"Marxists are clueless" (Funk N. Furter)

[Steve Ballmer]

Your ability to look things up is unparalleled. Thank you for confirming my points.

[Machinesworking]

I do not at all think the current system does, it's plainly obvious though that there are no constraints inherent in the alternatives either

"Lol!"

So, we here we have the following:

Steve: "The less state intervention, the more productive a society".
Machines: "But less state would mean less protection!".
Steve: "People are protected now?"
Machines: "No!"

Lies! I said that other states are not well protected in the current system. I thought that was clear enough, To use it to prop up Libertarianism is to use the same disingenuous "The whole world has to be Socialist for it to work" ruse that Funken uses. Otherwise please explain to me how a Libertarian state would choose to avoid doing business with a tyrannical state, not set up shops there because you can willfully pollute the environment, and use the local tyrannical government to their advantage? What I see clearly in your vision that you absolutely refuse to admit to is that a Libertarian state would allow business to do the same things they do in countries like Indonesia in our own countries. What blows me away again and again is you have no answer to that, and pretty much refuse to address it in favor of endless nitpicking and obfuscation.

But I am a huge fan of how you seem to believe that the current system somehow protects small countries. Like Afghanistan, for example.

I do not at all think the current system does, it's plainly obvious though that there are no constraints inherent in the alternatives either, and that they offer in fact less protection against tyranny and exploitation. The current system plots all us "little" people as both voters and consumers, which drives at least a tiny wedge between the interests of business and government. I'm distinctly not an idealist. After all governments and corporations are made up of people, not some nebulous "other".

[Steve Ballmer]

Lies! I said that other states are not well protected in the current system. I thought that was clear enough, To use it to prop up Libertarianism is to use the same disingenuous.

I'm terribly sorry, I did not mean to misrepresent you in any way. Allow me to reformulate my post to take into account this ever valid distinction:

Steve: "The less state intervention, the more productive a society".
Machines: "But less state would mean less protection for small states!".
Steve: "And are small states protected now?"
Machines: "No!"

My argument stands.

You absolutely refuse to admit to is that a Libertarian state would allow business to do the same things they do in countries like Indonesia in our own countries. What blows me away again and again is you have no answer to that, and pretty much refuse to address it in favor of endless nitpicking and obfuscation.

What blows me away is that you assume that I have no answer to this valid question, evidenced by the fact that you systematically include the same disparaging conclusion about my beliefs every time you broach the subject, before you even give me an opportunity to answer ("I see NOTHING in your philosophy that prevents the kind of corruption...", etc).

The first step to learning is to listen.

And the first step to teaching, apparently, is to be an incredibly condescending dick.



So the question you're asking, to formulate it in simple terms, is how would private property be protected in a libertarian society? Correct? I'm sorry if I'm "nitpicking", but as both you and McFunk have demonstrated a keen tendency to switch track as soon as one line gets shut down, I'd like to be very fucking clear about what your concern is.

Y'know.

[H20nly]

so if i vote libertarian corruption and abuse of finances, raw material, and of human needs and rights will evaporate? Is that correct?

[Steve Ballmer]

No. That is not correct.

[H20nly]

hmph... guess I'll have to try communism then...

[Steve Ballmer]

Wise choice. Communism can promise you 10x more productivity. I can only promise you 7.23x.

[H20nly]

I just want the earth massacre to stop

[Steve Ballmer]

Wise choice. Communism can promise you 10x more productivity. I can only promise you 7.23x.

Please explain why we have a global recession after 30 years of the kind of policies you advocate.

Please point out precisely which states were abolished.

[Steve Ballmer]

You want to abolish states? And replace them with what?

Ice-cream trucks.

[Steve Ballmer]

McFunk: "The crash of 2008 was caused by the gradual abolition of states that was carried out over 30 years".

This is a strange claim, especially since McFunk has already explained that Marxism also seeks to abolish the state. Perhaps then the crash was not only predicted, but also designed by Marxists. Forgive me as I reach for my tinfoil.

The Marxist approach to the state is fascinating though. Let's run through it again briefly, for clarity's sake (and note that I'm basing this entirely on what McFunk has said—I've given up quoting Marx directly, because 97.4% of everything he said was a critique of capitalism and thus out of context):

The Marx-Lenin-Trotsky Collective (MLTC) sought to abolish the state and replace it with a global monopoly of protection and regulation. Although this goal might seem akin to conventional statism, and even globalisation, the MLTC was able to demonstrate that A is not-A, and thus that their would-be state was a not-state. They were able to achieve this remarkable feat by looking at history and developing a brand new science—one that was so intelligent, it was able to disprove the law of identity before any studies were actually done.

McFunk notes, if you wish to learn more about this epoch-defining religion, please don't read any Marx or Wikipedia. Instead, YouTube should be your primary source.

Here's some KLF:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyEnyVMu7nA

[Steve Ballmer]

I often find reality to be hilarious, yes.

[Steve Ballmer]

You are so funny you should go and live on the funny farm.

I believe the word you're looking for is "gulag".

[Steve Ballmer]

I never said that, you know I never said it, and by saying this blatant untruth you are basically saying that you only have the one policy.

Yes, this is correct. My one and only policy is the abolishment of the state, which by your logic means that you did indeed say that "the crash of 2008 was caused by the gradual abolition of states that was carried out over 30 years".

So far, we have:

- Marxism is a science
- History is a science
- Theories are values of variables
- Over the past 30 years, all states have been abolished
- Marxists are clueless
- A=!A
- Nothing exists
- To deny that something is a science is to assert its falsehood
- People who disagree with the Plan should be sent to "farms"
- And of course the classic: "Value is objective (but only in capitalist societies!)"

This is why I come to this forum. For this.

[Steve Ballmer]

I believe the word you're looking for is "gulag".

maybe I can arrange a little trip for you

Sounds like a nice day out. Just you and me.