Evidence is how we separate opinion from fact. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. I have backed my opinions with data on how we know what works and what doesn't, at least when it comes to human outcomes. As Roosevelt reminded us nearly a hundred years ago, "necessitous men are not free men."
The policies you endorse do not promote freedom for any but an elite few. You are full of claims for how you think the world should work but that has no bearing on what is actually true. For that you need evidence.
So don't complain to me that you're bringing a knife to a gun fight. Present your evidence or get out of the way.
@shiranaihito - Evidence is how we separate opinion from fact.
There's no such thing as a square circle. Do you want evidence, or is logic enough?
I have backed my opinions with data on how we know what works and what doesn't
No, you haven't. That's what I'm saying. You have pasted a shitload of links at me, inviting me to go read them to find support for your case, whatever it might be. That's not how you debate people.
The policies you endorse do not promote freedom for any but an elite few.
That's complete horseshit, considering I haven't endorsed any "policies". In fact, I endorse having no policies at all, i.e. a free market. That's also horseshit because what I actually do endorse, promotes freedom for everyone.
So don't complain to me that you're bringing a knife to a gun fight. Present your evidence or get out of the way.
So you demand evidence from me, but don't hold yourself to any sound debating standards, as shown by your false claim above about the "policies" I endorse. Does that sound fair?
The definition of "freedoms" is kind of vague here, so unless taxes can be considered a violation of our "freedom" to use our property as we see fit, let's move on to regulations.
There is no need for evidence here. Regulations are laws, and laws are commands that say either that you must do X, or that you can't do Y. As such, laws are clearly "holding back our freedoms", because they all limit our choices.
See? Was that so hard?
I see, so I have to back up my assertions but you don't? In fact, your assertion is demonstrably wrong.
I pointed out that taking money from some and giving it to others, minus "costs", is actually a negative sum game.
There's no such thing as a square circle. Do you want evidence, or is logic enough?
Mathematics and logic can only take you so far. When you're talking about policies that have real-world consequences then you need to support your claims with evidence. Square circles are not relevant to this conversation, the impact of economic and political policies are.
No, you haven't. That's what I'm saying. You have pasted a shitload of links at me, inviting me to go read them to find support for your case, whatever it might be. That's not how you debate people.
Yes, I have. I have made claims, and then I have provided sources for how I know those claims to be true. Furthermore, I have provided sources for how I know your claims are not true. I have done my due diligence. Whether or not you care enough to follow through is your concern.
That's complete horseshit, considering I haven't endorsed any "policies". In fact, I endorse having no policies at all, i.e. a free market. That's also horseshit because what I actually do endorse, promotes freedom for everyone.
The "free market" is, in fact, a policy position. I have presented evidence that your "free market" is a utopian fantasy, that the closer we get to creating it the worse off everyone's lives become except for an elite few. I have furthermore presented evidence that carefully managed economies -- not the Soviet-style Communist dictatorships that you like to reference as the only example of a managed economy -- not only create better results for everyone but they create more freedom for everyone involved. You "know" your free-market ideals are true because you have faith. I know your free-market ideals are wrong because I have evidence.
So you demand evidence from me, but don't hold yourself to any sound debating standards, as shown by your false claim above about the "policies" I endorse. Does that sound fair?
I held myself to the same standards I hold you to. Your problem is that you don't have anything to support your claims, merely assertions. I know this because if you did have anything to back up your claims you would have presented them already. Consequently, this discussion is finished, barring any evidence in support of your assertions.
It's not, and especially not because I didn't even bring it up before you made your claim about the "policies" I endorse. You're being (intellectually) dishonest again.
Also, a policy is based on "regulations", which are laws, which are commands that you're punished for disobeying.
In other words, a policy is based on coercion, and a free market requires an absence of that.
I have furthermore presented evidence that carefully managed economies [..] not only create better results for everyone but they create more freedom for everyone involved.
"Managing" an economy involves coercion, because without it, people would just do whatever they wanted. So basically you're saying that intervening in people's freedoms "creates more freedom". Black is white. Up is down.
But I'll just stop here because I think you're a psychopath and just playing games with me.
Evidence is how we separate opinion from fact. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. I have backed my opinions with data on how we know what works and what doesn't, at least when it comes to human outcomes. As Roosevelt reminded us nearly a hundred years ago, "necessitous men are not free men."
The policies you endorse do not promote freedom for any but an elite few. You are full of claims for how you think the world should work but that has no bearing on what is actually true. For that you need evidence.
So don't complain to me that you're bringing a knife to a gun fight. Present your evidence or get out of the way.
There's no such thing as a square circle. Do you want evidence, or is logic enough?
No, you haven't. That's what I'm saying. You have pasted a shitload of links at me, inviting me to go read them to find support for your case, whatever it might be. That's not how you debate people.
That's complete horseshit, considering I haven't endorsed any "policies". In fact, I endorse having no policies at all, i.e. a free market. That's also horseshit because what I actually do endorse, promotes freedom for everyone.
So you demand evidence from me, but don't hold yourself to any sound debating standards, as shown by your false claim above about the "policies" I endorse. Does that sound fair?
Also, you conveniently ignored these:
The definition of "freedoms" is kind of vague here, so unless taxes can be considered a violation of our "freedom" to use our property as we see fit, let's move on to regulations.
There is no need for evidence here. Regulations are laws, and laws are commands that say either that you must do X, or that you can't do Y. As such, laws are clearly "holding back our freedoms", because they all limit our choices.
See? Was that so hard?
I pointed out that taking money from some and giving it to others, minus "costs", is actually a negative sum game.
How is the minimum wage related to my claim?
Mathematics and logic can only take you so far. When you're talking about policies that have real-world consequences then you need to support your claims with evidence. Square circles are not relevant to this conversation, the impact of economic and political policies are.
Yes, I have. I have made claims, and then I have provided sources for how I know those claims to be true. Furthermore, I have provided sources for how I know your claims are not true. I have done my due diligence. Whether or not you care enough to follow through is your concern.
The "free market" is, in fact, a policy position. I have presented evidence that your "free market" is a utopian fantasy, that the closer we get to creating it the worse off everyone's lives become except for an elite few. I have furthermore presented evidence that carefully managed economies -- not the Soviet-style Communist dictatorships that you like to reference as the only example of a managed economy -- not only create better results for everyone but they create more freedom for everyone involved. You "know" your free-market ideals are true because you have faith. I know your free-market ideals are wrong because I have evidence.
I held myself to the same standards I hold you to. Your problem is that you don't have anything to support your claims, merely assertions. I know this because if you did have anything to back up your claims you would have presented them already. Consequently, this discussion is finished, barring any evidence in support of your assertions.
It's not, and especially not because I didn't even bring it up before you made your claim about the "policies" I endorse. You're being (intellectually) dishonest again.
Also, a policy is based on "regulations", which are laws, which are commands that you're punished for disobeying.
In other words, a policy is based on coercion, and a free market requires an absence of that.
"Managing" an economy involves coercion, because without it, people would just do whatever they wanted. So basically you're saying that intervening in people's freedoms "creates more freedom". Black is white. Up is down.
But I'll just stop here because I think you're a psychopath and just playing games with me.
[This comment was removed]
So because you can't debate me in your own words, you resort to linking to some propaganda bullshit?