H Hoppe: Most contemporary conservatives, then, especially among the media darlings, are not conservatives but socialists—either of the internationalist sort (the new and neoconservative welfare-warfare statists and global social democrats) or of the nationalist variety (the Buchananite populists). Genuine conservatives must be opposed to both. In order to restore social and cultural norms, true conservatives can only be radical libertarians, and they must demand the demolition—as a moral and economic distortion—of the entire structure of the interventionist state.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Dondoolee: 1) I staged a protest rally in front of a VFW center to show those statist WWII baby killing jerks whose boss 5) I spammed the evil Nazi -like statists Peter Schiff and Ron Paul with radical messages essentially telling them where to go. 6) Since I was in NYC, I thought it may be a good idea to tell the widows of dead firemen that their husbands were evil statist bastards, and if they were private enterprise firemen they would have saved more lives. I also thought it would be a good opportunity to educate them and say 9/11 may have been an inside job and any one who worked for the government is under suspicion of conspiracy.
1) I staged a protest rally in front of a VFW center to show those statist WWII baby killing jerks whose boss
5) I spammed the evil Nazi -like statists Peter Schiff and Ron Paul with radical messages essentially telling them where to go.
6) Since I was in NYC, I thought it may be a good idea to tell the widows of dead firemen that their husbands were evil statist bastards, and if they were private enterprise firemen they would have saved more lives. I also thought it would be a good opportunity to educate them and say 9/11 may have been an inside job and any one who worked for the government is under suspicion of conspiracy.
Wow, I cannot believe I am reading this.
Update: Sarcasm?
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
Poptech:"I don't have to validate a free society to you, because I don't know what it will look like. You have taken the positive position that a state is necessary. the burden of proof lies with you."
Right, and that is true. Man's natural state is not under a government. If you're going to assert government, you must bear the burden of proof.
Poptech:In an Anarchists society no one has to listen to anyone thus no "law" would be established.
Sure law could be established. I already explained that Mexico and China have different conceptions of law, and they still exchange (interact).
Poptech:The whole world is covered in governments not anarchist societies with agreed upon laws (which doesn't make any sense).
Non-sequitur. All of those governments are in a state of anarchy with one another. They have to negotiate, make contracts (treaties), conform to accepted standards of behaviour, etc. Unless you believe that the UN does, or should govern all countries (global government).
Are you arguing in favour of global government?
Poptech:Somalia clearly has an absence of government. In the absence of government no sort of "voluntarism" can be enforced.
Enforcing voluntarism is an oxymoron. Somalia doesn't have an absence of rulers, you claimed it had warlords. Warlords = government.
Poptech:Not all the targets. What governments are pirating vessels?
Not vessels, property.
Poptech:In an anarchist state, if someone has no morals and do not care about civilian casualties this would not slow them down.
Non-sequitur.
Poptech:Who owns the U.S. government buildings and the property they sit on?
Who are the legitimate owners? The people who paid taxes or had their property or labour confiscated by the government. They are the ones whose property has been stolen to fund the government's activities.
Poptech:The "legality" of the revolution is irrelevant as it took force to be successful. "Unjust" is a subjective and irrelevant.
But you are arguing for law. You can't claim legality doesn't matter, then question the lack of a monopoly legal system under anarchy. That's completely dishonest.
As far as unjust, that is what libertarianism is about. A just moral code based on non-aggression. Either the revolutionaries had a moral right to secede, or they were terrorists and murderers of the legitimate British authorities.
You're completely nailed on this one. The myth of American independence doesn't jive up with the monopoly coercive state you endorse.
Poptech:Why would I have legal recourse against the state which did not steal my property?
Because they are obligated to protect your property. It is a nonsensical agreement. You have no recourse if they fail. You cannot hire someone else to do it, if they don't meet your expectations. That is the nature of monopoly.
If you had an insurance firm that didn't pay out on a loss, that would be fraud. And yet the social contract with the state, is based on loyalty/fealty/taxes in return for defense of liberty/rights/property. However, the contract is not enforceable by a citizen.
wilderness:it's not like the Mises Institute was started by an anarchist or anything - reality check.
The institute is named after a non-anarchist.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
nirgrahamUK: H Hoppe: Most contemporary conservatives, then, especially among the media darlings, are not conservatives but socialists—either of the internationalist sort (the new and neoconservative welfare-warfare statists and global social democrats) or of the nationalist variety (the Buchananite populists). Genuine conservatives must be opposed to both. In order to restore social and cultural norms, true conservatives can only be radical libertarians, and they must demand the demolition—as a moral and economic distortion—of the entire structure of the interventionist state.
Thanks Nir.
Poptech: Wow, people like you are a reason mental institutions exist. Just absolutely wow. I cannot believe I am reading this nonsense.
Wow, people like you are a reason mental institutions exist. Just absolutely wow. I cannot believe I am reading this nonsense.
Ok got it, sarcasm.
Laughing Man:How did I misuse those words?
The definitions of the words used do not apply to their usage.
Laughing Man:For you accept that people cannot govern themselves, yet nations [ which are more or less masses of people ] somehow can.
Again a strawman, I made no such claim.
Poptech:Again a strawman, I made no such claim.
Ok so you are either for or against world government.
If you are against it you assert that nations can coexist in a state of anarchy without a mediator [ a world government ]
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man: Poptech:Again a strawman, I made no such claim. Ok so you are either for or against world government. If you are against it you assert that nations can coexist in a state of anarchy without a mediator [ a world government ]
HAHA! The Block attack!
liberty student:Right, and that is true. Man's natural state is not under a government. If you're going to assert government, you must bear the burden of proof.
Really? So why is the world filled with governments? You would think what is "natural" would appear on the planet somewhere.
liberty student:Sure law could be established. I already explained that Mexico and China have different conceptions of law, and they still exchange (interact). Non-sequitur. All of those governments are in a state of anarchy with one another. They have to negotiate, make contracts (treaties), conform to accepted standards of behaviour, etc. Unless you believe that the UN does, or should govern all countries (global government).
So anarcho-capitalism by your logic already exists!
liberty student:Are you arguing in favour of global government?
I was never even talking about it, you brought it up as a strawman.
liberty student:Enforcing voluntarism is an oxymoron. Somalia doesn't have an absence of rulers, you claimed it had warlords. Warlords = government.
Anarcho-capitalism fails again?
liberty student:Not vessels, property.
Which government has it's pirate fleet?
liberty student:Non-sequitur.
Nope the truth. If you have no morals you don't care about who you kill or who gets killed.
liberty student:Who are the legitimate owners? The people who paid taxes or had their property or labour confiscated by the government. They are the ones whose property has been stolen to fund the government's activities.
Who owns government property? You did not answer the question.
liberty student:But you are arguing for law. You can't claim legality doesn't matter, then question the lack of a monopoly legal system under anarchy. That's completely dishonest.
I have never talked about succession once. My point was mine or your opinion on the legality of succession is irrelevant since the British government did not view it as legal and it took "violence" to succeed. So stating it is legal is just grandstanding.
liberty student:As far as unjust, that is what libertarianism is about. A just moral code based on non-aggression. Either the revolutionaries had a moral right to secede, or they were terrorists and murderers of the legitimate British authorities.
Who decides the moral code? I have found no definition in a dictionary to support you usage of the word. You are using subjective arguments based on your morality.
liberty student:You're completely nailed on this one. The myth of American independence doesn't jive up with the monopoly coercive state you endorse.
How can I be nailed on a strawman argument?
liberty student:Because they are obligated to protect your property. It is a nonsensical agreement. You have no recourse if they fail. You cannot hire someone else to do it, if they don't meet your expectations. That is the nature of monopoly.
You sound like a progressive suing a party that did not commit the crime. I cannot hire a private investigator? News to me.
liberty student:If you had an insurance firm that didn't pay out on a loss, that would be fraud.
I am not paying the police to sit in front of my house just to respond when I call 911 and they do every time. This has nothing to do with insurance.
Laughing Man: Ok so you are either for or against world government. If you are against it you assert that nations can coexist in a state of anarchy without a mediator [ a world government ]
That is a misuse of the word anarchy and by your logic, anarcho-capitalism already exists. It is a silly argument that only works on people who do not understand the definitions of words.
Poptech: That is a misuse of the word anarchy and by your logic, anarcho-capitalism already exists. It is a silly argument that only works on people who do not understand the definitions of words.
It's called Emergence.
Poptech: wilderness:it's not like the Mises Institute was started by an anarchist or anything - reality check. The institute is named after a non-anarchist.
Poptech did you figure out what property rights are yet or are you still slingin' the tyranny. How do you know mises wouldn't be an anarchist. From what I can see his logic would have lead him to that. Understand human action.
Poptech: It is a silly argument that only works on people who do not understand the definitions of words.
It is a silly argument that only works on people who do not understand the definitions of words.
And this coming from somebody that doesn't think a light bulb is a light bulb.
SilentXtarian: My question to you is do conservatives discredit us by acting in such a complete immature way
My question to you is do conservatives discredit us by acting in such a complete immature way
Yes. Immaturity (intellectually) and complete lack of logic included.
Poptech:Really? So why is the world filled with governments? You would think what is "natural" would appear on the planet somewhere.
Poptech:So anarcho-capitalism by your logic already exists!
Anarcho-capitalism exists in certain situations. Absolutely.
Poptech:I was never even talking about it, you brought it up as a strawman.
No, it is the reductio ad absurdum if you believe it is necessary to have an absolute arbiter of law. So far, you have indicated that there must be an absolute authority.
Poptech:Who owns government property? You did not answer the question.
Yes I did. The people whose property the government stole.
Poptech:I have never talked about succession once. My point was mine or your opinion on the legality of succession is irrelevant since the British government did not view it as legal and it took "violence" to succeed. So stating it is legal is just grandstanding.
You're dodging. Were the Founders terrorists and traitors or not?
Poptech:Who decides the moral code? I have found no definition in a dictionary to support you usage of the word. You are using subjective arguments based on your morality.
Ditch the dictionary, stop googling furiously, and start researching libertarianism.
As for who decides the moral code? That's a good question. I would say it is subjective. Others here would argue it is objective. Regardless, a libertarian is for non-aggression, which necessarily makes him an anti-statist.
Poptech:How can I be nailed on a strawman argument?
It's not a strawman. I didn't attribute a position to you. I explained the logical consequences of holding that the American government and Constitution are legitimate. If you believe they are legitimate, then that means that the right of secession is a fundamental human right, as Jefferson wrote in the declaration. Which means the state has no right to force people to cooperate. If you don't believe secession is a right, or that the state is right to compel then it means the American government is illegitimate.
It's a very simple logical progression.
Poptech:You sound like a progressive suing a party that did not commit the crime. I cannot hire a private investigator? News to me.
An investigator cannot act as your agent in recovery.
Poptech:I am not paying the police to sit in front of my house just to respond when I call 911 and they do every time. This has nothing to do with insurance.
Absolutely it does. Libertarians understand the value of insurance, and the purpose it serves to provide a mechanism to price collective risk. Perhaps the argument is too nuanced for you at this point.
We should focus on whether the US government is legitimate or not. Whether individuals have the right of secession that Jefferson wrote about in the Declaration and Kentucky Resolutions.
wilderness: Yes. Immaturity (intellectually) and complete lack of logic included.
The tea parties come to mind.
Poptech: Ok got it, sarcasm.
Yeah it was just a joke. The fact that I was actually polite enough to call Giles "sir" in the post should have given it away.
Capital Pumper: wilderness: Yes. Immaturity (intellectually) and complete lack of logic included. The Tea Parties come to mind.
The Tea Parties come to mind.
Could you explain please? I really haven't kept up with that. I see it as a way for coercers to misdirect and monopolize a real yearning of liberty.
I think the same way. The Republican Party just swooped and hijacked the movement for its own frivolous gains. The tea parties' template is no different from that of the anti-war/anti-bush protests. There is no general end that is agreed upon and the protest, on reflection, is nothing more than a glorified ego-stroker. The 'protesters' walk around waving American flags, state how good it makes them feel, and then disperse for the day,. The general theme of these protests amounts to nothing more than "beg the government for some mercy".
The most recent protest:
Two million people with "Karl Marx was an Idiot" signs can't hold a candle to Ron Paul's red pill.
these people are looking for something. they want liberty. they are holding up respect for the Constitution. they are holding onto a dream they believed the government could deliver upon. they think since the Republican party is speaking their words they are getting somewhere. yet liberty funneled through the government is a distortion and dishonest. they don't know what else to do. it's time to get educated and figure out what to do individually instead of relying upon a government coercively making inept choices for people.
thanks for the little update
wilderness:How do you know mises wouldn't be an anarchist.
Because I proved it with his own words.
"A shallow-minded school of social philosophers, the anarchists, chose to ignore the matter by suggesting a stateless organization of mankind. They simply passed over the fact that men are not angels. They were too dull to realize that in the short run an individual or a group of individuals can certainly further their own interests at the expense of their own and all other peoples' long-run interests. A society that is not prepared to thwart the attacks of such asocial and short-sighted aggressors is helpless and at the mercy of its least intelligent and most brutal members. While Plato founded his Utopia on the hope that a small group of perfectly wise and morally impeccable philosophers will be available for the supreme conduct of affairs, anarchists implied that all men without any exception will be endowed with perfect wisdom and moral impeccability. They failed to conceive that no system of social cooperation can remove the dilemma between a man's or a group's interests in the short run and those in the long run."
"Government as such is not only not an evil, but the most necessary and beneficial institution, as without it no lasting social cooperation and no civilization could be developed and preserved. It is a means to cope with an inherent imperfection of many, perhaps of the majority of all people. If all men were able to realize that the alternative to peaceful social cooperation is the renunciation of all that distinguishes Homo sapiens from the beasts of prey, and if all had the moral strength always to act accordingly, there would not be any need for the establishment of a social apparatus of coercion and oppression. Not the state is an evil, but the shortcomings of the human mind and character that imperatively require the operation of a police power. Government and state can never be perfect because they owe their raison d'etre to the imperfection of man and can attain their end, the elimination of man's innate impulse to violence, only by recourse to violence, the very thing they are called upon to prevent."
- Ludwig von Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science
"The anarchists overlook the undeniable fact that some people are either too narrow-minded or too weak to adjust themselves spontaneously to the conditions of social life. Even if we admit that every sane adult is endowed with the faculty of realizing the good of social cooperation and of acting accordingly, there still remains the problem of the infants, the aged, and the insane. We may agree that he who acts antisocially should be considered mentally sick and in need of care. But as long as not all are cured, and as long as there are infants and the senile, some provision must be taken lest they jeopardize society. An anarchistic society would be exposed to the mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready to hinder, by the application or threat of violent action, minorities from destroying the social order. This power is vested in the state or government."
- Ludwig von Mises, Human Action
"In an anarchist society is the possibility entirely to be excluded that someone may negligently throw away a lighted match and start a fire or, in a fit of anger, jealousy, or revenge, inflict injury on his fellow man? Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints. Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace."
- Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism
wilderness:And this coming from somebody that doesn't think a light bulb is a light bulb.
How many times are you going to repeat this lie? I already explained that this was in relation to convincing others. Thomas Edison did not go around holding a glass bulb with a metal filament inside berating people for not "believing" it could produce light using electricity, he had to prove it and that was point. You cannot just believe yourself to be right, think you don't have to convince others and complain when they don't support your position.
Now are we done with this or are you going to keep repeating this lie?
Poptech: wilderness:How do you know mises wouldn't be an anarchist. Because I proved it with his own words.
this has already been covered in another thread. i've moved on. In this thread I pointed out this Institute is founded by an anarchist - get the picture yet?
Poptech: wilderness:And this coming from somebody that doesn't think a light bulb is a light bulb. How many times are you going to repeat this lie? I already explained that this was in relation to convincing others.
How many times are you going to repeat this lie? I already explained that this was in relation to convincing others.
That has nothing to do with a "flaw in the argument". That has to do with a flaw in "others" inability to exercise logic. Your focus was on the argument being "flawed". It's obvious you can't tell the difference between these "others" and "argument".
Poptech: Thomas Edison did not go around holding a glass bulb with a metal filament inside berating people for not "believing" it could produce light using electricity, he had to prove it and that was point.
Thomas Edison did not go around holding a glass bulb with a metal filament inside berating people for not "believing" it could produce light using electricity, he had to prove it and that was point.
nah. he didn't have to prove it. he had to simple do it. prove what? the free market, anarchy. you freely go to the market but are coerced during the exchange. yet it's obvious that it is not the coercion forcing the transaction. that's human action to make these market transactions. it is coercion that is violating the exchange - not making the exchange.
Poptech: You cannot just believe yourself to be right,
You cannot just believe yourself to be right,
I don't solely believe. I live it. This is basic human action stuff. Go get some lettuce at the market or kill a cow.
Poptech: think you don't have to convince others and complain when they don't support your position.
think you don't have to convince others and complain when they don't support your position.
oh well. you don't support it. a statist in an anarchist founded Institution forum - well think about where you are.
Poptech: Now are we done with this or are you going to keep repeating this lie?
I don't know. Is a light bulb a light bulb? What are property rights? What's liberty? Why is a neo-con like yourself in this forum? Why are you pushing your coercive agenda here? State your purpose sir.
wilderness: these people are looking for something. they want liberty. they are holding up respect for the Constitution.
these people are looking for something. they want liberty. they are holding up respect for the Constitution.
Then we can throw out copies of No Treason from Ron Paul's blimp. The impact of the books will be so phenomenal that amnesia will reverse the damage public school has done.
wilderness: thanks for the little update
<3
wilderness:In this thread I pointed out this Institute is founded by an anarchist - get the picture yet?
And I pointed out it is named after a non-anarchist.
wilderness:he didn't have to prove it. he had to simple do it. prove what? the free market, anarchy. you freely go to the market but are coerced during the exchange. yet it's obvious that it is not the coercion forcing the transaction. that's human action to make these market transactions. it is coercion that is violating the exchange - not making the exchange.
So people purchased his light bulbs based on his words or after seeing them demonstrated? Prove your points. If you are not convincing people then your argument is flawed because you cannot explain it or do not know how to talk to people. I have pointed out multiple times people here don't use English language words correctly and have no idea why people do not understand them.
wilderness:I don't solely believe. I live it. This is basic human action stuff. Go get some lettuce at the market or kill a cow.
You live anarcho-capitalism?
wilderness:oh well. you don't support it. a statist in an anarchist founded Institution forum - well think about where you are.
You continue to misuse words as if you don't own a dictionary.
Statism (defined) - "concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry"
I am a minarchist who supports laissez faire.
Your forum is named after a non-anarchist. If this was supposed to be an anarchist institution then it should be named the Murray N. Rothbard institute but it is not.
wilderness:I don't know. Is a light bulb a light build?
A light bulb to those who have seen and used one is a light bulb, you holding something in your hand, declaring it "a light bulb" to someone who has never seen a light bulb will not believe you unless you prove it.
wilderness:What are property rights?
Property Rights (defined) - "a legal right to or in a particular property"
wilderness:What's liberty?
Liberty (defined) - " the quality or state of being free"
You do own a dictionary?
wilderness:Why is a neo-con like yourself in this forum?
Define neo-con
wilderness:Why are you pushing your coercive agenda here?
I am a minarchist who is interested in Austrian Economics, especially Mises and Hayek.
Poptech:I am a minarchist who is interested in Austrian Economics, especially Mises and Hayek.
Then please demonstrate an understanding of praxeology.
And methodological individualism.
PLEASE.
liberty student:Then please demonstrate an understanding of praxeology.
I said I am interested, I never said I was an expert, least of all on praxeology.
Poptech:And I pointed out it is named after a non-anarchist.
And? Its inspired by his pioneering work, it isn't supposed to be a temple for him.
Poptech: So people purchased his light bulbs based on his words or after seeing them demonstrated? Prove your points. If you are not convincing people then your argument is flawed because you cannot explain it or do not know how to talk to people. I have pointed out multiple times people here don't use English language words correctly and have no idea why people do not understand them.
No, they use them in the specialised manner of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, much of these term arguments could be solved if you took the time to read this very site. And the idea that there is a "correct" form of English is just false.
Poptech:You continue to misuse words as if you don't own a dictionary.
Do you read anything specialised? I read the American Economic Review, whats that "velocity?" of money? Do you own a dictionary Mr. Schorfheide? Use English correctly. Specialised fields use specialised terms.
Poptech:I am a minarchist who supports laissez faire.
And to be totally laissez faire requires the absence of government entirely though. As the provision of security is still an intervention in the economy.
Poptech:Your forum is named after a non-anarchist. If this was supposed to be an anarchist institution then it should be named the Murray N. Rothbard institute but it is not.
Its not a statist or anarchist institution. Its an academic institution that focuses on economics, politics and philosophy who its named after is irrelevant.
Poptech: Property Rights (defined) - "a legal right to or in a particular property" wilderness:What's liberty? Liberty (defined) - " the quality or state of being free" You do own a dictionary?
Well that settles it, property rights and liberty are an impossibility with a state, the dictionary even confirms it.
Seriously, your on the LvMI site try and familiarize yourself with LvMI jargon.
Poptech:Well you sure are repeating public school anti-U.S. propaganda maybe it is just your country's bias, I've seen it before. I am the farthest thing from a "joe-sixpack" and I am the last person to parrot anything I have not researched myself.
What exactly are you talking about? And which public schools did you go to? Most students spend about 6 years of their life learning about WW2, and how America saved the "free world."
Poptech:You seem confused on who you are talking to.
Who exactly are you? You sound like some ignorant moron who thinks he's better than anyone outside of the United States. Your nationalistic bullshit completely invalidates your positions, as it exposes you as a confused arrogant statist.
Poptech:I disagree Obama is ten times worse. Obama is already advocating for tariffs and new taxes to support his big government, big spending progressive ideology.
Bush passed a 35% ad valorem steel tariff.
Poptech:In an anarchist society no one has to agree to anything, anarcho-capitalist "law" is irrelevant.
Legal positivism, gross.
Follow this train of thought all the way through: if individuals require some kind of central body, a regulator, in order to prevent utter disaster and catastrophe, then different states must require the same kind of regulator, but only on a global scale. You're indirectly supporting globalized government when you claim that peaceful cooperation amongst individual entities is not possible. Why would I kill someone who's extremely valuable to me? China doesn't attack Montenegro because China wants (maybe needs) something from Montenegro. Likewise, why would I attack my neighbor on the left if he owns the local grocery store? I need him for food, and presumably he knows how to operate and manage a grocery store. Sure, I may decide one day that I want all of his food for myself, but how would the community react (he same community who needs that same grocer for food every day)? Humans act because they desire certain ends, the means towards those ends must lead to desired outcomes, or they wont act in that way. The belief that people can't cooperate in a peaceful manor in order to achieve their desired ends contradicts 99% of everyday life.
GilesStratton: I think the really important question for people interested in Austrian economics to ask is "Do libertarians discredit us?".
I think the really important question for people interested in Austrian economics to ask is "Do libertarians discredit us?".
Such an opportunist.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Poptech: wilderness:I don't solely believe. I live it. This is basic human action stuff. Go get some lettuce at the market or kill a cow. You live anarcho-capitalism?
I am at liberty til the day I die, and my liberty is constantly violated and I have to adapt and figure out ways around these violations but some are unavoidable.
What do you want proved? You want me to prove to you that I am refraining and advocate refraining from initiating physical aggression against a person. I don't need to prove these negative actions. I live it everyday.
You need to step it up and start proving why anybody has to accept your positive desires. Why do I need to do what Poptech desires to happen coercively? Why does personB need to prove to a personA (the thief) that personB is not going to harm personA? What makes personA so special that they can advocate and demand positive obligations from other people? It's an interrogation on your part is what it is!
Poptech: wilderness:I don't know. Is a light bulb a light build? A light bulb to those who have seen and used one is a light bulb, you holding something in your hand, declaring it "a light bulb" to someone who has never seen a light bulb will not believe you unless you prove it.
Are you telling me you've never seen a light bulb? I've asked this simply question to you I don't know how many times.
Poptech: wilderness:What are property rights? Property Rights (defined) - "a legal right to or in a particular property"
start using your own head. until you can show me in your own words then I don't think YOU know these concepts. I'm thinking only that dictionary you use may know these concepts.
Poptech: wilderness:What's liberty? Liberty (defined) - " the quality or state of being free"
use your own mind. the words I am using, that you complain about "people's English here" are concepts that are centuries old. hit the books - get educated
Can we please get back to the topic at hand? This topic isn't about if minarchists like myself discredit us. It's about if conservative Republicans discredit us. And besides, Poptech is right... the founding Mises people- Carl Menger, and Ludwig Von Mises were actually more minarchists.
This discussion is great but I have to intervene because I feel that it really doesn't have to do with the topic at hand, and, I don't think that anarchists here and minarchists should e fighting amongst each other. We all share the same goal of liberty. My concept of government would be compatable with anarchists as well. You wouldn't have to sell yourself to the state if you don't want to. I guess it would be like a mix of minarchism and anarchism... it would combine those philosophies. Maybe I'm still an anarchist? I don't know I haven't thought too much about that- maybe AJ's right... but people stop fighting it doesn't help us... when people see that we're all fighting amongst each other.
Poptech: But there are many fiscal conservatives who do. The Republican party was once a battle of ideologies between social conservatives and libertarians, it is now dominated by neo-conservatives and social conservatives. This confusion is causing a lot of problems.
But there are many fiscal conservatives who do. The Republican party was once a battle of ideologies between social conservatives and libertarians, it is now dominated by neo-conservatives and social conservatives. This confusion is causing a lot of problems.
SilentXtarian,
Poptech is a Republican conservative. The thread is on target, but Poptech keeps intervening, defending his ideology. oh well
edit: The founder of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute is Lew Rockwell Jr. - an anarchist. Look it up. I wasn't talking about Mises, Poptech brought him up.
Am I the only one who thinks A=A (lightbulbs, lol) regardless of people's failure to understand or believe the fact?
DarkCatalyst: Am I the only one who thinks A=A (lightbulbs, lol) regardless of people's failure to understand or believe the fact?
A=A? When did this happen!?!
Poptech:I said I am interested, I never said I was an expert, least of all on praxeology.
When you start to understand the methodology of the Austrian school, you'll end up like Ron Paul. Citing Lysander Spooner as a source. And Spooner, was an anarchist.
Esuric:Such an opportunist.
Yeah, but it always backfires on him.
wilderness:Are you telling me you've never seen a light bulb? I've asked this simply question to you I don't know how many times.
There is discussion, and arguing. And there is that fine line where the opportunity for agreement hangs in tenuous balance. Once it becomes an argument, where both people don't want to yield an inch, nothing productive is going to come out of the discussion.
Listen to the person you are discussing with. If they don't answer on a point, they have likely yielded it. Move on to their next point. Shaming people (you tried it with me a couple weeks ago) doesn't generate positive results and doesn't increase your standing with the gallery.
SilentXtarian:Can we please get back to the topic at hand? This topic isn't about if minarchists like myself discredit us. It's about if conservative Republicans discredit us.
What is the difference between minarchists and conservative Republicans? To me, it seems Republicans at least believe in the state they defend. Minarchist lack the surety to take their libertarian beliefs to a rational conclusion. But ultimately I think Glenn Beck, is as off target as someone who believes in minimal government. It's a Utopian fantasy.
liberty student: wilderness:Are you telling me you've never seen a light bulb? I've asked this simply question to you I don't know how many times. There is discussion, and arguing. And there is that fine line where the opportunity for agreement hangs in tenuous balance. Once it becomes an argument, where both people don't want to yield an inch, nothing productive is going to come out of the discussion. Listen to the person you are discussing with. If they don't answer on a point, they have likely yielded it. Move on to their next point. Shaming people (you tried it with me a couple weeks ago) doesn't generate positive results and doesn't increase your standing with the gallery.
I'm asking him if there is such a thing as a light bulb? It's a pretty simple question. You can move on to the next point if you so desire. I'm not trying to shame him. It's the north star on an ebb and flow discussion with Poptech to keep a particular sight on the horizon within focus. If he can't even answer this simple question then all posts with him, including yours, are pointless mind you. Play to the crowd if you will. It's all a grand show (whirling my finger). I'm talking to Poptech and I'm not assuming anything in the discussion. You have a tendency to assume rather than dialogue - now that we're trading notes. It's what has you bring up ghost stories that detract from anything productive from time to time. I know when to introspect upon my own humanness. I'm not going to speak for you.
wilderness:I'm asking him if there is such a thing as a light bulb? It's a pretty simple question.
Which you brought over from another discussion. It's not even relevant to this thread, except your attempt to corner or discredit him.
I don't know what your goals are, but except for your own self-gratification, I don't see how the last 10 posts about the light bulb have furthered anything. YMMV.
liberty student:When you start to understand the methodology of the Austrian school, you'll end up like Ron Paul. Citing Lysander Spooner as a source. And Spooner, was an anarchist.
Because it's a priori true, of course, that once one begins learning Austrians economics, one will end up quoting Lysander Spooner. Now of course, let's forget all the actual economists who work in the Austrian tradition and focus on who a politican cites...
liberty student: Esuric:Such an opportunist. Yeah, but it always backfires on him.
I must be missing something, because I just don't get it. I'm an opportunist for not being a Rothbardian? I mean, I was expecting statist, socialist, Keynesian, mainstream hack or something along those lines.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan