1,240 karma · joined June 7, 2012
But it's amusing you bring up action movies since you clearly believe them. The reason we're not constantly getting attacked is because no one is attacking us.
The kind of investment the billionaire is doing is zero-sum in nature and doesn't help anyone but them.
It's hilarious that you imagine some billionaire playing the stock market has more value to you than people spending money on products (that you could be making). The 80's called and asked for their misconceptions back.
And P.S. Occam's Razor is just a guide line. Many things happen every day that violate it. The US government has murdered people before and tried to cover it up, so it's not beyond the realm of believably or possibility.
Of course they are. He called the cops on their illegal party.
No it hasn't, not a single one. Every single case they've "stopped" was simple entrapment of mentally unstable people. If they'd left those people alone nothing would have ever happened.
Citation needed. The government has yet to stop a single terrorist plot. The only ones they claim they've stopped are very clear entrapment cases that never would have amounted to anything without the government supplying the motivations and the supplies.
Every time a terrorist has actually tried an attack they've either succeed or screwed up all by themselves. The reason terrorism is not a big problem for the US is because terrorists nearly never attack the US.
You seem to imply we should trust the government to tell us the probability but they've never been right in the past and are completely opaque in their methods. There's literally no reason to believe them at all.
O'rly?
>They only serve as a symbol that allows more convenient trade of real goods.
That sounds pretty fucking useful.
>Thinking about money the way you think is a main reason of the current economical crysis.
That's a rather silly thing to say. You need to step your game up when posting on HN.
>Billionaires usually don't spend much on consumption, neither they keep their resources unused.
Did you miss the part where I mention land?
>Most of every billionaire wealth is his company, or companies, in which they employ thousands of people (giving them opportunity to earn for their living) and produce things that fulfill needs of millions.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about. This is the case for billionaires that you see on HN because that's what we're interested in. There are plenty of billionaires who don't work and don't have businesses. "Old money" families.
No they don't. They use the mix of capitalism and socialism that every functioning country on earth uses (though their settings and dials are unique, like everyone else is).
>people's needs are unlimited
And at some point, given enough time, robots will be able to fulfill even unlimited demands. Your world view has no answer to such a situation.
>it is my goddamn business when someone tries to rob me from my money in a name of your weird understanding of "fairnes"
It's not "robbing". Money itself is something the state made, so consider taxes a charge to use it. You're welcome to trade in "widgets" if you can find anyone who will.
> Poor people can do what they want with their lives as long as they stay away from me.
No they can't because you've bought up all the land and allocated all the resources despite using a small fraction of them.
This is the libertarian hand waving I complain about.
As long as you have a group with guns, companies will be paying that group to use their guns to enforce the rights of those companies. That's the most rational thing for a company to do. You can't out-innovate your competitors forever, you can't undercut their price forever and you can't provide better quality forever. Doing any of these things is very hard work, can be very expensive and you will lose eventually. It's a safer approach, once you win in a market to use those winnings to buy government-created barriers to entry against you're biggest enemy: new competition.
>Are you against voluntary society?
No, I assume it's inevitable given a large enough timescale. I have simply read enough to know that such a society is incompatible with capitalism.
If they paid them a "fair" amount of money, how did they get so fabulously rich? But even if I allow your dubious use of fair, did they really pay them all? Did they pay for the streets that they used? Did they pay a higher price for the fire department since they probably have a lot more, much more expensive properties than me? Did the pay the police more for similar reasons?
Did they pay their parents for raising them into privilege? And on, and on, and on. Anyone rich today got there on the backs of the society they lived in. Elon Musk would be nothing had he been born and raised in an Amazon tribe and you know it.
>Also, unemployment is an artificial problem that only exists in fundamentally sick, socialist economies.
Now you're just showing off ignorance [1]. Chile was as close to laissez faire as has ever been tried on that scale. Where did their mass unemployment come from?
>In capitalism there's always more work to do that workforce available.
Ideological dreaming. Nothing more.
> And if you pay people for doing nothing large part of them will have no motivation to find any meaningful job.
Reagan's "welfare queens" lives on. Anyway, even if that's true, how about you mind your own goddamn business and stop worrying about what other people choose to do with their lives? I suspect we'd get enough Tesla's out of such a system to offset all your mythical welfare queens.
Then why was she all over those links you gave me? I think your movement has moved on without you.
>is simply the belief in a voluntary society - one with coercion.
You meant without here, right? Then we're talking anarchism. Since libertarians always talk about free markets, that would make it ancap. Which is an oxymoron.
> they're willing to force others to comply via the barrel of a gun (or proxy gun - aka, military, police, etc) with property confiscation (non-voluntary taxes) as the primary means.
A but this is exactly my issue with libertarianism: it's so much more complex than this but libertarians just hand wave all the problems away. Just a few more incantations of "laissez faire" and Utopia will arrive.
I'm not pro-coercion, I simply recognize that capitalism itself implies a level of coercion no matter how you package it up.
>You have some reading to do.
As do you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarchy101/comments/rbxjm/an_anarchi...
Way to go Ecuador!
>“There is no small irony here,” Kerry added, posing the hypothetical question of whether Snowden sought refuge in China and Russia “because they’re such powerful bastions of Internet freedom.”
No sign of shame or embarrassment. Disgusting.
Oh ffs. What place has shown you the joys of a completely laissez faire market? I'd be interested to hear about it since no such thing actually exists at any reasonably large scale. It was tried in Chile once and failed so hard that Friedman's own "Chicago boys" had to back it off.
>I'm more than willing to pay a decent amount money for everyone to have access to those services. Aren't you?
Well, no actually. I'm not willing to spend a dollar on those services until I know those getting more value out of them (i.e. the rich) are paying their fair share. In reality, they'll probably be paying nothing so I will join them.