Germany won ww2

[Nitro]

An interesting and discussion so far. Hope we can keep it fair and open.

Gunsligr3, I actually agree on many of the things you're saying, i.e on a pure economical-technical level. However, this discussion is more than anything which ideological standpoint you have. Because I think most of us can agree on that the American way (read USA), has got the most effective economic system in world, if you are solely looking at creating lots of money in the country as whole. But will it be a society which will be the most fair society to live in for all people living it? What is fair one may ask? Well, for one thing we all know that noone had the chance to decide in what country he or she should be born in. That alone, should make you understand that a decent welfare system which will embrace all citizens is the most decent way to go (yes, my post is more of a philosophical nature). Of course it won't be as optimized or effective as in a true capitalist system, but it should make sense to most people and therefore, you will see less of different sorts of social problems - crimes, riots etc. This too, has a price you know, not only an economical one.

[Gunslingr3]

The classic absurd cop out, to take the obvious counter example what if nobody chose to fund the military, education or long term research?

What would happen if the U.S. didn't have a $300+ Billion per annum military empire stretched across the globe? Would Canada find us too tempting? Mexico? How would the military strength of this country that the Founders envisioned and protected fail to hold back these threats?

You say: "There are persons who lack education," and you turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning which shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where some citizens need to learn, and others can teach. In this matter of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers who are appointed by government to instruct others, without charge. But in this second case, the law commits legal plunder by violating liberty and property."

-Bastiat, "The Law"

What makes you think companies would suddenly stop spending the billions they currently do on research? Do you think that research on subjects that people will only fund at the point of a gun are somehow superior? Why?

And without some pretty major road funding, gasoline engines would never have progressed to the stage where the Moller skycar was even approaching feasible.

You know this because...?

From your statements, it seems that you choose to be an uneducated serf

Ad hominem. :confused:

You're the first person to resort to this in this thread. I hope you're the last.

See how long your country lasts without oil.

Your economy took a nosedive last time OPEC pushed up the price, if they turn off the flow of oil completely the USA can't even provide enough oil to move sufficient goods internally.

Why would OPEC cut off their share (~40%) of contributions to the world oil market? Why have they in the past?

The U.S. spends more on it's military than North America does on oil. If, in the absence of a U.S. Empire OPEC decided arbitrarily to double it's prices, what is the consequence? The other countries of the world, who produce more oil, would have greater incentive to increase their own production and take the OPEC customers. The higher prices would also encourage research in alternative fuels and power sources (without even a politician confiscating someone's earnings and ordering it be so!) just to reap the potential profits.

You keep seeing how things are, and as result will be tomorrow, without seeing how they could be today, and would become tomorrow.

Gunslinger

[husky65]

Originally posted by Gunslingr3:

What would happen if the U.S. didn't have a $300+ Billion per annum military empire stretched across the globe? Would Canada find us too tempting? Mexico? How would the military strength of this country that the Founders envisioned and protected fail to hold back these threats?

ROTFLMAO

I note that you take 2 nearby examples, but ignore the Nazis, Japs and USSR any of whom could have destroyed the US if it were not for the vast military empire that protected you.

WTF is an idiot with an AK going to do to stop a nuke, chemical weapon or even a panzer div?

The founders of your country were aristocrat farmers who never envisioned the ability to destroy a city at the push of a button, the right to bear arms cannot protect you from that simple threat, or even the ability to deliver simple chemical weapons.

You say: "There are persons who lack education," and you turn to the law.

But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning which shines its light abroad. The law extends over a society where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where some citizens need to learn, and others can teach. In this matter of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this transaction of teaching-and-learning to operate freely and without the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers who are appointed by government to instruct others, without charge. But in this second case, the law commits legal plunder by violating liberty and property."

-Bastiat, "The Law"

So, you enjoy quoting drivel - the ability to quote rubbish does not make it valid.

Where education is paid for by the individual, only the wealthy get a good education, the poor and their descendents are doomed.

What makes you think companies would suddenly stop spending the billions they currently do on research? Do you think that research on subjects that people will only fund at the point of a gun are somehow superior? Why?

Are you enjoying a stupidity festival or something? look at air travel, weather prediction, firearms, the internet, computers etc

Without Govt funded research, you get very few of these.

I would recommend you get hold of some of the NASA 'spinoff documents' as an example of what your govt has paid for.

BTW, who do you think pays many of these companies to do the research?

And without some pretty major road funding, gasoline engines would never have progressed to the stage where the Moller skycar was even approaching feasible.

You know this because...?

Because I'm not stupid.

Perhaps you can show us how, in an environment where the major use of Gasoline engines has not been promoted, and there is no large market for them, they will attain the sort of power to weight ratios required to provide reliable VTOL ops as per the moller skycar.

"From your statements, it seems that you choose to be an uneducated serf" Ad hominem. :confused: You're the first person to resort to this in this thread. I hope you're the last.

Not ad hom, you have advocated only paying for the parts of society you use, that means you will be a serf (no police, no judicial system that are not paid for by the wealthy) and you will not get an education (as above) - nice attempt to distract from the paucity of your arguments.

Why would OPEC cut off their share (~40%) of contributions to the world oil market? Why have they in the past?

Because they can, its called power, it allows them to generate a lot more money for less outlay and gain massive concessions - you might want to ask the Japanese about the consequences of having your strategic assets controlled by someone else.

The U.S. spends more on it's military than North America does on oil. If, in the absence of a U.S. Empire OPEC decided arbitrarily to double it's prices, what is the consequence?

The US economy collapses and the US has no stick to threaten the arabs with to get the tap turned back on.

The other countries of the world, who produce more oil, would have greater incentive to increase their own production and take the OPEC customers.

Exactly the way it didn't happen last time, other producers didn't need to invest to increase profits - they just increased their prices in line with OPEC.

Why build infrastructure to generate profit, when you don't have to?

The higher prices would also encourage research in alternative fuels and power sources (without even a politician confiscating someone's earnings and ordering it be so!) just to reap the potential profits.

Exactly the way it didn't happen last time.

I note a decided lack of such technologies that are taking up the slack now - surely those (usually Govt funded BTW) technologies must be mature now, 30 or so years down the track?

You keep seeing how things are, and as result will be tomorrow, without seeing how they could be today, and would become tomorrow.

In the trade, this is called 'dealing with reality' - I highly recommend it to you.

[Friar Bellows]

Warning! Major rant ahead! Take seriously at your own risk!

*********

My problem with Libertarians (capital L), the ones who generally support the ideals of Harry Browne's party, is that they're not libertarian (in the true sense of that word) enough. When I look at my life, and indeed, the lives of most people around me, where is my liberty most directly and forcefully violated? The cop stopping me for a breath test? The local council enforcing helmut laws for cyclists? The government passing laws to curb free speech online or pollution from my car? Nope. All these things can be considered violations of my liberty, but none of them come even close to the greatest threat of all: work.

Think of all the indignations you've had to suffer because of work. The surveillance, the brown-nosing, the alarm clock, the traffic, the backstabbing, etc etc. Your boss is free to order you when to come to work, when to leave work, when to have lunch, when to go to the bathroom, what to do at work, how to do it, how fast to do it, what clothes to wear, etc etc. All this for 5 or 6 days per week, nearly every week of the year, and nearly every year of your adult life, until you drop dead from a work-related illness. Oh yeah, the boss is also free to fire you.

As a "free" worker, the only difference between myself and a slave is that I'm free to choose a new master. Wow! What a wonderful freedom! Of course, I may face starvation by leaving my current hard-won job, but hey, at least I'm free! Uh huh. I'm living longer, but all of a sudden that hunter-gatherer in Alaska is looking freer than me. And this is progress?

*burp*

For me, freedom and liberty are utopian concepts. None of us are free. A small minority of us enjoy a fair amount of freedom. But most of us enjoy very little. And such will always be the way. Unless you believe in utopian visions. Oh hell, why not? That's one freedom I do have: to believe in utterly impossible utopian visions of total freedom and liberty, including the freedom from work!

*********

End of rant. My next rant will be entitled: "Anarchism, Communism, Capitalism, Libertarianism, Socialism, etc etc: You All Suck!"

[Hubert Cater]

Well I'm back and glad to see the forums still active as ever. First order of business here I guess... interesting thread but I think it will be better suited to the General Discussion so I will move it there.

Hubert