Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

"Statist" Defined - Basic English 101

This post has 217 Replies | 15 Followers

Not Ranked
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Thu, Jan 14 2010 7:18 PM

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Awww, are you throwing a tantrum because everyone knows that you're a troll?

That was a statement not a tantrum. I made the statement to point out your fascist behavior.

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 50
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

I want to know why ravens love to stare and collect shiny things.  What fascinates them about such oddities.  Maybe it's how different these shiny things are when they reflect in their eyes.  I mean what is the fascination!

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Since you have seemed to have dodged accidentally forgotten my question, I will repost it.

Daniel Muffinburg:

Poptech:
I have to disagree because it is a misuse of the word and being used for "shock" effect. This is a common bullying tactic, just like the use of the word troll on me. They know why they use it and so do I. I am just pointing it out for those who may actually be intimidated by it. It is also a distraction.

Would it have made a difference if LS had called you "pro-state," "anti-100% liberty," or "pro a little bit of theft"?

 

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."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Poptech:
That was a statement not a tantrum. I made the statement to point out your fascist behavior.
there is no fascist behaviour without invading property borders. quit lying.

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

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 2,162
Points 36,965
Moderator
I. Ryan replied on Thu, Jan 14 2010 7:22 PM

Poptech:

That was a statement not a tantrum. I made the statement to point out your fascist behavior.

If I were to tell you to leave my house, that would be "fascist" behavior?

Daniel Muffinburg:

Poptech:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Only because you're a troll. And you're only still here because someone forgot to re-set your ban to permanent.

So you have rejected anarchy and now adopted fascism?

Apparently, it is fascist to ban someone from private property.

If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Thu, Jan 14 2010 7:25 PM

Lol @ The Book of Bloom.

Perhaps I shall write this book.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

I. Ryan:
Poptech:
That was a statement not a tantrum. I made the statement to point out your fascist behavior.

If I were to tell you to leave my house, that would be "fascist" behavior?

well if he would have his monopoly in the territory, yes it is.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 419
Points 8,260

bloomj31:

Lol @ The Book of Bloom.

Perhaps I shall write this book.

Here's something to start you off on. Pay attention between 5:00 - 6:00:

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Thu, Jan 14 2010 7:51 PM

Alright, I have watched the video.

I thought it was kinda weak to be honest.

He's saying morality is objective but not absolute.  Kind of a cop out.

Ok.  Fine.  That means that you might think something is moral and I might think it's immoral.  Ultimately, we still need a judge to decide which one of us is right and which one of us is wrong and then an executioner to carry out that decision, whatever it may be.

Dude looks like Howard Roark by the way.

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Thu, Jan 14 2010 7:53 PM

Morality is purely subjective. People who think otherwise are using their emotions not logic.

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Thu, Jan 14 2010 7:55 PM

Poptech:

Morality is purely subjective. People who think otherwise are using their emotions not logic.

I agree because you might think something is wrong and I might think it's right.  I'm not God so I can't say my decision is final and, as far as I know, you're not God either, so you can't say your decision is final.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Awww, are you throwing a tantrum because everyone knows that you're a troll?
Poptech:
That was a statement not a tantrum.
Have you anything other than a whole lot of nothing to say?

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2,966
Points 53,250
DD5 replied on Thu, Jan 14 2010 8:13 PM

 

Esuric:

 

"and (d) either to enforce 100 percent reserve banking on the commercial banks" 

"While the outlawing of fractional reserve as fraud would be preferable if it could be enforced"

 

Your arguments and analogies don't hold water.  How weak is your argument that you are running for cover behind pathetic straw man and free banking Rothbardian attacks.

Since when does enforcing property rights and contractual agreements qualify as coercion?  Asking it differently, since when do Ancaps not recognize the need for law enforcement agencies?

 

Stop obfuscating and dancing around your inconsistencies. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Thu, Jan 14 2010 8:13 PM

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Have you anything other than a whole lot of nothing to say?

Have you anything but fascism to spread?

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070

Ok kid, have it your way. Everyone's a fascist, including you. Happy now, kiddo? Now go play in your sandbox.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Thu, Jan 14 2010 8:33 PM

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Ok kid, have it your way. Everyone's a fascist, including you. Happy now, kiddo? Now go play in your sandbox.

No I did not say everyone, I said you. I am very clear I what I state. Does your fascist behavior usually work on people? I thought you were an anarchist?

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
filc replied on Thu, Jan 14 2010 8:39 PM

bloomj31:

Poptech:

Morality is purely subjective. People who think otherwise are using their emotions not logic.

I agree because you might think something is wrong and I might think it's right.  I'm not God so I can't say my decision is final and, as far as I know, you're not God either, so you can't say your decision is final.

My issue with ethics is when people are inconsistent in their own views. Now if they consistently choose might makes right thats one thing, but most people are largely inconsistent with their ethics. I simply try to point it out and show them that they are being illogical if they believe A but not B under the exact same premise.  

Of course all that does is point out people's integrity or lack there of. They can choose to remain without any real integrity, which some here have openly admitted to doing in previous threads.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Thu, Jan 14 2010 8:42 PM

Fil,

All I've said is that I don't worry about right or wrong in the moral sense.  "Right", for me, is anything that is going to get me whatever I want.

"Wrong" is anything that's going to either get me something I don't want or make getting something I do want difficult to get.

The reason I don't worry about "right" and "wrong" in the moral sense is because to me, it's all a matter of opinion.  That's not good enough for me.  I want measurable results.  The ultimate measure being whether or not I get whatever I want.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 1,649
Points 28,420

bloomj31:

Fil,

All I've said is that I don't worry about right or wrong in the moral sense.  "Right", for me, is anything that is going to get me whatever I want.

"Wrong" is anything that's going to either get me something I don't want or make getting something I do want difficult to get.

The reason I don't worry about "right" and "wrong" in the moral sense is because to me, it's all a matter of opinion.  That's not good enough for me.  I want measurable results.  The ultimate measure being whether or not I get whatever I want.

Next time, just say you are a moral nihilist.

Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Thu, Jan 14 2010 9:00 PM

I will add, however, that I have found morality to be a useful lever with people who actually care about morality or see it as absolute or objective or whatever.

And so sometimes, even though I don't really believe what I'm saying, I'll appeal to another person's sense of morality in order to get them to do what I want them to do or believe what I want them to believe.

In that sense, morality can be quite useful and so I make sure to understand all the moral and ethical arguments that people tend to use and accept even though I don't feel they have much bearing on my own actions.

Now, perhaps I'm not fully aware of my own motivations or the rationale I use for deciding which courses of action to take.  Perhaps, at some subconscious level, I care about "right" and "wrong" in the moral sense.  If this is true, however, I am not consciously aware of it.

I think that I make decisions based on self interest.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
filc replied on Thu, Jan 14 2010 9:08 PM

Bloom your mis-understanding me. It's not what you believe or don't believe that I am disputing. It's the lack of consistency with your own beliefs. Being inconsistent, regardless of your beliefs, is self defeating when you have an argument to present. It discredits your own arguments. I simply point it out so others can see.  It's not the beliefs themselves.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Thu, Jan 14 2010 9:10 PM

filc:

Bloom your mis-understanding me. It's not what you believe or don't believe that I am disputing. It's the lack of consistency with your own beliefs. Being inconsistent, regardless of your beliefs, is self defeating when you have an argument to present. It discredits your own arguments. I simply point it out so others can see.  It's not the beliefs themselves.

In what way do you feel my argument is inconsistent with my beliefs?

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
filc replied on Thu, Jan 14 2010 9:31 PM

bloomj31:
In what way do you feel my argument is inconsistent with my beliefs?

Idk I havn't really thought about it recently. You've openly admited to it in previous posts. You have openly admited as having no integrity in the past. I havn't the energy or patience, nor do I care, to go find your quote.

Though I have to admit that since I've come to realize you are a might makes right type much more makes sense. I could argue with you the reasons of why Might makes right is not the way to go but you don't seem interested and like I said. I'm too tired atm. Plus thats another topic.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Thu, Jan 14 2010 9:36 PM

If I may make an observation, Fil, I might say to you that I believe you to be stuck in a particular ideological paradigm.  It's not a bad one.  In fact, I usually feel much safer around people with your particular paradigm because you practice a form of self-government which I find incredibly...reassuring.

But you seem to think that when I advocate something it's because I think it's morally right.  I think you think this because when you advocate something it's because you have to believe it's morally right.  So you project your paradigm onto me.  But I don't consult my moral compass when advocating things because I don't think I know God's will and I don't think the Bible is the revealed word.

When I advocate something it's because I think I stand to gain from it.  It's a very utilitarian/consequentialist paradigm.  So I think we're talking past one another.

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
filc replied on Thu, Jan 14 2010 9:51 PM

bloomj31:
When I advocate something it's because I think I stand to gain from it.  It's a very utilitarian/consequentialist paradigm.  So I think we're talking past one another.

No I'm with you 100% your just stuck on the word Moral as if it means something mystical. Most of what you said above is pretty nonsensical. I understand precisely what your stating though my friend. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 785
Points 13,445

Poptech:

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Ok kid, have it your way. Everyone's a fascist, including you. Happy now, kiddo? Now go play in your sandbox.

No I did not say everyone, I said you. I am very clear I what I state. Does your fascist behavior usually work on people? I thought you were an anarchist?

Seriously, WTF??? I thought that you actually had some decent arguments until you threw the word fascist out there, I can understand that you would be pissed off about being labeled a troll, but you were failing to answering the questions. My assumption: You have now passed beyond the point of any reasonable argument and are now just throwing words out there because you can, I will happily change this assumption the moment that you A: Describe to me exactly how anyone is being "fascist" here, and second of all actually begin defending your viewpoint.

Until this is done, just get out, making a fool of yourself is not endearing

"Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it." -Thus Spake Zarathustra
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,651
Points 51,325
Moderator
krazy kaju replied on Thu, Jan 14 2010 10:05 PM

Of course PT ignored the following comment:

Laughing Man:
Well wouldn't propounding government necessity in defense, law and other public utilities mean the concentration of economic planning and controls into the hands of government and thus making government ownership in the industry the only reality?

Yes.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Thu, Jan 14 2010 11:28 PM

krazy kaju:
Of course PT ignored the following comment:

Total Lie. I would appreciate it if you would stop lying about me, thank you.

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 419
Points 8,260

bloomj31:

He's saying morality is objective but not absolute.  Kind of a cop out.

Ok. Fine. That means that you might think something is moral and I might think it's immoral.

We can draw different conclusions based on our aesthetic precepts, which are subjective, but it does not begin or end there. Morality is not simply a mental scheme in our heads. It's the area of interpersonal interaction with respect to natural rights. IOW: Morality is just an extension of these rights, which are discovered by a man's reason. Are natural rights subjective? No. They're based on defined and measurable parameters.

But, I'm going to hold the Robinson Crusoe tale until you riposte with a "Survivor: Sociopath Island" scenario.

bloomj31:

Ultimately, we still need a judge to decide which one of us is right and which one of us is wrong

But they're only right to him... or desirable? Ah the hell with it.

There are four lights, a tree makes a sound when it falls, and Jacob Bloom subscribes to metaphysical nihilism.

bloomj31:

and then an executioner

No.

 

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 419
Points 8,260

Poptech:

Morality is purely subjective. People who think otherwise are using their emotions not logic.

I thought that you had outdone yourself when you cried fascist. Boy was I wrong. This tops any hypocritical use of neocon shock words.

Only the best from Hot Air.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Fri, Jan 15 2010 3:15 AM

Capital Pumper:
Are natural rights subjective? No.

Of course they are. They are merely opinions. What is a "natural right"? Right to life? Why? Because you believe it. Now granted I support this since it is logical for my existence but a mass murderer does not. I find it naive to believe that people will accept your subjective morality. This naive belief is the great logical fallacy of any anarchic societal system.

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 4,914
Points 70,630

Poptech:
They are merely opinions... Now granted I support this since it is logical

anybody that has studied philosophy, ie. is a lover of wisdom, can clearly see how Poptech has no idea what he is talking about...lol

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 2,162
Points 36,965
Moderator
I. Ryan replied on Fri, Jan 15 2010 7:27 AM

Poptech:

Of course they are. They are merely opinions. What is a "natural right"? Right to life? Why? Because you believe it. Now granted I support this since it is logical for my existence but a mass murderer does not. I find it naive to believe that people will accept your subjective morality. This naive belief is the great logical fallacy of any anarchic societal system.

1. I do not understand why you continue to say that. For, in your (and my) sense of the term "anarchist", none of us are anarchists!

2. Did you watch the video and listen to the audio that I recommended to you?

If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Fri, Jan 15 2010 10:19 AM

I like the idea of natural rights, so I support them.  Maybe they do exist with or without protection.  But that's not enough for me.  I need to see them protected.  I tend to think any rule is irrelevant unless someone is going to enforce it.  So this is the way I think of natural rights.

Rights may not be alienable, but they certainly are violable.  Why?  Because some people don't accept them.  How do you show those people that human rights exist?  You protect the people whose rights were going to be violated. 

The power of any rule is derived from the person who's going to enforce it.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,551
Points 46,635
AJ replied on Fri, Jan 15 2010 10:24 PM

"We originally want or desire an object not because it is agreeable or good, but we call it agreeable or good because we want or desire it"

-Mises

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 76
Points 1,100
Amadeus replied on Sat, Jan 16 2010 3:24 AM

Poptech:

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Have you anything other than a whole lot of nothing to say?

Have you anything but fascism to spread?

 

Funny, you were complaining about the use of shock-words. And bully arguments.

 

What would you consider your use of fascist earlier and in this quote, or the use of that Somalian argument and how if it's so great why doesn't all the anarchist move there?

 

You may not consider them shock-words or bully arguments, but they are in the same realm as those.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 86
Points 1,225

bloomj31:
The power of any rule is derived from the person who's going to enforce it.

Good point but does that also apply to cooperative relationships?  

Before you jerk your knee, think more deeply about how oftentimes people take turns when they converse.  It is an example of spontaneous organization where the parties involved obey the unspoken rule of not talking over each other.   There is no enforcement in the sense that no one is being forced to follow the rule.  They bind themselves to the rule because they independently conclude that it is in their own self interest to do so, i.e., they both want the conversation to continue.

You can see that there is more to a rule than force.  There is self interest--the antecedent of force.

In my non-scholarly opinion, this is the basis of natural rights.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Sat, Jan 16 2010 12:29 PM

Jorge A. Medina:

Good point but does that also apply to cooperative relationships?  

Before you jerk your knee, think more deeply about how oftentimes people take turns when they converse.  It is an example of spontaneous organization where the parties involved obey the unspoken rule of not talking over each other.   There is no enforcement in the sense that no one is being forced to follow the rule.  They bind themselves to the rule because they independently conclude that it is in their own self interest to do so, i.e., they both want the conversation to continue.

You can see that there is more to a rule than force.  There is self interest--the antecedent of force.

In my non-scholarly opinion, this is the basis of natural rights.

Why didn't Hitler think it was in his interest to honor the natural rights of the Jews?

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 3,415
Points 56,650
filc replied on Sat, Jan 16 2010 12:49 PM

bloomj31:
Why didn't Hitler think it was in his interest to honor the natural rights of the Jews?

He though they had no natural rights? A historian would have to answer but Hitler did not subscribe to the same type of natural rights you folks are talking about here. Such is proof by his actions.

In most cases it's ultimately ignorance of economic understanding, whether willful ignorance or willful ignorance.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Sat, Jan 16 2010 12:53 PM

filc:

He though they had no natural rights? A historian would have to answer but Hitler did not subscribe to the same type of natural rights you folks are talking about here. Such is proof by his actions.

In most cases it's ultimately ignorance of economic understanding, whether willful ignorance or willful ignorance.

The Nazis didn't care about economics, they murdered their Jewish slave labor because they thought the Jews were rats.

But, most importantly, the Jews didn't get their natural rights protected because no one was there to protect them.  So natural rights may be inalienable but they are not inviolable. 

Self interest, as this gentleman above pointed out, is often enough to encourage fair play and cooperation among men and mutual respect for natural rights.  But sometimes it's not enough.

  • | Post Points: 35
Page 5 of 6 (218 items) « First ... < Previous 2 3 4 5 6 Next > | RSS