It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
and it never occurs to you for even a second that it might be your own close-minded beliefs that are wrong?
You have far more patience with this than I do. Sometimes, I have to bow to the definition of insanity.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: ketsuko
Thank you very much.
Let the dogs bark.
Actually what Daskakik said is only logically true depending on his premise.
That would take forever.
"They are insignificant little people, submissive as dogs ..."
Adolf Hitler, noted in Hitler a Study in Tyranny by Alan Bullock
a reply to: Gryphon66 and if we don't agree with the ops biased stance it is we who are insane, despite the overwhelming evidence provided to the contrary. Love it. The op is one of the most biased members of ATS and for me to take political science lessons from them would be insane. On that note I'll leave the op to believe what he they wants You can't argue with fundamentalists of any kind.
originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Gryphon66 and if we don't agree with the ops biased stance it is we who are insane, despite the overwhelming evidence provided to the contrary. Love it. The op is one of the most biased members of ATS and for me to take political science lessons from them would be insane. On that note I'll leave the op to believe what he they wants You can't argue with fundamentalists of any kind.
originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Deaf Alien not very good one, I don't know anyone daft enough to pay someone to be so relentless in their obvious biased stance on every subject. The op must have run out of Obama stories, usually at least one a day
originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Gryphon66 well being from the UK I know what fascism is because there was quite a big movement back in the 1930s here run by Oswald Mosley and his brown shirts who formed the British Union of fascists BUF.
en.m.wikipedia.org...
originally posted by: daskakik
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Cartel failure does prove that unregulated competition is a viable theory.
One cartel failing doesn't prove anything. Besides, unregulated competition is one thing, AC is more than just that.
Another reason you are wrong is that unregulated competition is reasonable.
Anything reasonable is viable. That is why reason is a good thing. At the very least, reason gives a starting point one up from intuition.
Ok
Logically true.
However, no cartel has ever existed without violent suppression of the competition. The government supplies the violence in legal cartels.
But a government isn't needed unless it is a legal cartel.
An unfair cartel situation always offers a new company or a "cheater" a fortune in profits. Human nature will always take advantage of that.
Not if the cartel uses violent suppression.
Then what?
originally posted by: yesyesyes
a reply to: Semicollegiate
You also need the government to ensure that companies adhere to a legal system which also applies to individuals.
Government becomes the arbitrator and mediators of individuals, and it applies a set of rules that set out the frame work of operation in all manners of society.
specifically persecuted communists and eliminated the entire leadership of the KPD party which was the second most powerful political party in Germany AND COMMUNIST in nature.
Both ideologies require the use of the government
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
originally posted by: daskakik
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Cartel failure does prove that unregulated competition is a viable theory.
One cartel failing doesn't prove anything. Besides, unregulated competition is one thing, AC is more than just that.
Another reason you are wrong is that unregulated competition is reasonable.
Anything reasonable is viable. That is why reason is a good thing. At the very least, reason gives a starting point one up from intuition.
Ok
Logically true.
However, no cartel has ever existed without violent suppression of the competition. The government supplies the violence in legal cartels.
But a government isn't needed unless it is a legal cartel.
An unfair cartel situation always offers a new company or a "cheater" a fortune in profits. Human nature will always take advantage of that.
Not if the cartel uses violent suppression.
Then what?
There is no proof that anarchy would kill more people than government did in the 20th century.
There is no proof that government is necessary.
originally posted by: daskakik
originally posted by: yesyesyes
You also need the government to ensure that companies adhere to a legal system which also applies to individuals.
Government becomes the arbitrator and mediators of individuals, and it applies a set of rules that set out the frame work of operation in all manners of society.
To be fair, you don't really need the government for that. One could use a system of private arbitrators.
Of course the thing that always bugged me is that you are still dealing with people who can be bought off or persuaded one way or another.
At that point AC claims to be be leery of government because of corruption but seems to place a lot of trust in people who can be just as corrupt. Almost like the goal is to just be anti-gov for the sake of being anti-gov.
The spectrum goes from no government power, Right, to total government power, Left.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Semicollegiate
The spectrum goes from no government power, Right, to total government power, Left.
Once again, that's not what those terms mean. Please do a little bit of research. You are confusing anarchy with totalitarianism.