How to Discombobulate Your Libertarian Friends

Packard, you're being unfair here. As much of a blowhard and bully as Storm can be, and as wrong as he might be, I've never seen him argue A <> A or just dismiss facts just because.

Some functions it makes sense to have monopoly power or central authority to run or to have the final say.

If Army Inc. did not have the same (ultimate) chain of command as Navy Co., that would lead to all sorts of problems.

If I could take a case against you to the People's Court and you could take the same case to Judge Judy, they could have different outcomes and there'd be no way to resolve them.

If not economical, what about ethical? Would there be a difference between ethical sense and economical sense?

I resemble that remark.

You're right. I don't think you should be allowed to do that if it's a business that is open to the public. Much like I don't believe that you should be able to discriminate against blacks, Asians or women.

And why did you say "that's what I wish to do with my property," instead of "IF that's what I wanted to do...?" Do you hate me today?

I haven't seen him do much of anything else for several years now.

I figured you knew I'm speaking hypothetically. You know I you.

Point is, I would make sure there's access, because I want the most customers. What I chafe at is being told I have to, and more importantly, I don't want to lose that market advantage on my competitor who isn't so accommodating.

Link me to one example.

That's all Storm ever does. I double dog dare you to find a post where he makes a concrete argument that doesn't rest on ad hominem, double standards, or dismissing obvious facts. Storm's all opinion, bluster, and insults.

Every post in this thread?

What if the demand is short of what's economical for a private company to offer an alternative?

This is one example of why "the market will provide" is insufficient as a salve for the ills of society. For there to be a market solution, it must be profitable for a company to offer it. Not only are there substantial start-up costs that must be considered, but there must be some assurance of reasonable profit. In the absence of the appropriate conditions, problems remain unsolved and people suffer when there are ways to alleviate that suffering.

For example, let's say that 5% of bus riders in the United States need help with stair climbing. Unfortunately, by objective economic measures taking into account design, development, production, and distribution costs, the minimum number of individuals that must purchase climbing aids in order for a company even to break even is 10% of all bus riders. How could the market provide a solution to the difficulty suffered by the 5% of bus riders if no company would risk entering the market given these conditions?

Yes. A lot of these people that are afraid their world would end under libertarian rule fail to take into account public relations. It would make a company look like shit if they didn't make their store wheelchair accessible. Or if a company didn't allow blacks and yellows from buying their stuff.

I've seen the argument made that if a business wants to discriminate, openly or covertly, they should be allowed to do so. They generally will be cutting their own throat for doing so, since competitors will swoop in on the business they are denying blacks, Asians or women and when word gets out about their discriminatory practices they will also likely take a hit.

Can't say I'm on that train, though.

Actually not neccessarilyh true. Remember, there are some cases where negative publicy only backfires. Or to quote, "there is no such thing as negative publicity".

It also depends on the spin, and the kind of clientel you wish to cater to.

Some people just don't want to cater to handicapped people.

Public transit is a bad example for you anyway because it is heavily subsidized as it is. Or do you think your $1.75 fare actually covers the cost of running the buses?

The point is, I reject the notion that accommodation is a personal responsibility. Maybe for your own house/van etc., but not the restaurant or the grocery store or any other facilities that are open to the public.

Universal design benefits or potentially benefits EVERYONE, so why shouldn't everyone share the cost?

There's no a priori reason to think that some brilliant entrepreneur will come up with "Disablity-Friendly Bus Co." and make a fortune capturing that market. 5 percent of all bus riders adds up to a lot of cheddar. Not to mention that Disabilty-Friendly might actually grow the market by attracting customers who aren't currently using buses.

One link won't do the trick, because the whole point is that he changes his standards for different contexts. The various infringements of other people's rights he'll allow himself for driving a car are just one example. For another, look at the flip-flops he did in this very thread between "I use loopholes in current tax legislation" and "I have the right to lie, bribe and withhold taxes illegally".

Again, not disagreeing about the bluster, etc. I've seen him deflect/ignore facts and go to insults when probably even he knows he's beat.

What I said is I've never seen him argue A<>A or deny obvious facts as Packard said he would.

Don't you have him on ignore?

Of course one link would do the trick. You could even provide the context in which he has argued A<>A or dismissed something that is blatantly true and relevant as false or irrelevant.

That you either can't or won't is pretty telling, IMO.

I don't see that as a flip-flop so much as a clarification (or possibly an ass-covering in case anyone figures out his true identity).

In any case, it's totally different from what you were originally accusing him of, as far as I can tell.

Since minorities are so rare in certain environments, it is quite possible for them to be completely shut out if businesses were free to discriminate because businesses would either feel it worthwhile to take the hit or wouldn't have any effective competition.

Hypothetical example: Whitesville is composed of 999 whites and 1 black. Each of the whites is a member of the local chapter of a white supremacist organization. It's forty miles from the nearest Safeway or Walmart. There's only one grocery store in town, which doubles as a general store, along with two gas stations. The closest gas station outside of town is also forty miles away.

The black resident is an employee of a small utility who's posted in Whitesville during the rainy season keep an eye on a critical switching station that occasionally gets flooded by the Whitesville River and who also provides other maintenance as needed within a thirty-mile radius.

The general store normally gets 200 customers a week who spend an average of $25 per visit for groceries. However, the number of customers fluctuates between 180 and 220 a week.

Each gas station normally gets 100 customers a week spending an average of $25 per visit. However, the number could fluctuate up to 100% per week when there's a price war.

The owners of the grocery store and both gas stations hate all minorities, and especially blacks. Each of them is willing to refuse to sell to the one black resident even at the cost of his money because the difference isn't significant to them. Their weekly fluctuations more than cover the loss of one customer many times over.

Given the above, absent laws against discrimination, how could the black person buy his daily groceries or fill up his gas tank if he prefers to buy locally?

The answer is that he cannot. Market forces will not make the grocery/general store or the gas stations sell their goods to him.

Magnify this extreme example by 300,000, and some of the problems of relying on market forces in the United States becomes clear. True, in no way is it true that most people in the United States are as discriminatory. However, the question is only one of degree, not principle. If it's worth it to businesses not to sell to minorities, then they'll do it. It could very well happen much more often than we would think.

What, to and fro several times? Then I can't help you.

I assume you meant that there's no a priori reason to think that.

As for your proposed solution, that's interesting, but since the 5% of bus riders are distributed throughout the city, it's highly unlikely that the same level of service could be provided at the same cost. Besides, why would it be more efficient to have more buses on the streets rather than fewer?

Here are the Storm posts on what he meant on taxation. I take it as a clarification. Show me the flip-flop.

That you or other people might have read more into them than he intended isn't his fault.

So you're saying he clarified

(1) "I evade taxes (and it's anyone's guess whether I do this by exploiting legal loopholes or by deceit and corruption)."

to

(2) "I evade taxes by exploiting legal loopholes."

Right?

Isn't that what I said? (except for the italics)

No one said the service would necessarily be at the same cost. Indeed, the cost probably should be more since the DFB Co. has presumably has greater capital costs and has to have its employees have special training to run the lift.

Then again, it's entirely possible that the service would be better/cheaper than making the entire line of buses in a city (or closer to it) disabled-friendly.

The service might take some other form altogether, more of a taxi form than standard bus lines.

Who knows?

The first point is there's no reason to think that a need would go unfulfilled if there were at all money in filling it. Eventually, someone would notice and come up with a way to do so at a projected profit.

The second point is that even if hypothetically the need would go unfulfilled, it is arguably better that that happen than people are forced to pay for it against their will.

You did. My mistake.

I think we'll have to disagree. Part of the point of being a nation is that costs are shared. This applies to all costs -- not just the ones you happen to agree with.

Further, if the costs are higher for private services, then the poor are disadvantaged. As a nation, our notion of equity means that we would rather place the burden on the better off than on the worse off. It is not self-evidently better that the better off share more in the burden than the poorer suffer unnecessarily. Nor is this a question of compulsion: Taxation is compulsory, anyway. As I've said many times: No one individual gets to decide what to do with his tax money once it leaves his hands, or else it wouldn't be tax money. An individual cannot choose on a case-by-case basis which taxpayer projects he wants to support and which he doesn't, except as a voter.

Still further, the difficulties suffered by 5% if they wait for the private service that may never come are far easier to discount if you're not one of them. Our society isn't one that makes people suffer if there is a better way that can be offered here and now, rather than at some point in the future. We're not a nation of pure capitalists that leave the poor to suffer their fate while waiting for some capitalist to shell out some money on a venture that would demand higher costs for quite possibly less convenient services.

Finally, I noticed that the fact that there would have to be more vehicles on the streets was not addressed in your response.

He said from the very first post "Think we don't have ways against your laws and limits and regulations?"

That's consistent with what he said in all the subsequent ones.

Just because he took a strident tone that helped people (including me) think that he meant that he used less scrupulous means of evading taxes doesn't mean that's what he actually said.

There's nothing contradictory in all those quotes of his that I assembled, and I don't think he's said anything since to contradict them either.

So much for that alleged flipping and flopping. What else you got?

Yes or no? I'm trying to figure out here how you don't see a glaring contradiction. You've got to help me.

OK, let's try this another way.

Is there a contradiction between the following statements:

"I'm so hungry! I'm going to shovel dinner in my mouth."

"I'm so hungry! I'm going to shovel dinner in my mouth with my fork."

To me, that's what the above is. (The only difference is that we all would assume that the speaker wasn't going to literally use a shovel to eat dinner.)

In the first quote, he never specified how he evaded the taxes, just that he did and he used laws and regulations to sidestep them. Everything in your parenthesis is your own assumption.

The latter part is elaborating on what he said. He apparently has one dodge where he's getting a tax break for "conserving" land he owns, thanks to a friendly appraiser.

It certainly isn't the flipping, flopping and then flipping again that you've accused Storm of.

No, let's not. I see a clear contradiction in what Storm said. You don't. I'm trying to figure out why. I made a guess how you might be reading Storm's posts. I've asked you twice to confirm or deny it. Would you please do so?