Favorite War Room Posters

[Cubo de Sangre]

hard to have a discussion if you dont define the terms before hand and then change them afterwards. the question was whether the government enables the accumulation of wealth

its not hard to imagine an ancap society where people accumulate wealth

im aware that gates and zuckerberg had protection of their intellectual property, which is why i added "it would not be hard to imagine doing a similar thing without the governments help"

i used them as an example because you brought them up. if you would like to look at other examples, you could look at how al capone, pablo escobar and el chapo became wealthy. you could argue that they benefited from government-caused scarcity, but they managed to create a product, deliver it to the consumer, receive payment, then protect their wealth from theft through private protection paid through their own profits

Disregarding the intellectually stunting semantic debate, you've glossed over the issue of copyrights and patents. How can their holders make the same money if everyone else can duplicate their products and strive to bring them to the marketplace cheaper? Unlike you, I don't need to imagine anything for the answer to be obvious. We've real world examples where profits go down. Just ask Colt how the proliferation of AR15 manufacturers hurt their business once the patent expired.

Your prohibition kingpins example you've already undermined by pointing out the artificial risk and scarcity provided by the government. Those factors drive up price and erect barriers to entry. This in turn drives profit for the few.

Police forces are funded by the many, not the few, via sales and property taxes. All collected by a government. Enabled by adherence and compliance. Without such, life at the top would be short and the downfall swift and brutal.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Sure. I agree he's very good in many respects. But if the content bores me (i.e. Venezuela) then what? At some point I think it's the subject matter attracting you as well. So at then it becomes a matter of topics you like.

Drive it home for me though. Pick one of my threads and (within it) tell me how the OP and subsequent discussion I engage in comes up short. I'd appreciate the learning experience since my threads generate jack and shit for traffic.

I almost always look at your threads man.

A lot of it is the presentation I guess. He innovated a bit with how he builds threads. It really was brilliant realizing that the number of views, precipitated more views, and starting a new thread for a different take on the same issue was detrimental to driving traffic. Won him points with mods to boot I'm sure.

His knowledge on certain issues helps a lot as well. I guess another part of my respect for arkane as a poster has to do again with that Venezuela thread, where I didn't even really try and make my case that our meddling played a larger role then he gives credit for, because I saw quickly that I just didn't know enough about Venezuela to even really enter into a debate with him.

Edit: Just had an idea, we could adapt his thread idea, with coalitions of posters. We could try and get all our civil libertarians to agree to post all stories in this realm in one mega thread, with a pm to ts, to update the title for a new story. I think it could result in driving traffic to the civil liberties discussion.

 

[hillelslovak87]

 

[The Catch-Wrestler]

Virtually everyone @splendica (an excellent poster himself) has mentioned here I am in complete agreement with. Kone, Pale Horse, Slippery, Foniks, sodapop, Pwent, Thunderflash, Dynamic Loosener, Cubo de Sangre (great guy), vivarevolution, Palis, Ripskater, M4taton. A few others would be Devoutpessimest, Snake Plissken, dontsnitch.

All good posters who generally contribute rational opinions.

And the fella that debated in the abortion thread, the gentleman who made reference to having a logical debate within a Kantian framework. Intelligent poster, don't remember the poster's name. Refreshingly intelligent.

And I figured it'd be worth mentioning, ironically, that a terrible poster is the guy with the username Rational Poster. Who'd have thought?

Spoiler

Who feels the need to NAME themselves 'rational poster'... you just know the quality of his posts will be awful. It's similar to having one's name legally changed to "Intelligent Person" in a desperate bid to feel even the slightest intellectual validation. It's akin to someone who wants to be taken seriously when delivering an introduction before giving a public speech. In Rational Poster's case, the solitary source of his public speech would undoubtedly occur during court-mandated AA meetings.

Just giving the guy a hard time, it's just a terrible username (in my humble opinion) and even if he were an excellent poster I'd still give him shit about it, and I suppose it seemed appropriate to mention here. Because he's the opposite of an excellent poster. I guess he contributes in his own little way. But as to him posting anything rational? Virtually never.

And IDL is 100x the poster savage has ever been or could ever be. It's not even a proper comparison, quite frankly.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I almost always look at your threads man.

A lot of it is the presentation I guess. He innovated a bit with how he builds threads. It really was brilliant realizing that the number of views, precipitated more views, and starting a new thread for a different take on the same issue was detrimental to driving traffic. Won him points with mods to boot I'm sure.

His knowledge on certain issues helps a lot as well. I guess another part of my respect for arkane as a poster has to do again with that Venezuela thread, where I didn't even really try and make my case that our meddling played a larger role then he gives credit for, because I saw quickly that I just didn't know enough about Venezuela to even really enter into a debate with him.

Thanks dude. And likewise.

I try to keep adding to my old threads. The problem there is it just brings in tired old discussion from people who comment on the original OP without reading anything subsequent. But it does drive up post count and views.

My OP's are usually of a philosophical nature so only so much prior knowledge is required. He's got me beat there for sure. Outside of 2nd Amendment issues I don't really follow much in depth. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

... Cubo de Sangre (great guy), ...

Looking at join date and posts...

 

[Pwent]

Disregarding the intellectually stunting semantic debate, you've glossed over the issue of copyrights and patents. How can their holders make the same money if everyone else can duplicate their products and strive to bring them to the marketplace cheaper? Unlike you, I don't need to imagine anything for the answer to be obvious. We've real world examples where profits go down. Just ask Colt how the proliferation of AR15 manufacturers hurt their business once the patent expired.

Your prohibition kingpins example you've already undermined by pointing out the artificial risk and scarcity provided by the government. Those factors drive up price and erect barriers to entry. This in turn drives profit for the few.

Police forces are funded by the many, not the few, via sales and property taxes. All collected by a government. Enabled by adherence and compliance. Without such, life at the top would be short and the downfall swift and brutal.

i didnt gloss over them. they contribute to how some people have built wealth, but i have proven it is possible to build wealth without them

youre the one who turned this into a semantic game. the original argument was jack stating that if you dont want the government redistributing wealth downwards, then you are actually redistributing wealth upwards because people in the bottom brackets wont be able to move upwards without the government interfering

and you turned it into an argument on whether bill gates and mark zuckerberg could become billionaires in a rothbardian society and the role of police.

i never said that we should abolish government, my original argument was that people could become wealthy without the government redistributing money to them. i was simply proving that people could become billionaires without the help of the government because you suggested that i couldnt

 

[The Catch-Wrestler]

Looking at join date and posts...

Lol. Your avatar tells me everything I need to know - you have good taste.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

i didnt gloss over them. they contribute to how some people have built wealth, but i have proven it is possible to build wealth without them

youre the one who turned this into a semantic game. the original argument was jack stating that if you dont want the government redistributing wealth downwards, then you are actually redistributing wealth upwards because people in the bottom brackets wont be able to move upwards without the government interfering

and you turned it into an argument on whether bill gates and mark zuckerberg could become billionaires in a rothbardian society and the role of police.

i never said that we should abolish government, my original argument was that people could become wealthy without the government redistributing money to them. i was simply proving that people could become billionaires without the help of the government because you suggested that i couldnt

I'm sorry. But you did noting to show how wealth (in significant terms, not merely the low-level relative kind) in the real world isn't derived from taking advantage of government. You saying something and those words being proof aren't the same thing.

No, you wanted to play dumb on what "wealthy" is in today's society and talk about perishable items like coconuts. You should be able to apply our discussion to Jack's point by now. But let me help you along since you aren't. The government is enabling the accumulation of wealth as has been shown. Without a mechanism to redistribute some to the poor (i.e. downwards) then you have a system that merely distributes it upwards. Looks like you might not even grasp Jack's point to begin with, which pretty much demonstrates you not being on his level when it comes to economics.

Sorry. I still think you'd be one of the cooler dudes around here to hang out with.

 

[Pwent]

I'm sorry. But you did noting to show how wealth (in significant terms, not merely the low-level relative kind) in the real world isn't derived from taking advantage of government. You saying something and those words being proof aren't the same thing.

No, you wanted to play dumb on what "wealthy" is in today's society and talk about perishable items like coconuts. You should be able to apply our discussion to Jack's point by now. But let me help you along since you aren't. The government is enabling the accumulation of wealth as has been shown. Without a mechanism to redistribute some to the poor (i.e. downwards) then you have a system that merely distributes it upwards. Looks like you might not even grasp Jack's point to begin with, which pretty much demonstrates you not being on his level when it comes to economics.

Sorry. I still think you'd be one of the cooler dudes around here to hang out with.

el chapo and pablo escobar wouldnt have been able to get rich without government? even if there werent governments creating artificial scarcity, without a government protecting their opponents, they could simply destroy the competition and create the same level of scarcity

the possibilities of wealth without government interference are laid out pretty clearly by murray rothbard, and arent very controversial in possibility, only efficacy

your argument that nobody could become as wealthy as bill gates without the government protecting them, actually argues against jacks position, that without the government actively fighting against it, all wealth would flow upwards. how do you reconcile holding both of those views?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

so el chapo and pablo escobar wouldnt have been able to get rich without government? even if there werent governments creating artificial scarcity, without a government protecting their opponents, they could simply destroy the competition and create the same level of scarcity

your argument that nobody could become as wealthy as bill gates without the government protecting them, proves my point against jacks argument, that without the government actively fighting against it, all wealth would flow upwards.

Without accumulating resources through government scarcity those dudes wouldn't have had the power to destroy the competition and there wouldn't have been so little competition that it could be destroyed without it easily popping back up.

You should show you understand Jack's argument. Yes or no, do you agree that government enforced laws enable wealth accumulation via the mechanisms discussed?

 

[splendica]

Virtually everyone @splendica (an excellent poster himself) has mentioned here I am in complete agreement with. Kone, Pale Horse, Slippery, Foniks, sodapop, Pwent, Thunderflash, Dynamic Loosener, Cubo de Sangre (great guy), vivarevolution, Palis, Ripskater, M4taton. A few others would be Devoutpessimest, Snake Plissken, dontsnitch.

All good posters who generally contribute rational opinions.

And the fella that debated in the abortion thread, the gentleman who made reference to having a logical debate within a Kantian framework. Intelligent poster, don't remember the poster's name. Refreshingly intelligent.

And I figured it'd be worth mentioning, ironically, that a terrible poster is the guy with the username Rational Poster. Who'd have thought?

Spoiler

Who feels the need to NAME themselves 'rational poster'... you just know the quality of his posts will be awful. It's similar to having one's name legally changed to "Intelligent Person" in a desperate bid to feel even the slightest intellectual validation. It's akin to someone who wants to be taken seriously when delivering an introduction before giving a public speech. In Rational Poster's case, the solitary source of his public speech would undoubtedly occur during court-mandated AA meetings.

Just giving the guy a hard time, it's just a terrible username (in my humble opinion) and even if he were an excellent poster I'd still give him shit about it, and I suppose it seemed appropriate to mention here. Because he's the opposite of an excellent poster. I guess he contributes in his own little way. But as to him posting anything rational? Virtually never.

And IDL is 100x the poster savage has ever been or could ever be. It's not even a proper comparison, quite frankly.

That was a great read, thanks.

 

[Pwent]

Without accumulating resources through government scarcity those dudes wouldn't have had the power to destroy the competition and there wouldn't have been so little competition that it could be destroyed without it easily popping back up.

You should show you understand Jack's argument. Yes or no, do you agree that government enforced laws enable wealth accumulation via the mechanisms discussed?

that wasnt his argument. you are conflating social mobility without wealth redistribution with the potential of wealth accumulation without government protection. those are two different things, however both are possible

you also didnt respond on how you reconcile those two views
-you cannot become bill gates rich without the government protecting you
-without government interference, all wealth is funneled to the rich

wealth accumulation is possible outside of government, because theoretically private organizations can perform any functions necessary to preserve growing wealth. we established in the gates/zuckerberg example, that the necessary steps to wealth accumulation are producing a product/service, delivering a countless amount to the consumer, and protecting the wealth afterwards. drug cartels are able to do all of this without help from the government. you can add "create scarcity by removing competition" to that list

to that point, i disagree that he wouldnt have the power to destroy competition. if the argument is "there would be so many popping up outside of his ability to shut them down" those are the same amount popping up outside of the governments ability to shut them down

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

that wasnt his argument.

I just had this discussion with Jack so since you refuse to answer a simple question to facilitate establishing what the argument is then I'm done. I'll let him take it from here if he's so inclined. Cheers.

 

[Pwent]

I just had this discussion with Jack so since you refuse to answer a simple question to facilitate establishing what the argument is then I'm done. I'll let him take it from here if he's so inclined. Cheers.

that was his argument he had with me, that if you are not for redistributing wealth downwards, than you are actually for redistributing wealth upwards since without government prevention, all wealth would flow upwards

he used it as a larger argument that right wingers are for wealth redistribution, but towards the rich, for the above reasons

if he had a second argument with you, or added upon it with you. i cant comment

 

[tonni]

i love it when @HomerThompson throws a sausage

 

[Rational Poster]

LOL! Really? Really...? You can't understand one bit why @Jack V Savage would get shit from other posters, especially from the right? Jesus. You literally quoted him saying that the right is angry and the left are all normal people. I mean, the left isn't driven by anger? Antifa anyone? Or how about on page 1 of this thread



He's talking shit because this thread was started by a right leaning poster. Or how about @Trotsky the other day wishing Ben Shapiro dies from cancer because he disagrees with his politics.



That's NOT ANGRY!? HAha. You see posts like this all the time in the war room yet the right is hateful and driven by fear? Give me a fucking break. Both parties are the same, just on different ends of the spectrum.

In other words, the reason why Jack gets shit on is because he's full of shit. He's also not as smart as he thinks he is. If you look at his posts, he's one of those quantity over quality posters. He'll always type up these long posts to try to be perceived like he's smart but in reality 95% of his post is baseless bullshit drivel and only 5% is a thoughtful argument. He's also a better manipulator than he is a decent arguer. Whenever he gets backed up into a corner (which happens a lot) he'll try to deflect and change the argument to try to act like you're the one who is in the wrong. Moving the goal posts is one of his best moves when he's losing an argument. Oh not to mention he'll throw in personal insults when he's getting beat down by someone in a thread. He's also extremely biased yet is unwilling to admit it. I mean he says the right is angry and the left isn't, then goes to list all these posters he likes and ironically they are all left leaning posters.

He also has an absolute shitty sense of humor. His jokes are fucking terrible and you can tell he doesn't laugh at lot in real life. He'd be so fucking boring to hang out with. It would be like watching a retard trying to play patty cake.

@KONE @lecter @ripskater @Pwent @Devout Pessimist @GearSolidMetal @Dr J @Slippery Kantus @klnOmega @RhinoRush can all agree with this sentiment. Because we see it from another perspective. Jack's perspective is that he's 100% right the left is 100% correct and everything else is wrong.

Next time just say Jack Savage is a left wing pussy and you agree with him because of it. Thanks.

No, I think @Jack V Savage's position is that he is right and all you idiots on this forum are wrong.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I just had this discussion with Jack so since you refuse to answer a simple question to facilitate establishing what the argument is then I'm done. I'll let him take it from here if he's so inclined. Cheers.

You've done well. Pwent is fundamentally dishonest and/or unable to grasp any nuance, though.

that was his argument he had with me, that if you are not for redistributing wealth downwards, than you are actually for redistributing wealth upwards since without government prevention, all wealth would flow upwards

Wrong. Gov't policy defines wealth. No gov't at all=some form of communism.

I think @Jack V Savage is a bit smug and I think that he does shift the focus of his argument to avoid conceding certain points, but he definitely has a way more subtle read on politics than literally every minion you tagged.

I don't think that's ever happened, though if you have any examples, I'll check them out. I'm also really not smug, though there is a challenge in disagreeing with people when there's a big knowledge and comprehension gap without offending them.

 

[*Z*]

LOL! Really? Really...? You can't understand one bit why @Jack V Savage would get shit from other posters, especially from the right? Jesus. You literally quoted him saying that the right is angry and the left are all normal people. I mean, the left isn't driven by anger? Antifa anyone? Or how about on page 1 of this thread

He's not wrong. Antifa? They don't represent the left.

 

[Pwent]

Wrong. Gov't policy defines wealth. No gov't at all=some form of communism.
.

So you think a rothbardian anarcho capitalist society would be considered communism? I disagree