JAlanKatz:What do you mean when you say "treat people in a civilized manner"
I would say "treating them along the lines of the currently accepted societal mores".
JAlanKatz:Well, no. A state is not a protective agency, a state is a self-enriching agency.
Like the mob. A self-enriching protective agency. I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.
JAlanKatz:As I've said, because there's no reason to invest in the capital necessary to have these round-about production methods if you expect that at any moment, your land and property can be seized by this group which expressly states that it may do so.
As you said, the state is parasitic. Why would any parasite with half a brain want to kill its host? People still go to work everyday, because they know the state is not going to confiscate all of their wealth. To do so would be suicide for the institution.
Also remember you must distinguish between a state and a criminal organization.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
meambobbo: Also remember you must distinguish between a state and a criminal organization.
Who does?
Jackson LaRose:I would say "treating them along the lines of the currently accepted societal mores".
So it's just an odd coincidence that across societies (outside of government) it tends to mean the same set of things?
Jackson LaRose:Like the mob. A self-enriching protective agency. I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive.
Then the state would be a protective agency in the same sense as the mob. The mob never protects anyone except from itself. That's the original of the expression "protection money."
Jackson LaRose:As you said, the state is parasitic. Why would any parasite with half a brain want to kill its host? People still go to work everyday, because they know the state is not going to confiscate all of their wealth. To do so would be suicide for the institution.
They do this in the context of civilization. The question is about starting the process. A parasite would want to kill its host if it has a high time-preference, as states do.
meambobbo:Also remember you must distinguish between a state and a criminal organization.
What ever for?
JAlanKatz:So it's just an odd coincidence that across societies (outside of government) it tends to mean the same set of things?
What do you mean?
JAlanKatz:Then the state would be a protective agency in the same sense as the mob. The mob never protects anyone except from itself. That's the original of the expression "protection money."
Well, the mob also protects its interests. The state does the same. That is why we here in the states aren't reading Mao's little red book kindergarten, while practicing our Mandarin.
JAlanKatz:A parasite would want to kill its host if it has a high time-preference, as states do.
What?
bloomj31: Angurse: Who are you arguing against, poor, starving Africans? If not, then they're basically on the same level as yourself. Most "crazy leftists" that I've encountered have been fairly well off. Lol, you're right, they're probably just as comfortable as I am.
Angurse: Who are you arguing against, poor, starving Africans? If not, then they're basically on the same level as yourself. Most "crazy leftists" that I've encountered have been fairly well off.
Who are you arguing against, poor, starving Africans? If not, then they're basically on the same level as yourself. Most "crazy leftists" that I've encountered have been fairly well off.
Lol, you're right, they're probably just as comfortable as I am.
Lefty: "You've never been poor, so you have no right to tell us if we're right or wrong"
You're right I've never been poor, but have you? If you've never never been poor either then you have just as little right as I do.
Lefty: "As a matter of fact yes, I have been poor.
Erhm...
Edit: I replied to this without realizing how long this thread was. This comment is probably out of place by now.
I realize this thread is pretty old, but I just came across it and had a perfect response to the original post. (And most of the 4 pages of this thread are just a dialogue between two users.)
bloomj31: I often encounter this argument against me. Now, I know it's basically ad hom, but it's also very effective in debate. Basically, I can't be taken seriously when I criticize leftist policy because I've never been poor, so I don't know what it's like to be hungry. They're right, I don't know what it's like to be hungry. But that doesn't make what I'm saying right or wrong. I'm sure there are other people on this site who experience this argument, thoughts? EDIT: My other favorite retort goes something to the effect of "you're just living off an inheritance, which is basically a form of welfare, therefore you are a hypocrite for criticizing the government welfare program."
I often encounter this argument against me. Now, I know it's basically ad hom, but it's also very effective in debate. Basically, I can't be taken seriously when I criticize leftist policy because I've never been poor, so I don't know what it's like to be hungry. They're right, I don't know what it's like to be hungry. But that doesn't make what I'm saying right or wrong. I'm sure there are other people on this site who experience this argument, thoughts?
EDIT: My other favorite retort goes something to the effect of "you're just living off an inheritance, which is basically a form of welfare, therefore you are a hypocrite for criticizing the government welfare program."
Someone in an audience tried the same thing with Milton Friedman. His responses are the best I've ever heard...especially the second one, which anyone can use. (the guy breaks in at about 3:50, but watch the whole thing)
bloomj31:I often encounter this argument against me. Now, I know it's basically ad hom, but it's also very effective in debate. Basically, I can't be taken seriously when I criticize leftist policy because I've never been poor, so I don't know what it's like to be hungry. They're right, I don't know what it's like to be hungry. But that doesn't make what I'm saying right or wrong. I'm sure there are other people on this site who experience this argument, thoughts? EDIT: My other favorite retort goes something to the effect of "you're just living off an inheritance, which is basically a form of welfare, therefore you are a hypocrite for criticizing the government welfare program."
Leftist policy is the reason there even is poverty in the 21st century. If it wasn't for their policies, humanity would be so productive that there would be no need for welfarism.
That's a little bit of a stretch, I think
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Up until recently I'v worked for only slightly more than minimum wage($8.30/hr)...so this argument really doesnt effect me.
Tell them you know a poor person who agrees with you.
I've been poor. Bam, argument destroyed.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Laotzu del Zinn:That's a little bit of a stretch, I think
It's consistent logically. He doesn't mean your leftism, which is just feeling emotional about stuff. He means progressive leftism. Democracy etc.
I have never been poor but I have seen poverty (in the real world - not just the television).
Okay since it seems most people can't be bothered to view the short vid, I'll just write it out...
In case you haven't ever been poor (or at least poor enough to satisfy the moron who is accusing you), and you don't want to lie, Friedman's second response was perfect. And the great part is, he didn't even need it.
Douche: "Have you ever been on welfare, or poor?" Friedman: "Of course! Of course....more so than most of the people in this room!....[applause] How many of you have worked a twelve hour day and gotten paid 78 cents? But you know that's all irrelevant. Is there one of you who is going to say that you don't want a doctor to treat you for cancer unless he himself has had cancer?"
Douche: "Have you ever been on welfare, or poor?"
Friedman: "Of course! Of course....more so than most of the people in this room!....[applause] How many of you have worked a twelve hour day and gotten paid 78 cents?
But you know that's all irrelevant. Is there one of you who is going to say that you don't want a doctor to treat you for cancer unless he himself has had cancer?"
John James:Okay since it seems most people can't be bothered to view the short vid, I'll just write it out...
I had listened to it. It was a good answer.
Haha.
That's still quite a stretch.
Laotzu del Zinn:That's still quite a stretch.
The problem with the leftism he is talking about, is that it confuses intent with means. Wanting to help someone and acting in way that helps someone, are not the same thing. The well intentioned actions of leftists for economic or military intervention have been massive fails.
liberty student: Laotzu del Zinn:That's still quite a stretch.The problem with the leftism he is talking about, is that it confuses intent with means. Wanting to help someone and acting in way that helps someone, are not the same thing. The well intentioned actions of leftists for economic or military intervention have been massive fails.
It's not a stretch at all. Affluence is caused by exchange and specialization, i.e. capitalism. Countries are poor because they attempted socialism more than rich countries. Countries are rich because they attempted socialism less than poor countries. In the 21st century absolute poverty would not exist if it wasn't for the free lunch schemes of the left. It's that simple.
EmperorNero:It's not a stretch at all. Affluence is caused by exchange and specialization, i.e. capitalism. Countries are poor because they attempted socialism more than rich countries. Countries are rich because they attempted socialism less than poor countries. In the 21st century absolute poverty would not exist if it wasn't for the free lunch schemes of the left. It's that simple.
Completely agree.
I get the sentiment, and there is some truth to it, no doubt. Not the least of which is giving up the revolutionary principle for ill-fated reforms. But either way, it is still a huge jump to say "all poverty" in the western world is because there is welfare and a minimum wage. That's quite a ludicrous assertion.
You could probably leave out the "ie capitalism" part becuase it is inconsequential (and imo wrong, but we won't get into that here).
Exactly what form of socialism does Brazil practice? Bangladesh? Samoa? Saudi Arabia?
More ridicuous unfounded assertions based merely on their theory from the ancap crowd....
I think the term should be collectivism. Socialism is a form of collectivism.
I think that's fair to say, but not all forms of collectiivism are socialism either. I would say all socialism is collectivist (as far as I know, even Proudhoun was more of a collective individualist) some interventionist. But in no way can you say all collectivism and interventionism is socialism.
I would prefer if we could get rid of these labels all together. You could call me a wiggleyblag for all I care. It's really just a complication of language (and off topic, what I think holds us back from "understanding" quantum dynamics) that we even try to identify everything independant of the dynamic systems surrounding it.
I hold to the principle that worker/people power (democracy) is the ethically valid way of approaching things. Simple as that. Call it what you want.
Laotzu del Zinn:I hold to the principle that worker/people power (democracy) is the ethically valid way of approaching things. Simple as that. Call it what you want.
Democracy is mob rule. It has nothing to do with ethics.
liberty student:Democracy Dumbocracy is mob rule. It has nothing to do with ethics.
Fixed
If you want to call mob rule democracy, I can't stop you. It's not. But whatever. Simply put democracy is the many various forms that people exercise power over the legal and poltiical structure. Demos (people) kratos (power).
Like I said, call it what you want. Call it rankrankflankocracy. Protecting the individual (all individuals) from tyranny is the most ethically valid way of approaching things, in my humble opinion; that includes from the tyranny of the majority as much as the tyranny of the minority/individual.
Protecting the individual (all individuals) from tyranny is the most ethically valid way of approaching things, in my humble opinion; that includes from the tyranny of the majority as much as the tyranny of the minority/individual.
Of course- protecting all peoples from tyranny is quite honorable. I just don't see how democracy promotes that when majority rule by definition forces its decisions on the minority.
Laotzu del Zinn:Simply put democracy is the many various forms that people exercise power over the legal and poltiical structure. Demos (people) kratos (power).
Who else would have power besides the people?
See, the word many of us would use is market. Democracy has a very specific connotation, not the very generalized use (which is vague at best) you are offering. The market is people interacting in a voluntary manner. This protects all. Politics necessarily must have winners and losers because conflicts are managed by force, majority or both.
Laotzu del Zinn:Protecting the individual (all individuals) from tyranny is the most ethically valid way of approaching things, in my humble opinion; that includes from the tyranny of the majority as much as the tyranny of the minority/individual.
Well that's why I am a libertarian. Because I know that politics doesn't lead to protecting every individual. Politics is a zero sum game. The market can be a positive sum game. I am looking for positive sum outcomes.
See, the word many of us would use is market. Democracy has a very specific connotation, not the very generalized use (which is vague at best) you are offering. The market is people interacting in a voluntary manner. This protects all. Politics necessarily must have winners and losers because conflicts are managed by force, majority or both
Small minorities of people, of course.
I would agree with that to an extent. But then you get into the depths of private property and the protection of an individual monopoly over resources, which is very undemocratic.
Well that's why I am a libertarian. Because I know that politics doesn't lead to protecting every individual. Politics is a zero sum game. The market can be a positive sum game. I am looking for positive sum outcomes
Ya, but as of right now, possibly indefinitely, there will be politics with very real consequences on people's lives.
Laotzu del Zinn:Small minorities of people, of course.
Why not individuals?
Laotzu del Zinn:I would agree with that to an extent. But then you get into the depths of private property and the protection of an individual monopoly over resources, which is very undemocratic.
Indeed it is undemocratic which is precisely why I like it. The notion of an individual monopoly over resources is a boogeyman in my opinion. No offense, but ideas like that communicate a fundamental misunderstanding of the incentives behind ownership.
Laotzu del Zinn:Ya, but as of right now, possibly indefinitely, there will be politics with very real consequences on people's lives.
That doesn't change the nature of what politics is whether it is the limitations or consequences of politics.
Politics is a zero sum game.
Sorry to nitpick, LS, but I think it's actually a negative sum game. Time, administration costs, transaction costs, etc... ;)
Giant_Joe: Politics is a zero sum game. Sorry to nitpick, LS, but I think it's actually a negative sum game. Time, administration costs, transaction costs, etc... ;)
Thanks Joe, you are correct. I was trying to keep it very simple.
I understand the supposed motives quite well. That doesn't change the nature of private ownership. Don't get me wrong, it was good we eliminated the family based title to all/most land. Now we just need, imo, to eliminate the individual based title.
i Guess I just root for the underdog.
^Epicurus, as for democracy, how is it not forcefull? Imagine if you will that we had the right not choose the laws directly and not just elect "representatives". Now imagine if the majority of the population decided to ban marijuana (or just keep it illegal), is that not force? How is that libertarian?
We are just applying this to the whole, while you only see the 'positive' aspect of democracy, aka at least it's not fascism.
Democracy is one step forward in the direction of freedom (gives the choice to many people instead of just a few), but then takes another step back (still doesn't give choice to everyone).
Epicurus,
It's Laotzu. I've moved away from my hedonistic ways.
how is it not forcefull? Imagine if you will that we had the right not choose the laws directly and not just elect "representatives". Now imagine if the majority of the population decided to ban marijuana (or just keep it illegal), is that not force? How is that libertarian?
Doing drugs exercises no power over another individual. There is nothing democratic about prohibition. That has more to do with republicanism with all its senatorial rules and general statism.
Democracy is one step forward in the direction of freedom (gives the choice to many people instead of just a few), but then takes another step back (still doesn't give choice to everyone)
But yet you would place economic power squarely in the hands of a small minority...
Liberal democracy is good and all, but that's not what I would advocate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8385069.stm
The swiss ban on minarets shows exactly how effective the implementation of democracy is at preventing the majority from attempting to impose their every whim on individual freedom. (Not very).
You're so cool.
I can't help but say thank you, my good man.