DescentBB

ponder this bit from Stossel, and the real world experience of pretty much all of history.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/02/fox- ... -disaster/

I just tried to ponder the real world experiences of all of history, and I experienced a sharp pain culminating in a total blackout. Now my head is really warm, and I seem to be able to do math using the alphabet...

thanks for the deep thought, Sarge.....when your head cools, read the article, and comment upon it.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I just tried to ponder the real world experiences of all of history, and I experienced a sharp pain culminating in a total blackout. Now my head is really warm, and I seem to be able to do math using the alphabet...

Math with the alphabet is easy. x+y=z never wrong!


As to slicks post title:
It is really a lame assertion. I watched that part about disasters and the WalMart example and it made a whole lot more sense than this Linker person who is quoted in your title.

Linker said that the United States had conducted two experiments in “spontaneous order” in recent years by overthrowing governments in Iraq and Libya.

“In both cases, spontaneity brought the opposite of order. It produced anarchy and civil war, mass death and human suffering,” he wrote. “Order doesn't just happen, and it isn't the product of individual freedom.”.

If that is the basis of your challenge, that Stossel was pointing out something not worth considering, then you have lost your mind. And if you had watched the whole thing you would know that Stossel wasn't advocating what the Linker idiot wants you to believe.
Did you actually watch it or just click on a link the day after that gave you some snarky quip to title your post?

my basis for being appalled at Stossels idiotic idea is that life NEVER works that way. Nevermind Iraq and recent examples, when the hell has the private citizenry ever been able to subdue and stave off chaos. Stossel's hope is that private individuals and corporations rise up and deal with chaos AFTER THE FACT. FEMA does far more, as they are, ideally, on the ground as disasters are unfolding and developing plans to minimize chaos. If that need for government doesn't strike you as essential and valid, heaven help you.

Did you watch Stossel and hear his words? Or are you telling us how dumb he was based on this Linker guys comments?

Because if you watched it you would know that what you just said is a gross misrepresentation of his point for bringing in WalMart as an example and/or the actual events that he cited. Can you name the other entities that he had examples of? Did you catch the details of the comparison of the aftermath of real emergency events citing examples from both sides, FEMA vs. Entities x, y and z?

I think you read a negative opinion blog about Stossel/Libertarian and came over here to perpetuate it. You dont know what Stossel said or reported, you only know what this other person said about him...

You are standing on some very low lying ground there to be preaching about any lack of 'deep thinking'

....nothing huh...?

Let us know once you are able to find a youtube video of it and actually watch it.
Lol.

I saw this "spontaneous order" in action over the course of several years. It was in the form of a proposal for a video game tournament (not Descent) where participants would just show up at a specified time and "self-organize" into teams and brackets. The community was small, so it shouldn't have been too difficult. The first month was a clumsy mess. The next month was a slightly better as people started to prepare a little in advance. After every tournament there would be a forum discussion about problems and solutions. Eventually a small framework of rules was made. Over years that list of rules grew into an extremely detailed and tight document that prevented people from gaming the system.

Later, people wanted to make changes and stated to complain about how many rules there were. The "self-organizing" buzzword crept back in to the community. A bunch of people had this romantic idea that if we just got back to the roots of the self-organizing principal everything would just work out and we wouldn't need so many rules. I had a hard time explaining to these idiots that the current rules and framework for the tournament was the end result of self-organizing. We "self-organized" the tournament into a highly choreographed event with a solid foundation of guidelines — and it was waaaay more fun than everyone just showing up and winging it.

Moral of the story: We as a culture "spontaneously" created things like FEMA over time as a solution to problems. And looking at the FEMA Wikipedia page, I can see that I'm right. Of course, FEMA isn't the final form of disaster management. There will always be problems. Any large system needs constant adjustments.

Will Robinson wrote:Did you watch Stossel and hear his words? Or are you telling us how dumb he was based on this Linker guys comments?

there was a link to the video. Stossel used WalMart as one example, but largely expounded on a dangerously stupid theory.

Will Robinson wrote:....nothing huh...?

Let us know once you are able to find a youtube video of it and actually watch it.
Lol.

idiot, the article contains an embedded link to the Stossel broadcast.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:....nothing huh...?

Let us know once you are able to find a youtube video of it and actually watch it.
Lol.

idiot, the article contains an embedded link to the Stossel broadcast.

No slick, it didn't.

That link was to his approximately 30 second appearance on another channel where he promoted the broadcast. If you had watched even all of that promo you would have seen them tell you what channel and time the actual Stossel broadcast was showing....

You judged a program by watching the commercial for the program. If you had seen the program you would have a lot more information on just how WalMart performed compared to FEMA....how other charities performed compared to FEMA and you would know Stossel doesn't recommend removing government from the process but wants the model to change to capitalize on the private sectors motivation and ability to react faster and more effectively.
But that would require you know what you are talking about instead of just pretending you do....

you want me to link to the whole thing(I've seen it)? Seriously, Will, the entire thing is just as goofy, but if you wish to link it before I dredge it up for public ridicule, go ahead.

what the hell. Enjoy, folks!! Eight minutes of stupid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNSUgTMQ8Tc

Slick, that isn't the broadcast of the program.
That is a few seconds of the same promo on Fox News only now it has some fool interjecting his opinion in order to ridicule it for 7 minutes!

The actual program was on a different channel and none of it is in any link you have provided.

So I guess I was right, you never watched it. You just watched some fool rant about his opinion of Stossel.
That is like watching Rush Limbaugh and deciding you know what Obama is all about...

Would you care to continue proving you know what you are talking about? It's getting fun!

I linked to an 8 minute video. Not a few seconds. Why don't you produce more, rather than whine about the topic with no rational defense on your part, Will?

I watched the video slick. It isn't the Stossel broadcast. I watched the Stossel broadcast the night it aired.
You linked to some fool ranting about Stossel and he doesn't show ANY of the broadcast. He shows a few seconds of that promo and then himself for 90% of the video!

Did you even watch the 8 minute video
you linked to?!? You know, the one you think is the Stossel broadcast but ISNT?

Good god you are making FEMA look effective by comparison!

once again, produce the link(it should be out there), or at least state why his idea holds ANY merit in a modern society, Will. Or, quit whining.

bottom line is that to watch the whole thing(it was a half hour segment) you need to have access to Fox's app, which I wouldn't recommend for anyone. No, I didn't watch it live, but I have read about 3 or 4 transcripts of his exchanges with others and monologue on the topic. It was sheer idiocy.

Lol!

So now you want a link to a show you said I was an idiot for not recognizing you had already linked and watched?

Go piss up a rope slick.

I'd rather leave this thread just the way it is as a part of the great slick legacy. It has all the info anyone needs to know about you.

you have yet to counter the point of the OP. All you've done is whine that the sourcing was somehow incomplete, without giving a single example why. Nice job, Will.....I take it you weren't ever on a debating team.

Lol! Keep shoveling slick I'm going for popcorn.

So now clarifying a point is called whining.

Lol

You guys are tooooo much.

the original article laid out the premise which Stossel expounded upon. Comment on the premise, please(that government agencies, with the example given of FEMA, among others, should be replaced by a system in which disasters are met with a random societal response). Go ahead, if you find this reasonable, I'd love to hear why.

Every response to 'support' the premise in this thread(vision wrote to oppose the premise) has been nothing short of whiney dodging. Sorry if you, Spidey, object, but the floor is open to real debate.

callmeslick wrote:the original article laid out the premise which Stossel expounded upon....

No, the original 'article' was a strawman erected by a rabid left wing radio host.
You then reposted it here.

My response to that was to tell you I watched the actual broadcast the 'article' was about and the comments you were echoing about Stossel's position were a misrepresentation of the actual broadcast.

I asked if you had even watched the broadcast and you proceeded to call me an idiot because you claimed the original post has a link to the broadcast, which it clearly did not, it was a promo appearance to announce the coming broadcast.

I told you that and then you insisted it was a portion of the broadcast and with great arrogance linked an 8 minute video that you claimed was the 'whole thing'.

However, it was not. It was the left wing radio douchebag delivering 7 minutes of his opinion and piece of the same 30 second commercial....

Then you admitted you haven't seen the broadcast that you were so insistent you had seen and demanded I link the broadcast for you....

Now you have tried to climb on a high horse about debate skills. I imagine readers of this thread are forming an opinion about yours at this point.

you still aren't willing to address the concept, huh, Will? It is, in a pure sense, Libertarian, which by classic definition is the ultimate in Liberal Political thought(assuming that man is inherently good and will further act for the greater good of society). Why the fancy footwork?

This thread was offered as commentary on an event that did not take place the way you or the articles author have presented it. So my commentary was to address your bull★■◆● tactics and let you squirm around trying to bully your way out of the spotlight.

If you want me to address Stossel's position on the subject you would first have to show me you know what it actually is and then politely present it for discussion.
So far you have presented something more like you wearing your sphincter as a headband and I think I've addressed that as far as I'm willing to.

It would appear once again that Will explains quite accurately what is going on and slick somehow thinks he is on another forum and can bamboozle us with inane generalities.

Will Robinson wrote:This thread was offered as commentary on an event that did not take place the way you or the articles author have presented it. So my commentary was to address your **** tactics and let you squirm around trying to bully your way out of the spotlight.

If you want me to address Stossel's position on the subject you would first have to show me you know what it actually is and then politely present it for discussion.
So far you have presented something more like you wearing your sphincter as a headband and I think I've addressed that as far as I'm willing to.

Stossel has long(back as far as 2012) advocated for essentially no real government involvement in anything beyond defense, using as his underpinnings the concepts laid out in the original article about spontaneous order. His show touched on everything from FEMA to jazz music by way of defense. It was, as has been his previous attempts to suggest this will work, complete idiocy. And you, in umpteen posts haven't the balls to step up and address it. At least Sarge provided an excuse(cranial warming).

woodchip wrote:It would appear once again that Will explains quite accurately what is going on and slick somehow thinks he is on another forum and can bamboozle us with inane generalities.

I laid out one concept(spontaneous order, by common moniker). Will provide NOTHING by way of either defense or denial of the validity of the theory. Now, go learn to read for context or continue to join the whiners. You aren't doing anything to contribute much else, that I can see.

here, whine about this one Woody and Will:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiXs7oBynYA

callmeslick wrote:...
Stossel has long(back as far as 2012) advocated for essentially no real government involvement in anything beyond defense, using as his underpinnings the concepts laid out in the original article about spontaneous order.

The 'concepts laid out in the original article' were laid out by someone giving their hostile interpretation of something they attribute to Stossel.

callmeslick wrote:His show touched on everything from FEMA to jazz music by way of defense.

This would be your interpretation of that show that you still haven't actually watched.
Lol!


Your headband has now slipped down to chinstrap position....

callmeslick wrote:here, whine about this one Woody and Will:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiXs7oBynYA

This is one of the stupidest things I've every watched. Perfect for the uneducated.

Holy delusions! Corporations will suddenly get compassion and help out in some disaster? Yeah, sure and I've got a bridge to sell you cheap. Nothing but Fox-Aid. Stossel loves to point out all the "help" Walmart gave after Katrina, but those disasters were localized to a small area of the country and doing so it gave them great PR, which helps their bottom line and corporate image in the end. You can bet your bottom dollar that they wouldn't want to spend their ill gotten profits to help out a larger, more extensive, or expensive, regional or national disaster. It would bankrupt them to provide assistance to a even whole state and we all know they wouldn't want to go broke.

So which is it TC? They did, or didn't, help out? You seem to be suggesting both.
Maybe you should hold on the that bridge and pay yourself for it....

And if anyone ever suggests corporations should replace government completely you have a half baked argument to use.
For now though you are making it against a Strawman, so maybe you should save that too.

I can't help but feel, TC, that you're swinging to a little bit of an extreme and expecting too much of the ideal business. A business is a business, and no matter how good a cause the goal of a business must be to do business. By rights, a business of any great size can no more behave altruistically than a government can. IMO it would be good business to take steps to aid your customer base in a crisis, but in no way can you sacrifice a business because of a crisis. If your business goes under due to a crisis, who will supply the demand after you're gone? Don't get me wrong, a business owner should want to help people, and definitely figure out a way to do so in a crisis, just as much as the rest of us (they arguably have more ability to do so than the rest of us), but this help must be implemented as a sound business plan, not a reckless sacrificing of themselves because those of us who are foolish and shortsighted think they ought to give away the things that we think of as just sitting there on their shelves.

tunnelcat wrote:Holy delusions! Corporations will suddenly get compassion and help out in some disaster? Yeah, sure and I've got a bridge to sell you cheap. Nothing but Fox-Aid. Stossel loves to point out all the "help" Walmart gave after Katrina, but those disasters were localized to a small area of the country and doing so it gave them great PR, which helps their bottom line and corporate image in the end. You can bet your bottom dollar that they wouldn't want to spend their ill gotten profits to help out a larger, more extensive, or expensive, regional or national disaster. It would bankrupt them to provide assistance to a even whole state and we all know they wouldn't want to go broke.

Type in Corporations helping in disasters and you get:

http://www.microsoft.com/about/corporat ... -response/

http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/12/5-c ... -disaster/

https://corporate.homedepot.com/Corpora ... elief.aspx

There are more but I'll let you do your own leg work

I didn't say corporations wouldn't help. They do all the time. I'm saying that they wouldn't be able to help everyone in a large scale disaster, and even in smaller scale disasters, they'd only do it to make good corporate PR and possibly a buck or two in the process. Very few corporations are magnanimous by their nature. Profit drives all things business and the drive to make profit certainly has no basis in conscience or a helping hand. But since we've never had a large scale disaster, we wouldn't know what they'd do until it happened, would we?

By the way, we already have a humanitarian disaster going on right now and it's nationwide. It's called homelessness, and I don't see corporations stepping up and solving that do you? They wouldn't even have to give out money gratis. All they'd have to do is just give those people a living wage job and let them pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Tunnelcat wrote:Profit drives all things business and the drive to make profit certainly has no basis in conscience or a helping hand.

That's true.

Tunnelcat wrote:All they'd have to do is just give those people a living wage job and let them pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

A good thought. The biggest problem I've had with certain companies I've come across is that they take advantage of people to serve their own ends, rather than treating people like people and working toward a mutually beneficial arrangement. There's a company near where I work that lets long-time employees go in order to hire them back later at a lower wage. The company I work with, while it has tremendous problems from a business perspective, is run by a very old-fashioned man who treats people very well (to a fault, in a few cases I'm aware of). It was eye-opening in many ways to go from a nationwide chain to working at his company.

as I tried to point out earlier, when the gray matter-deprived were focusing on the sourcing and not the core of the theory(no, Will, it isn't something the writer proposed, it was a known concept which he was commenting on), my beef with this theory is this: The purpose of many institutions is to either prevent or at least reduce panic, chaos and disarray in a disaster situation. The idea of this alternate is that entities(both corporations and other private groups) would respond to panic, chaos and disarray after they were extremely manifest and ongoing. I don't know about the rest of you, but I want and like a government that is planning in advance, even with some excess or overlap, for disasters, or the unforseen such as crop failures, embargoes or the like. It goes to the idea that government is a good thing. Libertarians don't really accept that, and this extreme wing of Libertarian thought takes it to what would be horrendous outcomes if they ever got the critical mass of idiots to support it. That is not likely.

Wal-mart being in charge of disaster "relief" brings to mind the plot of WALL-E. Though I'm highly amused that Stossel thinks a corporation that can't even pay its employees a living wage is in the business of helping anyone outside of the Walton family.