fakename:not necessarily to win popularity.
I said absolutely nothing about popularity. I'm talking about teaching/convincing people.
I learned something today. Striving for intellectual rigor and consistency can be repellent and distracting.
Amazing.
liberty student:I learned something today. Striving for intellectual rigor and consistency can be repellent and distracting
I don't think so. I think you defended yourself pretty well today. Here is a victory song for you:
We of course are still mortal enemies though.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
DD5:You haven't made the case for why the government all of a sudden can surpass the efficiency of the market for alleviating the uneasiness of such people, and why any such welfare scheme is not self defeating like all other interventionist policies.
Do you deny that there will be some small portion of society which is excluded from remunerative economic employments? Some people are social outcasts, others have been abused or abuse drugs, and others yet have mental illnesses which prevent them from being productive members of society. The tax will vary between 10-20% based on how well charities provide services to such people. These taxes will have the same effect as all taxes, namely it will disturb the market for drugs, alcohol and cigarettes.
liberty student: I learned something today. Striving for intellectual rigor and consistency can be repellent and distracting. Amazing.
Obfuscating terminology and language is distracting and can act as a repellent. Those who come here and read this for the first time, who just came out of the government school system, will think this website consists only of heartless lunatics. (NOTE: I don't think anyone here is a heartless lunatic).
"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."
I myself regard what you're trying to do as striving for intellectual rigor and consistency. Therefore I myself don't regard it as repellent and distracting.
What I'm saying is that for convincing/teaching purposes it's contrary to purpose because those who don't regard it as striving for consistency, but who otherwise might be convinceable, are generally people who would find it repellent and distracting.
Laughing Man:I think you defended yourself pretty well today.
I deleted my last post in the other thread and wrote something more conducive to educating people about liberalism without being repellent or distracting.
liberty student:I deleted my last post in the other thread and wrote something more conducive to educating people about liberalism without being repellent or distracting.
We can't control how people react to what we say and really why should we? Laissez-faire.
Liberty, I apologize if my choice of words was offensive.
Esuric:Do you deny that there will be some small portion of society which is excluded from remunerative economic employments?
Certainly not. But I do not see how
1. Such uneasiness can be more efficiently alleviated by coercion and compulsion as oppose to the voluntary process of the market.
2. How this all of a sudden becomes morally acceptable to commit theft.
I am opening another thread on this
DD5:I am opening another thread on this
Okay.
Amadeus:That's why I'll just call you pro-coercion.
This gets my vote.
If we can't use socialization as a term which defines a publicly controlled organization, and if we can't use clearly descriptive words like statism to describe those who are pro-state, than we should adopt more blunt words like this.
In fact I like pro-coercion so much I think it's my new fav word.
Poptech:Thus advocates of Laissez-faire cannot be called Statists nor can someone for simply believing the United States should exist.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Yes, they can. Why? Because statism is actually advocating for the state. In any amount. Period. That's reality. Don't like it? Cry me a river.
That's reality. Don't like it? Cry me a river.
Esuric:Baawa you're doing the same crap that Leviathan does. You re-define terminology for self-serving reasons.
Don't like it? Tough.
Esuric:Who in the private sector is interested in tanks and grenade launchers, and is this something you want to see?
With the UN, France, U.S., Xe, Britain, and I don't know who else, constantly pounding on Somalia right now, don't you think the people defending the political geography formerly known as Somalia would find themselves demarcating a division of labor to build these things to fend off the statists if they had the means?
filc: Amadeus:That's why I'll just call you pro-coercion. This gets my vote. If we can't use socialization as a term which defines a publicly controlled organization, and if we can't use clearly descriptive words like statism to describe those who are pro-state, than we should adopt more blunt words like this. In fact I like pro-coercion so much I think it's my new fav word.
Scene 1
A: "I think the minimum wage helps poor people."
B: "Do you think labor obeys the law of supply and demand, my pro-coercion fellow?"
A: "Well I... wait, I'm not 'pro-coercion'"
B: "Yes, actually, you are."
A: "No I'm not, because..."
Followed by dozens of posts talking past each other.
Scene 2
A: "I think WW2 was good for the US economy."
B: "Have you ever heard of the Broken Window Fallacy, my statist fellow?"
A: "No, actually I... wait , I'm not a statist. "
I breezed through the topic Lilburne, but I do happen to agree with you on this.
I can't tell you how many times at my University I've called someone a leftist and they'd be like no, I'm a "moderate" and then proceed to explain themselves in a series of non-sequiturs which usually involved them reversing all the way back to their starting point.
Usually just creating mass confusion amongst anyone listening and me shrugging my shoulders.
Lesson: Don't label people.
Why anarchy fails
Lilburne I think your generally correct. And I do agree that we tend to auto-concede our own points when we get into petty namecalling with people without explaining to them what actually is the issue. It makes sense right, if you call someone a name without explaining why 'statism' is bad in terms that are understandable to that person then the discussion never progress's. A statist may not necessarily know why supporting the state is bad. So we should not dwell on what anyone believes in a broad sense but explore places of contention and progress the conversation so that each party learns.
I do however think that in some situations it's entirely appropriate to use the words outlined here. Depending on who your talking to or the context. I feel like your response to me was somewhat of a mis characterization of my stance. Just wanted to clarify as vaguely as possible.
filc:So we should not dwell on what anyone believes in a broad sense but explore places of contention and progress the conversation so that each party learns.
Yes, exactly!
filc: I feel like your response to me was somewhat of a mis characterization of my stance.
Ah, excuse me for that.
AJ:Lesson: Don't label people
'Define or be defined'
J. Grayson Lilburne:Liberty, I apologize if my choice of words was offensive.
Your choice of words was poor, but the idea that you were communicating was worse. I don't know why you would names names and infer that the means some of us may use in discussion yield at best a negative and at worst a super negative.
J. Grayson Lilburne:I myself regard what you're trying to do as striving for intellectual rigor and consistency. Therefore I myself don't regard it as repellent and distracting.
Right. You don't find it repellent and distracting, but you labeled it as such on behalf of some others. I assume you had actual complaints along the lines of "repellent, distracting" in order to make such a claim that runs counter to your own intuition.
J. Grayson Lilburne:What I'm saying is that for convincing/teaching purposes it's contrary to purpose because those who don't regard it as striving for consistency, but who otherwise might be convinceable, are generally people who would find it repellent and distracting.
Arguments to popularity aren't meaningful to me. People generally don't care that their governments commit genocide with their tacit consent or tax money.
It's a letdown that after feeling so optimistic about liberty around the turn of the new year, I am back to feeling like we're moving in reverse.
I no longer wish to play the role of Sisyphus.
AJ: Lesson: Don't label people.
I think the lesson of this thread should be that when approaching people (at least on these forums) it is more worthwhile to state and defend your position, as opposed to attack another position based on whether or not the person giving it is a statist. What I mean is that it may not be the most productive course of action to accuse someone of being a statist, instead of replying to the argument.
Also, another lesson is that if your opponent insists on using terminology you disagree with, or insists on accusing you of being one thing or another, you can either choose to leave the thread, ignore said opponent and focus on others, or ignore the opponent's accusations and continue addressing the relevant portion of the argument.
Merging these two lessons together, I guess the overarching moral of the story is: Avoid accusations, but if you are the recipient of one don't wrestle with your opponent on said accusation.
liberty student:I no longer wish to play the role of Sisyphus.
Finally, a Greek guy I remember.
There was nothing wrong with LS calling Poptech and Bloomj "statists" as LS defined it. Poptech keeps bringing up another definition for "statist," however, that definition is irrelevant.
EDIT: And Poptech keeps accusing me of using shock words. But so what? Why not attack the validity of my analogy rather than my usage of a "shock" word?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I just wish that poptech would respond to my comment. I think I coupled his definition of statism to what he is propounding quite nicely.
Poptech: Statist (defined) - "An advocate of statism" Statism (defined) - "Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry" ... Thus advocates of Laissez-faire cannot be called Statists nor can someone for simply believing the United States should exist. I am tired of the misuse of common English language words by those seeking to "shock" people into agreeing with them.
Statist (defined) - "An advocate of statism"
Statism (defined) - "Concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry"
...
Thus advocates of Laissez-faire cannot be called Statists nor can someone for simply believing the United States should exist.
I am tired of the misuse of common English language words by those seeking to "shock" people into agreeing with them.
If, according to the definition which most people who browse this forum use, you advocate that a state, a monopoly government, should exist, you are a statist.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Daniel Muffinburg:There was nothing wrong with LS calling Poptech and Bloomj "statists" as LS defined it. Poptech keeps bringing up another definition for "statist," however, that definition is irrelevant.
exactly. once you actually listen to what a person is saying, not getting hung-up on the words, but actually understanding the deeper meaning - the definition to the words people are using - then the discussion makes sense. So the same word has differing definitions by differing individuals. Well then focus on those definitions cause that is what people are trying to communicate. In essence - what Daniel said here I completely agree with.
help him either get out of the way cause if he lets go - splat - or help him push it over the other side. either way, don't hinder, but help. don't prop up others and let them remain static in their position but actually hold your ground and voice your opinion.
P.S. I responded to yours LM cause I had to look up who Sisyphus was. The main part of this post goes out to those not supporting what they intuitively support, which doesn't include you LM.
on that note. have a beautiful day people!
I. Ryan:If you advocate that a state, a monopoly government, should exist, you are a statist.
And if you call such a state laissez-faire, as Objectivists and Constitutionalists frequently do, then that conception of laissez-faire is statist.
Rothbard was wrong on copyright, but that doesn't make him a statist. He thought copyright was part of the market, not the state. If he had said, we need a state to protect copyright, then he would have been a statist.
Mises thought that the market could not provide security and law. If one had been able to make the case to him (I like to think I could have done it), then he would have accepted them as market goods. So I don't think Mises was a statist and given the choice between freedom and monopoly, he would choose freedom as often as possible.
Likewise, many 18th century liberals were statists. I don't think they were evil men necessarily, but they did not have the exposure to arguments and ideas that we do against the state, ironically, by people like Rothbard. If they did, and then they chose the state anyway (as Poptech and Bloom have) then we can say, look the case has been made against monopoly and violence, and you are siding with monopoly and violence, is this not immoral? Are you not a statist?
liberty student: And if you call such a state laissez-faire, as Objectivists and Consrtitutionalists frequently do, then that conception of laissez-faire is statist. Rothbard was wrong on copyright, but that doesn't make him a statist. He thought copyright was part of the market, not the state. If he had said, we need a state to protect copyright, then he would have been a statist. Likewise, many 18th century liberals were statists. I don't think they were evil men necessarily, but they did not have the exposure to arguments and ideas that we do against the state, ironically, by people like Rothbard. If they did, and then they chose the state anyway (as Poptech and Bloom have) then we can say, look the case has been made for monopoly and violence, and you are siding with monopoly and violence, is this not immoral? Are you not a statist?
And if you call such a state laissez-faire, as Objectivists and Consrtitutionalists frequently do, then that conception of laissez-faire is statist.
Rothbard was wrong on copyright, but that doesn't make him a statist. He thought copyright was part of the market, not the state. If he had said, we need a state to protect copyright, then he would have been a statist. Likewise, many 18th century liberals were statists. I don't think they were evil men necessarily, but they did not have the exposure to arguments and ideas that we do against the state, ironically, by people like Rothbard. If they did, and then they chose the state anyway (as Poptech and Bloom have) then we can say, look the case has been made for monopoly and violence, and you are siding with monopoly and violence, is this not immoral? Are you not a statist?
Who is going to enforce the ban on FRB (100% reserve rate)? I'm just curious.
Esuric:Who is going to enforce the ban and complete regulation of the banking system (100% reserve rate)? I'm just curious.
I would presume Rothbard would say the market. Since he is not around, I can only guess. I am not a Rothbardian. I am a Misesian.
liberty student: I am not a Rothbardian. I am a Misesian.
A Misesian anarchist, cool. Can you explain to me why we need this black and white dichotomy? Why is it that if you're not an anarchist, you're automatically a collectivist, because that's how you're defining statism (as opposed to the traditional definition).
liberty student: Esuric:Who is going to enforce the ban and complete regulation of the banking system (100% reserve rate)? I'm just curious. I would presume Rothbard would say the market. Since he is not around, I can only guess. I am not a Rothbardian. I am a Misesian.
What exactly is the difference? And I was under the impression that you were a voluntaryist.
I would say the court and police systems, just as all other contracts would be.
Esuric:Who is going to enforce the ban on FRB (100% reserve rate)? I'm just curious.
Banks are just money warehouses. We don't have problems with other types of warehouses operating on fractional reserve.
I would presume Rothbard would say that he advocates for no such regulation of the banking system.
But the question itself reveals another statist myth: That there would be no "regulations" in the market without government.
If being a minarchist makes me a statist and a socialist, so be it. I stand by my convictions. Unless at some point I become convinced that my current position is wrong. In which case, I'll call myself something else.
I realize that I'm the one adding the negative connotation to the words "statist" and "socialist" when in reality they're just descriptive terms, and for the sake of clarity, it's probably always best to call things what they are.
That being said, the fact that many people on this forum don't consider the enormous numerate difference between someone like me and Nancy Pelosi to be significant or important is a little frustrating. But I understand that this is an anarchist forum, I'd be a fool to expect a different reaction.
EDIT: Poptech, I was thinking about this a lot today and I've realized that the sky isn't going to fall if anarchists call us "statists" and "socialists." Let them. Everyone here knows that they'd rather deal with us than hardcore statists and socialists because at least we understand and accept many of their logical premises, their moral and ethical concepts and look to Austrian Economics for answers and guidance. I actually think that's why they tend to get more mad at us because we see a lot of what they see, we just don't come to the same conclusions. If I'm correct in this assertion then I can totally understand anarchist frustration with minarchists because I'd be frustrated too.
bloomj31:That being said, the fact that many people on this forum don't consider the enormous numerate difference between someone like me and Nancy Pelosi to be significant or important is a little frustrating.
bloomj31:But I understand that this is an anarchist forum, I'd be a fool to expect a different reaction.
Esuric:A Misesian anarchist, cool.
A Praxeologist.
Esuric:Can you explain to me why we need this black and white dichotomy?
Because you made an appeal to Rothbard as an authority, and I figured the quickest way to answer, was to reply that he is not my authority.
Esuric:Why is it that if you're not an anarchist, you're automatically a collectivist, because that's how you're defining statism (as opposed to the traditional definition).
Is there something inbetween self-rule and rule by others? Btw, it's not anarchism/collectivism, it is anarchism/statism.
The Late Andrew Ryan:What exactly is the difference? And I was under the impression that you were a voluntaryist.
I am a voluntaryist. And praxeology is completely compatible with voluntaryism.
bloomj31:If being a minarchist makes me a statist and a socialist, so be it. I stand by my convictions.
And I'm sure you do and so does Ensuric.
As minarchists, you support welfare for Israel, and Ensuric supports welfare for the poor (although on a small scale).
Are there any other minarchists in this form who would like to add their own wishlist of Statist things to take with them? Before it goes to a vote in the minarchist legislature, where I'm sure a compromise will be met.
By the way boom, what is your favorite method of taxation?