>So, every method of organizing is silly? Then we're doomed, aren't we?
>Equally silly. Doesn't mean they don't all work. Just that faithfully
>adhering to one of anto3rh seems equally silly, as I don't believe any
>system works perfectly.
Ok, now I understand. You really should work on clarity of expression, Samael. Saying "every method is silly" is vastly different from saying "faithfully adhering to one method is silly".
That aside, I don't believe there's a "perfect" system either. That's a red herring.
The question is not "which system is perfect", but "which system works". This is the contention on the table: by overwhelming evidence as well as theory, market freedom works (best), and no alternative works (nearly as well).
Studying basic economics is enough to convince me on theoretical grounds; looking around at the world and reading history convinces me on empirical grounds.
This is what you need to argue against. Instead you throw up a strawman ("libertarians claim to have a perfect system") which is all too easy to knock down.
>>I care about people and I believe that in certain situations that people
>>ought to be helped.
To which I responded:
>If you really cared about people you wouldn't advocate forcing them, at
>gunpoint, to comply with your idea of "help".
You haven't addressed this. Where is your "compassion" if you believe in coercing others to implement your opinions?
>Those hundreds of thousands are starving due to governmental strangulation
>of markets under the guise of crackbrained socialist and interventionist
>So droughts, earthquakes and incursions from neighbouring states are all
>fault fo their governments?
Of course "natural" disasters are nobody's fault. The question is how well people are prepared to respond to them. Governmentalism stifles the ability to recover, by subverting market allocation processes.
As to incursions from neighboring states, *of course* that's the fault of "government" (probably including their "own"). Almost all wars are quarrels between states, no?
I wrote (not very diplomatically, I fear):
>You're betraying your ignorance of economics again.
>No, I just disagree with your interpretation of it.
I'm going to be blunt: please study economics starting at the beginning. I'm afraid you've missed something important.
In response to my observing your seeming support of short-term over
long-term gain, you wrote:
>Nope, because educating those people will get them to the same stage, in a
>shorter time, that the company would in a longer time.
Gee, I thought people were too stupid to be educated...? [wicked grin] You're not scoring high on the consistency meter today. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Please clarify.