 'private services' can watching out for environmental problems more effectively than government? and if your answer is yes, then how would they put controls into place to stop those who pollute?
and natural disasters. do you think that private enterprise would be able to cover a massive natural disaster BETTER that the government?. Really??
you really think that 'private services' can watching out for environmental problems more effectively than government? and if your answer is yes, then how would they put controls into place to stop those who pollute?
The problem is lack of private ownership. If a river is owned by somebody, that person can sue people who pollute. The only problem I see is air polution and ocean polution. I have no answer to those two problems. Other pollution is perfectly solvable without government intervention.
and natural disasters. do you think that private enterprise would be able to cover a massive natural disaster BETTER that the government?. Really??
I don't see any reason to assume the slow big government is more efficient in handling disasters than specialized firms.
The problem is lack of private ownership. If a river is owned by somebody, that person can sue people who pollute. The only problem I see is air polution and ocean polution. I have no answer to those two problems. Other pollution is perfectly solvable without government intervention.
and natural disasters. do you think that private enterprise would be able to cover a massive natural disaster BETTER that the government?. Really??
I don't see any reason to assume the slow big government is more efficient in handling disasters than specialized firms.
I don't see any reason to assume the slow big government is more efficient in handling disasters than specialized firms.
OK. So who would pay for these specialized firms. Individuals, or the government?
OK. So who would pay for these specialized firms. Individuals, or the government?
Individuals, by paying for an insurance.
Individuals, by paying for an insurance.
this is folly. HOW would an insurance company plan for a natural disaster?
Let's see. I am stuck in a tree with 6 feet of water rushing below. I need to find my insurance card, call them, oh wait, my cell phone is wet and will not work. What next?
And IF I did have cell service, can you imagine the number of calls going into a call center, verify that you are covered.
And what about the poor guy who missed his last payment? Or tourist? Or the homeless person who has no coverage? Do we just let him perish?
this is folly. HOW would an insurance company plan for a natural disaster?
Let's see. I am stuck in a tree with 6 feet of water rushing below. I need to find my insurance card, call them, oh wait, my cell phone is wet and will not work. What next?
And IF I did have cell service, can you imagine the number of calls going into a call center, verify that you are covered.
And what about the poor guy who missed his last payment? Or tourist? Or the homeless person who has no coverage? Do we just let him perish?
Like I said earlier, most people wouldn't fit in a Libertarian society. Simply because they are not "smart" enough to survive.
Inmoral Libertarians will take advantage from the weaker people in society. And the beauty of Libertarianism is that conducting an inmoral fact will not be illegal. Because no force is used, so if you are not born with a decent brain ur screwed.
I don't think we should let the less fortunate in our society treat that way. Seems very egocentric to me.
Inmoral Libertarians will take advantage from the weaker people in society. And the beauty of Libertarianism is that conducting an inmoral fact will not be illegal. Because no force is used, so if you are not born with a decent brain ur screwed.
I don't think we should let the less fortunate in our society treat that way. Seems very egocentric to me.
HOW would an insurance company plan for a natural disaster?
Communities can - on voluntary basis - hire an insurance company to be prepared for all sorts of disasters (depending on the location). Payment can be the same way like the anarcho-capitalist example of how to pay for defense.
So, I have nothing against having a collective insurance. I just don't want the government to do it ;-)
Let's see. I am stuck in a tree with 6 feet of water rushing below. I need to find my insurance card, call them, oh wait, my cell phone is wet and will not work. What next?
Password, anyone?
And what about the poor guy who missed his last payment? Or tourist? Or the homeless person who has no coverage? Do we just let him perish?
Feel free to organize charity to help those in need. I'm not saying those people shouldn't be helped. I'm saying they shouldn't be helped by the government.
Communities can - on voluntary basis - hire an insurance company to be prepared for all sorts of disasters (depending on the location). Payment can be the same way like the anarcho-capitalist example of how to pay for defense.
So, I have nothing against having a collective insurance. I just don't want the government to do it ;-)
Let's see. I am stuck in a tree with 6 feet of water rushing below. I need to find my insurance card, call them, oh wait, my cell phone is wet and will not work. What next?
Password, anyone?
And what about the poor guy who missed his last payment? Or tourist? Or the homeless person who has no coverage? Do we just let him perish?
Feel free to organize charity to help those in need. I'm not saying those people shouldn't be helped. I'm saying they shouldn't be helped by the government.
And the beauty of Libertarianism is that conducting an inmoral fact will not be illegal.
Isn't that a good starting point? We see what happens in countries banning 'immoral' facts. It all depends on what one considers moral and immoral. That's an individual question, not a collective one.
Because no force is used, so if you are not born with a decent brain ur screwed.
Charity, anyone?
Seems very egocentric to me.
What's wrong with egocentrism?
Isn't that a good starting point? We see what happens in countries banning 'immoral' facts. It all depends on what one considers moral and immoral. That's an individual question, not a collective one.
Because no force is used, so if you are not born with a decent brain ur screwed.
Charity, anyone?
Seems very egocentric to me.
What's wrong with egocentrism?
Communities can - on voluntary basis - hire an insurance company to be prepared for all sorts of disasters
folly.
I hate to use that word. So I am a 'very prepared' city administrator. Let get insurance on-
wildfires, drought, disease outbreak (oh let me make sure the disease list is current), flood, earthquake, tsunami, famine, terrorist attack. Premiums would be astronomical.
Anyway, I will not perpetuate steam of thought. Rather let us agree to disagree. Here in the US, Libertarian thought has a 2-5% support. So in the 'Free market' of elections, who is winning?
folly.
I hate to use that word. So I am a 'very prepared' city administrator. Let get insurance on-
wildfires, drought, disease outbreak (oh let me make sure the disease list is current), flood, earthquake, tsunami, famine, terrorist attack. Premiums would be astronomical.
Anyway, I will not perpetuate steam of thought. Rather let us agree to disagree. Here in the US, Libertarian thought has a 2-5% support. So in the 'Free market' of elections, who is winning?