There is just too much for me to respond, I'll just choose a few points I want to discuss.

Quote:No, not really. Capitalism describes a system where industry and trade are run solely by private entities for profit. Great system if you happen to have money, pretty shitty if you don't. Or you have extravagant needs, like healthcare (which IMO, should not be a for-profit enterprise).

What's wrong with what I've written in defense of capitalism: "What do you mean by 'nasty'? If you mean 'wanting the best for themselves, and not caring too much about others', then it works most of the time. We don't expect our meal because a baker is a good person who wants to give everyone bread, but because he makes money by making bread. But you know when it doesn't work? It's when government tells people what to do."?

Quote:A shit ton of medical research is done by colleges, which are funded by..to a large degree.. wait for it... the government. That doesn't stop corporations from price gauging you for the drugs your money paid to research.

What's your evidence that government is good at deciding what part of science to invest in? To me it seems it's terrible at it. It produced dangerous weapons. And today, it invests in Artificial Intelligence, and tell me we are sure it won't lead to apocalypse this century.

Quote:Try to establish a makeshift local government as fast as possible so you don't get your wife raped and your stuff taken by bigger, stronger neighbors

Why do you guys think police helps decreasing violence? I've explained why I think police might actually increase violence: "Government isn't actively trying to protect us. It only intervenes when a psychopath has already murdered someone. And then they put him not to a place where he will rehabilitate, but to a place from where he returns with even more psychological problems, which made him murder in the first place. For all we know, they could in fact be making things worse.".

This sort of freshman-level oversimplification would be annoying if wasn't just so fuckin' boring.

(September 7, 2017 at 10:58 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(September 7, 2017 at 9:46 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Uh, no.  "Emergency powers" were enacted after Hitler had been appointed chancellor by Hindenburg.  It had nothing to do with Hitler being appointed in the first place.

Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor using article 48 of the Weimar constitution.   Article 48 was part of the original constitutional framework that gave Weimar Republic its appearance of democracy.  While it gave the president the right to issue emergency decrees, these decrees are part of the constitution's system of Checks and balances.  It's own check and balance is the fact that emergency decrees issued under article 48 can be cancelled or voided by a simple majority vote in the Reichstag.  Furthermore, the use of article 48 is far from Un usual.  It was invoked at least 140 times during Weimar republic's 14 year existence, many during the period the period between hyperinflation of the early 20s and the depression at the end of the 1920s, when Weimar democracy is considered to have functioned most smoothly.

So Hitler certainly gained power through a basic and commonly used mechanism of the Weimar democratic framework.  The democracy also had a constitutional check against this mechanism, a simple majority reichstag vote to void Hitler's appointment.  It did not so act.

This doesn't void my objection, firstly, because Hindenburg had been operating under emergency powers since 1930 without Reichstag reproval, and secondly, because there's a big difference between appointment and election, your protests notwithstanding.  

Your comparison is stilted at best. Hitler was appointed. Trump wasn't. Sorry. It was no democratic process that placed Hitler in power. It was the exercise of decree.

The fact that the Reichstag didn't vote "no confidence" prior to the Enabling Act which mooted even the appearance of democracy in Germany does not obviate the fact that Hitler was not emplaced by any vote. There was only six weeks between his appointment and that act, six weeks occasioned by the Reichstag being fired up and scapegoats being hunted.

Let us know when this has happened here. Until then, your comparison is overdrawn.

The difference is not a really a qualitative one. Hindenburg was elected.  Appointing hitler through article 48 was part of the authority granted him by the constitutional system under which he was elected. The constitutional system empowers the reichstag to void the appointment by a simple majority.  It did not do so.  Hitler would not have won an election outright, but he certainly would have won a sizeable plurality of votes.   It was his ability to command a plurality that recommended him for the constitutional article 48 process.

Trump too won through a constitutional mechanism, just like Hitler. The fact that the mechanism happen to operate at the same time as an election does not make it more democratic than a mechanism that is part of the democratic framework but not part of an election, at least not if by democratic one means what it has come to mean since democracy has trumped the republic as indication of enlightened exercise of popular will. Trump won neither majority nor plurality. He won through a parallel mechanism that is republican, but not democratic in itself.

(September 8, 2017 at 9:07 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: This sort of freshman-level oversimplification would be annoying if wasn't just so fuckin' boring.

Reminds me when some Chinese politician, during the Mao's Great Famine, dared to state the obvious fact: "There is no food!". Mao responded to him with: "That's the right-wing way of thinking. You are looking at it too simplistically."

(September 8, 2017 at 9:13 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(September 8, 2017 at 9:07 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: This sort of freshman-level oversimplification would be annoying if wasn't just so fuckin' boring.

Reminds me when some Chinese politician, during the Mao's Great Famine, dared to state the obvious fact: "There is no food!". Mao responded to him with: "That's the right-wing way of thinking. You are looking at it too simplistically."

Your thought process is "if a government has ever done a bad thing, all governments and forms of government are bad."  That is so sophomoric I don't even want to get into a conversation with you to explain why.

Anarchists and capital-L libertarians have a faith in people that isn't in me.

(September 8, 2017 at 9:15 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(September 8, 2017 at 9:13 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Reminds me when some Chinese politician, during the Mao's Great Famine, dared to state the obvious fact: "There is no food!". Mao responded to him with: "That's the right-wing way of thinking. You are looking at it too simplistically."

Your thought process is "if a government has ever done a bad thing, all governments and forms of government are bad."  That is so sophomoric I don't even want to get into a conversation with you to explain why.

When has a government ever done a good thing? I mean, sure, politicians usually have good intentions, but when have their policies ever achieved what they were intended to?

(September 8, 2017 at 9:24 am)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(September 8, 2017 at 9:15 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Your thought process is "if a government has ever done a bad thing, all governments and forms of government are bad."  That is so sophomoric I don't even want to get into a conversation with you to explain why.

When has a government ever done a good thing? I mean, sure, politicians usually have good intentions, but when have their policies ever achieved what they were intended to?

Bolded mine.  You are pants-on-head levels of delusional, kid. Just off the top of my head, the US highway system comes to mind, since I use it pretty much every day.

FlatAssembler Wrote:

FatAndFaithless Wrote:This sort of freshman-level oversimplification would be annoying if wasn't just so fuckin' boring.

Reminds me when some Chinese politician, during the Mao's Great Famine, dared to state the obvious fact: "There is no food!". Mao responded to him with: "That's the right-wing way of thinking. You are looking at it too simplistically."

It reminds you of a complete fabrication?

I'm afraid of anarchy mainly because anarchists can't spell 'afraid'.

Boru