The failure of American style Libertarianism. - General

[QUOTE=sgman91;38591910]Since when did unemployment become the end all factor of economic success? How about growth rates? Every resource is scarce and has alternate uses. If the government mandates a resource is used it necessitates that it isn't being considered for all it's possible alternate uses.[/QUOTE] I was arguing against Sils claim that "High taxes = high unemployment". [editline]25th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;38591910]Just to add another thing: inflation is also another form of taxation.[/QUOTE] Except inflation is more desirable than deflation.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38591934]I was arguing against Sils claim that "High taxes = high unemployment".[/QUOTE] ... you responded to me... So I assumed it was aimed at my statement. Of course there are other factors involved. [QUOTE]Except inflation is more desirable than deflation.[/QUOTE] How about neither? The government should print only enough money to replace what falls out of circulation.

[QUOTE=sgman91;38591966]... you responded to me... So I assumed it was aimed at my statement. Of course there are other factors involved. How about neither? The government should print only enough money to replace what falls out of circulation.[/QUOTE] The government cannot perfectly control inflation (and isn't the sole source of it).

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38592023]The government cannot perfectly control inflation (and isn't the sole source of it).[/QUOTE] Just because something can't be done perfectly doesn't mean it shouldn't be done at all. Attempting to keep the money supply constant is much better than the using of inflation as an invisible tax on the people.

[QUOTE=sgman91;38592044]Just because something can't be done perfectly doesn't mean it shouldn't be done at all. Attempting to keep the money supply constant is much better than the using of inflation as an invisible tax on the people.[/QUOTE] Except governments try all the time to control inflation (especially by establishing central banks and putting strict regulations on the financial sector).

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38592202]Except governments try all the time to control inflation (especially by establishing central banks and putting strict regulations on the financial sector).[/QUOTE] Governments use inflation as a tool in most western governments.

[QUOTE=sgman91;38592841]Governments use inflation as a tool in most western governments.[/QUOTE] They also help to control it through regulation of the financial sector (which is more preferable to the alternative).

[QUOTE=Timebomb575;38558055]All you have to do is look at SH to see that most of oir government programs are inefficient and poorly managed compared to most first world countries.[/QUOTE] It's worth noting that the United States is unique in the first world in that it has a deep-seated hatred of bureaucracy, even though said bureaucracy is not technically part of the government. Maybe the issue isn't bureaucracy itself, but that the US is doing it wrong.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38592940]They also help to control it through regulation of the financial sector (which is more preferable to the alternative).[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Many western governments intentionally raise and lower inflation to reach certain economic goals. They don't just try to stabilize it, they use it as a tool. It really doesn't matter HOW they do it. [editline]25th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Canuhearme?;38593310]It's worth noting that the United States is unique in the first world in that it has a deep-seated hatred of bureaucracy, even though said bureaucracy is not technically part of the government. Maybe the issue isn't bureaucracy itself, but that the US is doing it wrong.[/QUOTE] Europe is also on the path of not being able to sustain itself with negative birth rates and can no longer support any sort of real military because all the money goes into welfare. Hell, many European countries aren't even economically solvent. Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Italy are all on the brink of going under.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38591888]There is no correlation between tax rates and unemployment.[/QUOTE] Yes there is, and there is causation due to the fact that tax hikes can cause short run lack of natural output. I've heard you talk about Keynes before but I have a feeling you just know what policies he advocated. I'm not sure you've studied any of his theories or know what he discovered. This is econ 103 stuff man.

[QUOTE=Strider*;38595516]Yes there is, and there is causation due to the fact that tax hikes can cause short run lack of natural output. I've heard you talk about Keynes before but I have a feeling you just know what policies he advocated. I'm not sure you've studied any of his theories or know what he discovered. This is econ 103 stuff man.[/QUOTE] Except the source cited showing different countries unemployment rates and tax rates implies the exact opposite.

I, personally, would argue that regulation in the market has a much larger negative effect than straight tax rate changes. Regulations cause inefficiency, waste, and high costs of entry by messing with supply and demand.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38595733]Except the source cited showing different countries unemployment rates and tax rates implies the exact opposite.[/QUOTE] Except tax cuts can be necessary when countries are facing a lack of aggregate demand or they can also arguably shift aggregate supply. If you don't understand a science why are you commenting on it? Strange that someone with no background in economics would write off Libertarian economic policies as implausible. [editline]25th November 2012[/editline] Tax rate changes are not always necessary or worthwhile but to say that tax cuts cannot lower unemployment is sheer nonsense

[QUOTE=sgman91;38596472]I, personally, would argue that regulation in the market has a much larger negative effect than straight tax rate changes. Regulations cause inefficiency, waste, and high costs of entry by messing with supply and demand.[/QUOTE] Arguing that regulations are bad is really kind of pointless. Just as there can be good or bad governments, there can be good or bad regulations. Regulations only create "inefficiency" if you're willing to sacrifice certain things for price and future stability. A good example of this is the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act]Glass-Steagall Act[/url] which prevented banks from making risky loans and becoming too big to fail. The gutting and eventual repeal by Bill Clinton lead to the Subprime Mortgate Crisis which is a huge factor in our current recession. Waste? Define waste and give examples, please. Regulations shouldn't create a high cost of entry, but I suppose that is what you get when you have lobbyists in the government (something I am completely for going against). [editline]25th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Strider*;38596594]Except tax cuts can be necessary when countries are facing a lack of aggregate demand or they can also arguably shift aggregate supply. If you don't understand a science why are you commenting on it? Strange that someone with no background in economics would write off Libertarian economic policies as implausible. [editline]25th November 2012[/editline] Tax rate changes are not always necessary or worthwhile but to say that tax cuts cannot lower unemployment is sheer nonsense[/QUOTE] Tax cuts can be useful in times, but tax increases can as well as they can lead to the government investing in infrastructure and other such public services, leading to more growth.

[QUOTE=Zally13;38596641] Tax cuts can be useful in times, but tax increases can as well as they can lead to the government investing in infrastructure and other such public services, leading to more growth.[/QUOTE] crowding out

i would like to just argue that the american style is not libertarianism in general. the founders of this country did not believe in total freedoms, and the constitution is a federalist system, which by definition is the exact opposite of libertarianism, where the citizens under the goverment give up certain freedoms to the goverment. the country was never libertarian to begin with, its only been in the last century that it has begun to change towards being a libertarian system

[QUOTE=Strider*;38596694]crowding out[/QUOTE] That's assuming that all tax breaks suddenly go into the economy, when oftentimes the rich may get richer as the poor may get poorer. There is a time and a place for tax cuts, I'm not saying there isn't, but to say it's always beneficial is rather silly in my opinion. [editline]25th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;38596710]i would like to just argue that the american style is not libertarianism in general. the founders of this country did not believe in total freedoms, and the constitution is a federalist system, which by definition is the exact opposite of libertarianism, where the citizens under the goverment give up certain freedoms to the goverment. the country was never libertarian to begin with, its only been in the last century that it has begun to change towards being a libertarian system[/QUOTE] I don't know if anyone's necessarily arguing that.

[QUOTE=sgman91;38596472]I, personally, would argue that regulation in the market has a much larger negative effect than straight tax rate changes. Regulations cause inefficiency, waste, and high costs of entry by messing with supply and demand.[/QUOTE] Let us imagine you put a regulation on the burning of coal. Industry is negatively affected due to cheap coal being no longer used. On the upside, the health of people, the environment, and air quality improves. Now, what is there to stop an unregulated system from burning all the coal it wants? [editline]26th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Strider*;38596594]Except tax cuts can be necessary when countries are facing a lack of aggregate demand or they can also arguably shift aggregate supply. If you don't understand a science why are you commenting on it? Strange that someone with no background in economics would write off Libertarian economic policies as implausible. [editline]25th November 2012[/editline] Tax rate changes are not always necessary or worthwhile but to say that tax cuts cannot lower unemployment is sheer nonsense[/QUOTE] The problem is when you cut taxes too much (the tax rate in America already being low, with tons of loopholes) then it causes problems. Also to further drive home the point, the original argument was "If you raise taxes, you raise unemployment". This hasn't happened in Europe. Denmark has an incredibly low unemployment rate despite high taxes. America has a higher rate of unemployment despite low taxes.

[QUOTE=Zally13;38596641]Regulations only create "inefficiency" if you're willing to sacrifice certain things for price and future stability. A good example of this is the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act"]Glass-Steagall Act[/URL] which prevented banks from making risky loans and becoming too big to fail. The gutting and eventual repeal by Bill Clinton lead to the Subprime Mortgate Crisis which is a huge factor in our current recession.[/QUOTE] To say the repeal of that law led to the crisis is completely ignoring all the governmental regulation that essentially forced banks to make bad loans while also limiting the credit agencies that banks were allowed to use. This led to banks making many more bad loans than they would have on their own and then being forced to assume the mortgages were safe investments because the specific agencies the government approved said so. Why do you think Fannie May and Freddie Mac were such big players? It's because they run as a semi governmental agency and make deals no truly private bank would make. [QUOTE]Waste? Define waste and give examples, please.[/QUOTE] About 4/5 of the fresh water used in California goes to the agriculture industry, but that same industry has their water subsidized by the government. That water is wasted, there's no other word for it. There is no reason water hungry crops should be grown in a semi-arid climate... and they wouldn't be if they didn't receive HUGE subsidies. On the percent water usage by agriculture: [URL]http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/03/13/us-water-agriculture-factbox-idUSTRE52C08M20090313[/URL] On the water subsidy: [URL]http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/bnelson/price_matters_-_water_conserva.html[/URL] This is just one simple example in a mountain of others. [QUOTE]Regulations shouldn't create a high cost of entry, but I suppose that is what you get when you have lobbyists in the government (something I am completely for going against).[/QUOTE] An entire essay on it: [URL]http://www.doingbusiness.org/~/media/fpdkm/doing business/documents/methodology/supporting-papers/db-methodology-regulation-of-entry.pdf[/URL] Regulations HUGELY increase the cost of entry into the market. [editline]25th November 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38596822]Let us imagine you put a regulation on the burning of coal. Industry is negatively affected due to cheap coal being no longer used. On the upside, the health of people, the environment, and air quality improves. Now, what is there to stop an unregulated system from burning all the coal it wants?[/QUOTE] Interestingly enough, pollution regulation is one of the only type I would agree with because it very strongly effects everyone, even if they didn't agree to it. Even with that said, you are ignoring the fact that those regulations will also cause energy prices to rise for all citizens which will in turn cause a rise in prices for essentially every good since it is all so dependent on energy costs. This rise in prices will hurt the poor more than anyone else.

[QUOTE=sgman91;38596966]Even with that said, you are ignoring the fact that those regulations will also cause energy prices to rise for all citizens which will in turn cause a rise in prices for essentially every good since it is all so dependent on energy costs. This rise in prices will hurt the poor more than anyone else.[/QUOTE] Would regulation of anti-biotics be wise too, for overuse of them leads to new strains that overuse can't be regulated by the market? What about safety regulations, given that employees will go for the highest paying jobs (which without regulation, means more wages to the workers), despite the fact it is damaging to health? What of poisonous substances used in manufacturing of various goods? These regulations will increase prices, but they will also reduce healthcare costs at the same time (since you don't need to spend money on people with various cancers or illnesses).

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;38597103]Would regulation of anti-biotics be wise too, for overuse of them leads to new strains that overuse can't be regulated by the market?[/QUOTE] We already give everyone antibiotics who needs them and the regulation of approving new medications leads to less being made. So I would argue that regulation actually increases the likelihood of new strains since it decreases the overall number of antibiotics. It is estimated that the Prescription Drug User Fee Acts saved ~"180 to 310 thousand life-years BETWEEN 19XX AND XXXX." ([URL]http://www.nber.org/digest/jun06/w11724.html[/URL]) This was a deregulation that allowed some expediting of new drugs through the FDA approval process which of course led to higher incentives for research and development. The medical field is really hard to talk about though because the massive amount of regulation within the system makes it almost useless to talk about any sort of free market effects. [QUOTE]What about safety regulations, given that employees will go for the highest paying jobs (which without regulation, means more wages to the workers), despite the fact it is damaging to health?[/QUOTE] Employees will not always go for the highest paying job, that is an incorrect assumption. For example: If I offer a McDonald's worker $100 an hour to work with uranium without any safety measures I would guess almost no one would take that job. Every worker weighs safety concerns with wages and decides whether the higher wages are worth it. So the question is whether we should allow the worker to decide what is best for them or if a politician should decide what is best for them. I'm all for information, but not for forcing. [QUOTE]What of poisonous substances used in manufacturing of various goods?[/QUOTE] People won't buy the product. Also, it's a false assumption that this doesn't happen even WITH regulation. Just look at the lead paint issues with some children's toys. The interesting thing is that the companies themselves were the ones to self regulate in most of those cases because they knew they would go bankrupt if the average consumer thought their products had lead in them. [QUOTE]These regulations will increase prices, but they will also reduce healthcare costs at the same time (since you don't need to spend money on people with various cancers or illnesses).[/QUOTE] Lower life expectancies actually lead to lower healthcare costs. The cost of social security, medicare, etc. for a person who lives a long time is much more expensive than the cost of medication and treatment when people get sick.

[QUOTE=sgman91;38597273]We already give everyone antibiotics who needs them and the regulation of approving new medications leads to less being made. So I would argue that regulation actually increases the likelihood of new strains since it decreases the overall number of antibiotics.[/QUOTE] This is factually wrong. Every time you give somebody an anti-biotic, there is a chance that a new superbug is going to emerge. Uncontrolled distribution of anti-biotics led to many new superbugs being created. [QUOTE]Employees will not always go for the highest paying job, that is an incorrect assumption. For example: If I offer a McDonald's worker $100 an hour to work with uranium without any safety measures I would guess almost no one would take that job.[/QUOTE] Between that and starving, somebody would take the job. [QUOTE]Every worker weighs safety concerns with wages and decides whether the higher wages are worth it. So the question is whether we should allow the worker to decide what is best for them or if a politician should decide what is best for them.[/QUOTE] Employers actually set the wages (and unions try to force them to change their minds). [QUOTE]People won't buy the product.[/QUOTE] People bought leaded petrol, burned coal, installed lead pipes in their homes and even bought radioactive products based on their apparent benefits. Even Hayek appreciated that regulation in that field was important. [QUOTE]Also, it's a false assumption that this doesn't happen even WITH regulation. Just look at the lead paint issues with some children's toys. The interesting thing is that the companies themselves were the ones to self regulate in most of those cases because they knew they would go bankrupt if the average consumer thought their products had lead in them.[/QUOTE] Also what do you mean it doesn't happen with regulation? Countries are banning lead paint now. [QUOTE]Lower life expectancies actually lead to lower healthcare costs. The cost of social security, medicare, etc. for a person who lives a long time is much more expensive than the cost of medication and treatment when people get sick.[/QUOTE] Except older people suffer from the same problems caused by pollution and all. If you bring in regulations, you remove a great deal of health problems for the entire population (with the remaining health problems being for a smaller segment of the population whose bodies are slowly failing).

First of all, can you please start sourcing your claims. You make pretty massive claims that go against normative economic theory that really require sourcing. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38597426]This is factually wrong. Every time you give somebody an anti-biotic, there is a chance that a new superbug is going to emerge. Uncontrolled distribution of anti-biotics led to many new superbugs being created.[/QUOTE] Different antibiotics attack bacteria in different ways. If you use a single type of antibiotic for a long time bacteria will become immune to its effects. A larger variety of antibiotics will allow us to attack bacteria in many different ways and will allow us to still kill bacteria that has grown immune to previous antibiotics. The efficacy of specific drugs is initially high, goes down over time, and then goes back up again when it falls out of use. [QUOTE]Between that and starving, somebody would take the job.[/QUOTE] I would rather give someone the choice of taking that job than starve. Would you rather them starve? [QUOTE]Employers actually set the wages (and unions try to force them to change their minds).[/QUOTE] Employers can only set wages that people are willing to take. Labor is a scarce resource just like everything else and the same rules of supply and demand apply. [QUOTE]People bought leaded petrol, burned coal, installed lead pipes in their homes and even bought radioactive products based on their apparent benefits. Even Hayek appreciated that regulation in that field was important.[/QUOTE] Yes, but that was out of ignorance. Regulations wouldn't have prevented those things because the government didn't know any more than about the dangers of lead, for example, than the anyone else. Can you show that the regulations are what stopped them from being used? [QUOTE]Also what do you mean it doesn't happen with regulation? Countries are banning lead paint now.[/QUOTE] Those types of things (lead paint) still happen with regulations in place because the government must first know what to regulate before it can even think about putting policies to regulate it. My argument is that by the time the regulatory agencies know about it the regulation is unnecessary because the business interest of those companies is already to stop doing it. [QUOTE]Except older people suffer from the same problems caused by pollution and all. If you bring in regulations, you remove a great deal of health problems for the entire population (with the remaining health problems being for a smaller segment of the population whose bodies are slowly failing).[/QUOTE] You can stop bringing up pollution. I've already agreed that is an acceptable type of regulation because it effects everyone, not just those agreeing to it. Can you provide specific examples of other things you are talking about?

[QUOTE=Zally13;38564418]Except that this doesn't always work in practice. The current companies providing oil could do so at a much cheaper price, except that they control nearly all reserves and it is very hard to start up an oil company. It's not cheap at all.[/quote] It's government regulation that makes it very hard to start up an oil company, not competition. [quote]Standard Oil for example, controlled 88% of oil in 1890, and this was prevented through law.[/quote] Yes, and that was a horrible, unjust decision, which promoted inefficiency and harmed consumers who had benefited from the falling prices. [quote]I also do not wish to have an environment that is filled with pollutants, which is happening and affecting everybody else around us. The only way we've actually made progress in this area is through legislation, once again.[/quote] No it's not, the legislation has only gotten in the way of legitimate business, forcing them to comply with expensive regulation that does nothing to protect anyone. [quote]The free market does not always work in the favor, and can create problems with health, worker's pay, and so forth.[/quote] What problems would it create? [quote]Of course, [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal]because candidates have never done the unpopular thing.[/url][/quote] Unconstitutional? Yes. Unpopular? Not really [quote]Restricting the amount of money individuals can give to a candidate and making it all grassroot donations sure would help, wouldn't it?[/quote] Not at all. The big guys would still have more influence than the average person, one way or another. [quote]How do you define defending yourself? What if you back up water on a river (on say, property you claim to own) in order to flood a field of crops so you can feed yourself and your family, but this causes another farm down the way to lose access to water. Who is in the right here? And who decides that?[/quote] Dispute resolution organizations. Third party arbitrators. [quote]How do you define who owns what property? If somebody takes it, is it not theirs? There wouldn't be a centralized law system that allows us to know what's going on.[/quote] Not if it was acquired illegitimately. [quote]Who legitimizes the private police? What rules would they follow? Again, who would force you to act in these situations? It would have to be the use of force, and he may have done something wrong according to one definition of the "law", while not wrong according to another definition.[/quote] You voluntarily transfer your right to self defense to a third party (the private police). [quote]Except that we do have things in place to protect us from the government. We can sue the government,[/quote] You can only sue the US government in certain, specific instances, the US government is otherwise immune from being sued. [quote]vote for candidates that we believe fit our beliefs,[/quote] So what gives anyone the right to decide who will get to control my life? [quote]and ultimately if that doesn't work, then you can also "run away". There are other areas that you can move to if you wish to not pay taxes.[/quote] Perhaps, but that doesn't legitimize anything the government does. [quote]Except that doing so would create even more coercive force.[/quote] No it wouldn't. [quote]What if I never agreed to this contract and I assaulted somebody on their property? Do they then have the right to still hold me to this contract?[/quote] If you never agreed to the contract then there was no contract in the first place. It would just be a simple case of you assaulting someone. [quote]Sounds like a pseudo-government. Of course, this wouldn't always be the case either. There will always be people willing to look the other way with "contracts". For example, in the case of a decentralized country (I use this term geographically, not lawfully), what prevents a man who sold bad food to somebody from moving across the country and setting up a new shop, possibly selling even more bad food?[/quote] If he sold bad food, people would very quickly stop eating it, and never buy from him again. He would be out of business and facing a lot of angry people. Why would anyone want to do that? Who would seriously go around trying to make a living by harming their customers? That doesn't make sense. [quote]That's hardly a good argument. I like many people having a say in things, because the government has done much more harm than good. The government does a good job at lowering wealth inequality (by providing options for people to get to the top),[/quote] What are those options? [quote]making good investments[/quote] Solyndra? The bailouts? The iraq war? [quote]and overall improving the quality of living.[/quote] It's the private sector that does that. The private sector is what drives innovation, technological advances, and increases in the standard of living, in spite of the government being in the way of doing so. [quote]I don't understand. This is defined as bad by the government, which derives its power from social contracts and the will of the people.[/quote] The social contract is bullshit, it doesn't exist. I'm not sure what you mean by the will of the people. The will of [i]some people[/i], maybe, not all. [quote]Nobody is preventing you from staying here like in North Korea (what a horrible example).[/quote] Why's it a horrible example? It's what happens when an entity with a monopoly on the use of coercive force establishes totalitarian control over a group of people. [quote]More than if I was born poor in a society that would have no way of helping me. There would be such a high wealth division it would be ridiculous.[/quote] No way of helping you? Would charity suddenly cease to exist? [quote]How would they profit off of those that can not afford police protection, insurance, or whatever system you would propose?[/quote] By offering cheaper services that they can afford. [quote]Did I ever defend Sobotnik in that regard? I'm saying that Cuba's healthcare became of much higher quality after it adopted a nationalized healthcare system. Everything is relative.[/QUOTE] Is it really of higher quality though? Do the majority of Cubans actually have access to "free", quality health care? [QUOTE=Zally13;38596641]Regulations only create "inefficiency" if you're willing to sacrifice certain things for price and future stability. A good example of this is the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act]Glass-Steagall Act[/url] which prevented banks from making risky loans and becoming too big to fail. The gutting and eventual repeal by Bill Clinton lead to the Subprime Mortgate Crisis...[/QUOTE] This claim comes up all the time, and it's false [quote]According to a 2009 policy report from the Cato Institute authored by one of the institute's directors, Mark A. Calabria, critics of the legislation feared that, with the allowance for mergers between investment and commercial banks, GLB allowed the newly-merged banks to take on riskier investments while at the same time removing any requirements to maintain enough equity, exposing the assets of its banking customers.[27][non-primary source needed] Calabria claimed that, prior to the passage of GLB in 1999, investment banks were already capable of holding and trading the very financial assets claimed to be the cause of the mortgage crisis, and were also already able to keep their books as they had.[27] He concluded that greater access to investment capital as many investment banks went public on the market explains the shift in their holdings to trading portfolios.[27] Calabria noted that after GLB passed, most investment banks did not merge with depository commercial banks, and that in fact, the few banks that did merge weathered the crisis better than those that did not.[27] In February 2009, one of the act's co-authors, former Senator Phil Gramm, also defended his bill: [I]f GLB was the problem, the crisis would have been expected to have originated in Europe where they never had Glass–Steagall requirements to begin with. Also, the financial firms that failed in this crisis, like Lehman, were the least diversified and the ones that survived, like J.P. Morgan, were the most diversified. Moreover, GLB didn't deregulate anything. It established the Federal Reserve as a superregulator, overseeing all Financial Services Holding Companies. All activities of financial institutions continued to be regulated on a functional basis by the regulators that had regulated those activities prior to GLB.[28] Bill Clinton, as well as economists Brad DeLong and Tyler Cowen have all argued that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act softened the impact of the crisis.[29][30] Atlantic Monthly columnist Megan McArdle has argued that if the act was "part of the problem, it would be the commercial banks, not the investment banks, that were in trouble" and repeal would not have helped the situation.[31] [/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act#Defense[/url]

Except Ayn Rand is always right duh [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debating" - Megafan))[/highlight]

All posters in this thread should know, making claims like this: [QUOTE=Noble;38621779]Unconstitutional? Yes. Unpopular? Not really The social contract is bullshit, it doesn't exist. I'm not sure what you mean by the will of the people. The will of [i]some people[/i], maybe, not all.[/QUOTE] Or this: [QUOTE=Sobotnik;38597103]These regulations will increase prices, but they will also reduce healthcare costs at the same time (since you don't need to spend money on people with various cancers or illnesses).[/QUOTE] Without any substantiation of data or research (of even the smallest kind) will warrant a ban. I'm giving you a warning now, so don't do it anymore.

[QUOTE=Megafan;38624642]All posters in this thread should know, making claims like this: Or this: Without any substantiation of data or research (of even the smallest kind) will warrant a ban. I'm giving you a warning now, so don't do it anymore.[/QUOTE] I was responding to claims that were put forward without evidence. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without evidence.

[QUOTE=Noble;38632698]I was responding to claims that were put forward without evidence. Asserted without evidence, dismissed without evidence.[/QUOTE] It's one thing to dismiss it as lacking in evidence. It's another entirely to dismiss it [I]and[/I] claim a counter-assertion.