3chordcharlie vs. Dissipate

[Hayabusa Rider]

This is a friendly competition. Don't be pissy

 

[Infohawk]

WTF is this all about?

 

[maddogchen]

hmmmmmmmmm...................in terms of economic knowledge or who's economic views are probably more correct?

 

[Infohawk]

Is the grinch dissipate?

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Is the grinch dissipate?

yep, thats his avatar

 

[Infohawk]

Hehe. Oh right, his avatar.... I was thinking about his attitude.

So what is 3chordcharlie's position on economics.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Hehe. Oh right, his avatar.... I was thinking about his attitude.

So what is 3chordcharlie's position on economics.

C G D?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: PatboyX

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Hehe. Oh right, his avatar.... I was thinking about his attitude.

So what is 3chordcharlie's position on economics.

C G D?

Not following you.

 

[Stunt]

Economic knowledge...

i vote 3chord. has a very good understanding of many economic issues...from many souces.
dissipate tends to only read economics and theories about capitalist anarchy topics.

I find Dissipate to just throw links out but understanding is nowhere near others in this forum.
Just because he supports the freest market doesnt mean he understands it.

 

[Infohawk]

Stunt,

How has Canada been a red state since 1993?

I think dissipate's radicalness is interesting-- I hadn't thought much about privatizing highways until he mentioned it (though I still think governments are the only ones who can build good routes). My main problem with dissipate is his claim that socialism is morally indefensible. Socialism might be less efficient or not preferable from a utilitarian point of view-- but morally indefensible? (I'm also not a fan of people who throw out too many links)

Haven't seen much of 3chord's posting on matters. Is he a anarcho-capitalist?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

neither?

CsG

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
neither?

CsG

Is that because you are the kind of Republican that is at heart a big-government statist?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
neither?

CsG

Is that because you are the kind of Republican that is at heart a big-government statist?

No, I'm a small "just enough" gov't type of Republican but thanks for trying to insinuate otherwise.

Neither because both adhere to ideas I don't subscribe to. I suppose instead of "neither" I could say - "draw".

CsG

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Stunt,

How has Canada been a red state since 1993?

In Canada:
Left of centre: NDP (party colour: orange)
Centre: Liberal (party colour: red)
Right of centre: Progressive Conservatives (party colour: blue)

So...red state since 1993

makes sense though as orange is the international colour for labour/social party.
hence blair and ukrainian guy's party colours.
red is closer to that...so yeah...i like to throw ppl off around here.

 

[Stunt]

no...3chord is like me.

progressive conservative...that's what i get out of his posts...
maybe he can elaborate

I've PM'd Dissipate for a breakdown of his views...they are thoroughly intersting...not on my lines of thinking...but well thoughtout nonetheless...here: (Dissipate...i can delete if u want..i know it was a PM)

Stunt:

Ever since joining the forums i have read your anarcho-capitalist views and although it does to seem to have some merit, there are a few areas that do not bode well with society.

a) Military - i see what you are saying about hired armies for protection, but being a private company in a global economy, one could assume they could use their strong military might to take out competition in other countries...cover it up, or blame it on WMD for example. Instead of having someone who can be ousted from office, you have a ceo with a perminant job and rights to do all he chooses.

b) Social Welfare - how do you plan to attend to terminally ill, handicapped, sick people in this new world, they surely will not be able to provide for themselves, and nobody would insure them.

c) Regulations - Who would be responsible for setting Safety and Environmental standards?...more importantly regulate/inspect.

d) Intelligence - The war of tomorrow is terrorism requiring central intell agencies cooperating with other nation's high security information, they cannot afford to have this leaked and if many companies are involved, this creates ineffective security. If one or two companies are given this role, who would pay?...and how do you ensure they only protect the vested interest of a select few. ie. one company gets the intel, calls its customers in the WTC and half the ppl are evacuated, but the others with the other company do not get covered?.

e) Immigration - For the US economy to grow, needs more ppl. Aggressive immigration policy is being created. Who would look after this?

There are many things like this.

Dissipate:

A) No you would not have a permanent CEO. No CEO is "permanent," because every CEO's job rests on the future actions of consumers. Insurance companies would have absolutely no incentive to meddle in the affairs of other nations. They are completely defensive. It is just like if I hire private security for my house, would I be afraid that the security company would use its force to rob the 7-11 down the road? Of course not. The private security answers to the consumer, just like every other industry, and I would immediately stop paying for such a security firm if they did such things.

B)Communities would take care of them, just like they did hundreds of years ago, before the government got involved and began the process of destroying communities.

C) Under anarcho-capitalism with every piece of land privately owned there would be no need to regulate the environment. People do not go around destroying what they own, in fact, they would have every incentive to increase their land value. It is just like I do not see people in my neighborhood polluting and destroying the environment, I actually see them planting trees, and plants.

D) Intelligence would be a part of the private defense provided by private insurance companies. They would be charged with the task of knowing all of the potential threats to their customer's private property i.e. if they did not, then they would have to pay huge claims in the event of a terrorist attack. If one firm was not able to gather as much intelligence as another, and disaster for its customer's ensued, then it would go out of business or its profits would go way down.

E) Immigration would be an issue handled by every single land owner. Whether or not you want to hire someone to work for you from another country would be your business. They could go anywhere they wanted on your land. If other people wanted them on their land they could roam around on their land as well.

The mistake you are making is that you want to know every single minute detail of how anarcho-capitalism would work before you are willing to give up your belief in the state. Well the problem with this mentality is that you assume that the state is working in the first place. It is not. In fact, the state has failed to accomplish even the most basic tasks it has been charged with, like stopping crime and terrorist attacks. If I were to make a list of the number of things the government has failed at, it would be 50 miles long. The war on drugs, 9/11, public education, the war on poverty etc. etc. etc. Not only has the government failed in all of these areas but it has caused society to regress as well. It has destroyed many of the institutions that were cherished just 100-150 years ago. Take the family unit for example. The family unit is virtually on the brink of destruction. Divorce rates have skyrocketed, crime has been going up for decades and kids today are dumber than their parents. Why is this? The reason why is that the family unit has been attacked by the government from numerous angles. From welfare to the watering down of the currency, to high income taxation and the public "education" racket.

Hence, we must understand that the government has failed from the outset, not that it "works." Once we realize that it has failed, we must think of why it has failed and if it is to be abolished what can we replace it with. Well, we should most certainly not replace it with another government, this would just eventually bring us right back to where we are today. No, it should be completely abolished and society should become one that is based on pure private property contractualism. If you are still skeptical of whether or not the government has failed, I have a book I reccomend you read. Democracy: The God That Failed.

That should get the discussion going

 

[Dissipate]

It is obvious I will lose this poll. 3ChordCharlie is simply much closer to the mainstream line of thinking, especially on issues of national defense, roads, and police protection. In general, like most people, he believes that political institutions can be set up that act in the public interest.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Is that because you are the kind of Republican that is at heart a big-government statist?

No, I'm a small "just enough" gov't type of Republican but thanks for trying to insinuate otherwise.

Face it, most Democrats today are "just enough" government type too.

And your support for Bush's very costly war (independent of merit of the war) and other expenditures maks me think you don't mind spending as long as you agree with it.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
It is obvious I will lose this poll. 3ChordCharlie is simply much closer to the mainstream line of thinking, especially on issues of national defense, roads, and police protection.

Very true.

 

[Stunt]

*awaits the next "vs." parody thread *

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Stunt
*awaits the next "vs." parody thread *

I'm surprised this hasn't been locked. Even if this one is rather harmless there's only one direction future parodies could go: unadulterated flame-fests.