I graveyarded this thread. It's hard to watch the resident moral nihilist preach natural rights. But then he's only here for attention and his own self-aggrandizement, so as long as Misesians want to humour him, he will keep posting the same double think and dishonesty day after day.
Poptech:Total Lie. I would appreciate it if you would stop lying about me, thank you.
Where did you address my comment? I must of missed it.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
liberty student: I graveyarded this thread. It's hard to watch the resident moral nihilist preach natural rights. But then he's only here for attention and his own self-aggrandizement, so as long as Misesians want to humour him, he will keep posting the same double think and dishonesty day after day.
Alright, let's talk about something else then.
liberty student:I graveyarded this thread.
bloomj31: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.
Yes it's not when the populous willingly remains ignorant of economics as you pointed out quiet well below.
bloomj31:The Nazis didn't care about economics, they murdered their Jewish slave labor because they thought the Jews were rats.
If thats true than it aligns precisely with what I said.
But I would have re-worded your below statement as
bloomj31:But, most importantly, the Jews didn't get their natural rights protected because no one was there to protect them understood the advantages of economics and trade. So natural rights may be inalienable but they are not inviolable.
Yes we are all very aware that you subscribe to might makes right. There are several fundamental flaws in it's philosophical belief though. For one, we are all minorities. There is always a majority that could exploit us in one way or another. I'd encourage you to start a new thread arguing this point rather then lacing every single one of your posts with it's residue.
If you want to discuss that property is only valid when it can be protected, or however you would word it in your terms, I strongly encourage you to make a new thread about it. If you don't I will and I may mis-represent your case in your eyes.
You go ahead and make your thread, I don't feel like pushing LS's tolerance levels right now.
bloomj31: You go ahead and make your thread, I don't feel like pushing LS's tolerance levels right now.
I'll wait untill your ready. I'd prefer an honest discussion. It seems we have to grind teeth to get that though Bloom.
Knight_of_BAAWA: liberty student:I graveyarded this thread.Or you could do what Jon said to do.
He'll just ban dodge again. Instead of reacting every time he shouts fire (or registers) we can try a different tactic. Simply disempower him. Then his act doesn't get him what he wants. From what I can tell, it is all about attention. Why else would someone dodge multiple bans to come back to post about Hitler and Mussolini and reject Austrian premises?
I don't recall him doing that.
liberty student: Why else would someone [...] reject Austrian premises?
Why else would someone [...] reject Austrian premises?
Is that somehow against the rules of this forum?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
no.
p.s. you censored out some important words.
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
nirgrahamUK: p.s. you censored out some important words.
Oh, I missed them, sorry. I was wondering why he wrote "[...]"!
I. Ryan:Oh, I missed them, sorry.
How did you miss them?
liberty student: How did you miss them?
It was an example of sarcasm. We, to prevent ambiguity, may need to invent some punctuation as a "sarcasm marker".
I. Ryan: <Oh, I missed them, sorry. I was wondering why he wrote "[...]"!>
<Oh, I missed them, sorry. I was wondering why he wrote "[...]"!>
Does that suffice? Is to utilize it expedient?
Oddly enough....a sarcasm punctuation mark has recently been proposed.
liberty student:Simply disempower him.
agreed. what I find more interesting, at this point, is why some liberty lovers find it so curious to stay mesmerized with somebody that adores totalitarianism. I think it has to do with it being so extremely the other way, it becomes informative to understand why somebody can be such. at least it was for me. i do have this tendency to try to get into the mind of a criminal, as a detective, and solve the crime that way. it is a very dangerous venture because it can bring harm to others within the circle I fellowship with, ie. this forum. It's already well known that sending care packages to a region of the earth in which a dictatorship is present doesn't really help the innocent. So thinking one is helping out the criminally insane with dialogue does get to the point of absurdity.
thus why i posted a picture of a crow lovin' shiny things - what is so pretty about them? cause i don't see it. or maybe a better analogy is the one ring, why so many, though knowing how evil it is, still felt mesmerized and felt they could somehow wield it for the better - just throw it in Mt. Doom and walk away.
The Late Andrew Ryan:Ok, what would you like us to call people who support extortion and unprovoked force instead?
Implicit in this sentence is that you assume every state engages in "extortion and unprovoked force (aggression)". What if I advocate an essentialist state that has no jurisdiction over you unless you agree to it in advance, cannot force you to accept a law unless you agree to it, cannot tax you unless you agree to it, and cannot stop you from seceding from that legal order entirely? By 'cannot' I mean legally limited and prevented from in the strongest possible measures, including constitutional limits and checks and balances (both far exceeding what the modern US relies on).
Such a state would give you any cause to call it an extorter, and would not be capable of unchecked aggression.
The Late Andrew Ryan:Indeed suddenly there is a need for such a word, because I have absolutly no idea what to call those who believe in the state, hmmm..... Because you know, statism really does makes sense for those who believe in such a term, so if you prefer I shall continue using statist, just as I would call somone who believed only in the validity of voluntary interactions a voluntaryist,
Ah, but I propose a voluntaryist state limited to essential terms. And since 'statism' connotes far more than the limited powers of an essentialist state, I don't think the word is apt. Simply accepting that the state may have legitimate functions and fulfill a legitimate need is different from saying the state can solve our problems and actively agreeing that state aggression should be used to solve those problems. You really wish to make no distinction between someone like me whom would holed state use of coercion to its moral uses, ie: responsive coercion, and those whom support aggression (in the name of doing good, foolishly)?
Nay, I say, nay, you cannot call me a statist.
The Late Andrew Ryan:somone who believes in the validity of the communist state a communist, and somone who believes in the sacredness of the individual and individualist.
Call me then an essentialist, for I believe in the essential functions of government and no more. And these essential functions certainly do not include aggression nor extortion.
The Late Andrew Ryan:If you actually have a preffered name for us to use against those who support coersion, please propose it, if not then I'll "coin" the term in order to fill the sudden void.
I do not support aggression. And I propose a state that does not use aggression. Saying 'coercion' alone is not enough, for there are two kinds of coercion: moral and immoral. If a state uses only moral coercion: responsive coercion used to stop aggression in defense of individual rights, then that is a good thing indeed.
As for it being voluntary, I propose city-state jurisdictions from which one can secede at will, as well as secede from the confederal government which would serve as a check on any state aggressing against its citizens, as well as maintain some national defense. More to it, but point remains, don't call me or anyone else who accepts a necessity for a minimum / essentialist state without aggression a statist. A statist must accept aggression, it seems, and we do not.
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.
Yeah, people on here take the smallest thing and it's like a bad Jeff Foxworthy skit: "You're a statist if..."
Many people on here are anarcho-capitalists. Capitalists use currency, and I'm sure these hypocrites use federal fiat money to engage in transactions of all kinds. Maybe they're statists too.
Personally, I define "statist" in the US as being someone who believes the union of the US to hold more importance and power than the states. Anyone have a problem with that?