bloomj31:I dunno, does she even know what anarcho-capitalism is? I mean if someone had told me like...4 or 5 years ago, before I ever learned anything about this stuff, that there were systems of thought that didn't involve government, I'd have laughed. I still do find some anarcho-capitalist ideas to be pretty extreme and I come on this site everyday, I've got like 2k posts. Know what I mean?
Is there an effective way to getting people interested in the idea? And no, I dont think she does.. I mentioned privatizing the military once and she seemed to think I was crazy. I haven't really read into that myself, but apparently the private military was tried in Italy. The companies just call up their competitors and agrees to cut corners when patrolling the neighborhoods so that they save money.
So if another poster could help me out on that, either with Youtube video, an article, or whatever... go for it.
/1/2010 6:29:37 PM Kelly Carl Privatized military has proved over and over and over to be a horrible idea 4/1/2010 6:29:40 PM Kelly Carl throughout history 4/1/2010 6:29:41 PM Carl Kelly Where? 4/1/2010 6:29:56 PM Kelly Carl everywhere! 4/1/2010 6:30:01 PM Kelly Carl all hired soliders 4/1/2010 6:30:13 PM Kelly Carl money is not as good of an incentive 4/1/2010 6:30:23 PM Kelly Carl because they don't care about what they're fighting for 4/1/2010 6:30:28 PM Kelly Carl they care about who is paying them 4/1/2010 6:30:40 PM Kelly Carl any countries history 4/1/2010 6:30:43 PM Kelly Carl has shown that 4/1/2010 6:30:46 PM Carl Kelly I dont know of any examples where they have been completely privatized 4/1/2010 6:30:57 PM Carl Kelly privatized would mean that where would be competing military companies 4/1/2010 6:30:58 PM Kelly Carl we have them right now 4/1/2010 6:31:05 PM Carl Kelly not just giving the entire countries military to one private owner 4/1/2010 6:31:12 PM Carl Kelly thats a monopoly, I'm against monopolies 4/1/2010 6:31:28 PM Kelly Carl I would never want to live in your world. 4/1/2010 6:31:35 PM Kelly Carl It would be corrupt
Oh and we talked about Health Care as well.. I think I got her to agree with me at one point :P though, I fell apart again after that.
/1/2010 6:31:39 PM Carl Kelly I want health care costs to be low, and for prices to be low they need to compete, why dont they compete? 4/1/2010 6:31:58 PM Carl Kelly Because theres a monopoly, so i want to break the monopoly being enforced by the government, and the AMA 4/1/2010 6:32:04 PM Carl Kelly and HMO's 4/1/2010 6:32:14 PM Carl Kelly so that we can have cheap quality health care again 4/1/2010 6:32:21 PM Kelly Carl Never going to happen 4/1/2010 6:32:38 PM Kelly Carl If you're for capitialism, you realize the point isto profit 4/1/2010 6:32:38 PM Carl Kelly Yeah but, ideally if it did 4/1/2010 6:32:42 PM Carl Kelly it would be the best right? 4/1/2010 6:32:43 PM Kelly Carl nobody will give up profit 4/1/2010 6:32:52 PM Kelly Carl If things worked on ideals 4/1/2010 6:32:56 PM Kelly Carl I would support communism 4/1/2010 6:33:00 PM Kelly Carl but the fact is, it doesn't work 4/1/2010 6:33:03 PM Kelly Carl so why talk about it? 4/1/2010 6:33:21 PM Kelly Carl it wll never be what it should be or could be 4/1/2010 6:33:32 PM Carl Kelly well lets establish a definition here 4/1/2010 6:33:38 PM Carl Kelly I dont suppor tthe current "Capitalism" 4/1/2010 6:33:44 PM Carl Kelly Which is corporate state fascism 4/1/2010 6:33:58 PM Carl Kelly I support a different "Capitalism" 4/1/2010 6:34:32 PM Carl Kelly State Capitalism is evil 4/1/2010 6:34:50 PM Carl Kelly I support Capitalism with property rights 4/1/2010 6:35:12 PM Carl Kelly and a market that is free of coerced monoplies 4/1/2010 6:35:17 PM Carl Kelly monopolies* 4/1/2010 6:35:46 PM Carl Kelly Do we have free capitalism now? hell no we never did not since 1860 4/1/2010 6:36:12 PM Carl Kelly The Oil companies charge outrageous prices because Halliburton lobbied with the world governments to make it illegal to drill in places like Southern, CA and Siberia 4/1/2010 6:36:28 PM Carl Kelly So that they could have a monopoly 4/1/2010 6:37:13 PM Kelly Carl *grumbles* oil needs to go 4/1/2010 6:37:23 PM Carl Kelly Yeah, and if we stop subisdizing it 4/1/2010 6:37:34 PM Carl Kelly Stop giving companies damn subsidies to use oil 4/1/2010 6:37:43 PM Carl Kelly Companies will look for alternative energies 4/1/2010 6:37:49 PM Carl Kelly because oil will be too expensive 4/1/2010 6:37:53 PM Carl Kelly and will look for something cheaper 4/1/2010 6:38:18 PM Carl Kelly But before that could happen, you ahve to let oil rise to its natural price, when its high enough people will want to stop using it 4/1/2010 6:39:04 PM Kelly Carl we should be looking for alternative energies 4/1/2010 6:39:06 PM Kelly Carl or more, not looking 4/1/2010 6:39:17 PM Kelly Carl we need to stop being afraid to crash the oil industry 4/1/2010 6:39:19 PM Carl Kelly We SHOULD be 4/1/2010 6:39:28 PM Carl Kelly But the government has barriers set up 4/1/2010 6:39:28 PM Kelly Carl and just start actually working on a solution 4/1/2010 6:39:30 PM Kelly Carl yes 4/1/2010 6:39:32 PM Carl Kelly thats preventing people from doing it 4/1/2010 6:39:34 PM Kelly Carl it's annnooooying >_<
when asked why we should increase the minimum wage :
"Because it is an instrument, one of many, which helps to build a fairer, more equitable, society. More equitable societies are safer, healthier and generally better places to live than less equitable ones."
"I believe that it has helped to stop people being exploited. The latest measure being to stop restaurants and bars using customer tips to "top up" wages - of course the down side is that the more unscrupulous owners will simply keep the tips for themselves to claw back the extra they are now having to pay. I am about to benefit from another form of "minimum wage" in the form of the SRA's trainee solicitor minimum salary. Basically it means that my firm cannot exploit my inexperience for the benefit of their profits by paying me peanuts. I believe the introduction of this was in some part influenced by a national minimum wage, as it seemed incongruous that someone who has spent 3-5 years training for a job could then be paid less than the national minimum wage per hour."
"I think bob and h5s make good points. We live in a society where we are sold the dream of owning your own home. If that dream is beyond a couple who are both working and on the minimum wage then what incentive do they have to work?"
"Joe, perhaps you misread the thread title, and instead of quoting yet more US based stuff you could perhaps stick to UK based research"
"I heard all the same arguments when the minimum wage was first introduced and none of the doomsayers predictions came to pass. Everything will be slightly more expensive but the people at the bottom end of the working population will be better off and i think it's an all round good thing for society that whatever work you do you are paid a wage you can live on and not just scrape by on.
We are in a society that must push the value of a "work ethic" as a priority. I don't think you can install work ethics in people without paying them a living wage, it just doesn't work. You may have done your share of part time shite jobs but you did them knowing your education was going to take you to better places. It's a different mindset entirely to those without decent educations who are stuck in low level employment who go from one job to another not giving a shite about their work as they money they are paid is so shite. Why bother working when you can claim the dole and sell a bit of weed on the side and earn more than someone working a full time job on the minimum wage.If even low level jobs are seen to be "worth it" then work will become more valued and society as a whole will reap a whole range of rewards from better service from better paid staff, lower crime levels and crucially lower numbers of people on long term benefits."
Me: "If private property is immoral, then how is it immoral for me to, say, burn down your house?" Him: "Because everyone else got together and made a law that says you can't."
Him: "Because everyone else got together and made a law that says you can't."
Please tell me you responded, "What if people got together and made a law that private property is moral? Sort of like they do now (with various inconsistencies)."
I want a T-shirt with that motivational poster on it.
If folks start talking about the poor not being helped or government funding of health care, education etc then two responses will at least shut the other guy up
1) "Put your money where your mouth is. If you believe that the poor need help then reach into your own pocket and give it to them yourself."
2) If they somehow make the argument that the vote lends legitimacy to an action that violates the NAP then " So if I and ten of my friends convene and decide to beat the s*** out of you you'd accept that as being legimitate because there was a vote?" If they say that's ridiculous then ask them why they think it's ridiculous.
In response to the "government-needs-to-give-people-self-esteem" argument, how does working for wages at the lowest possible legal level inspire self-esteem? For those who are unemployed, how does that inspire self-esteem? Does this not tell them, "You are almost useless," and "You ARE useless" respectively.
Moreover, if this is how people are supposed to be treated in the real world, why not start training them on this mentality earlier. I think B's, C's, D's, and F's should be made illegal. (the grades, not the bubs)
Check my blog, if you're a loser
How about this:
"The composition of the current economy has very little relation to the Austrian perspective. Again, what did Schiff and many Austrians (to this very day) claim about US hyperinflation following the housing bubble? How about the "looming market crash"? To this day it is a most brooding topic on Ron Paul forums. They have been repeating the same garbage for three years.
Are you claiming the Fed has abandoned the
? If so, where is your proof?"
Yes, I am a huge Dodgers fan.
Anti-state since I learned about the Cuban Revolution and why my dad had to flee the country.
Beer, Guns and Baseball My blog
tonyfernandez: How about this: "The composition of the current economy has very little relation to the Austrian perspective. Again, what did Schiff and many Austrians (to this very day) claim about US hyperinflation following the housing bubble? How about the "looming market crash"? To this day it is a most brooding topic on Ron Paul forums. They have been repeating the same garbage for three years.
Again, they don't understand time nor do they understand ceteris paribus.
AFAIK, Schiff hasn't given a specific date as to when hyperinflation will occur. Certain events must occur for hyperinflation to happen; it could occur in a year or it could happen in ten years.
Also, Schiff's argument has to taken in consideration with "under the current conditions." If conditions change, say, the Fed raises interest rate to 50%, then conditions have changed.
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 don't really need help with this, but I thought it was pretty interesting.
"Originally Posted by phattonez
Assuming the minimum wage caused anything more than marginally higher instances of unemployment, policy (and its externality) is still within the realm of determination. In 2006, the US was operating at near full capacity."
And it gets really good here.
"Quote:
Show me inflation (and not monetary aggregates).
Citi, BoA, and JP failed? Or is this another "prediction" because something has to give?"
bloomj31: Daniel Waite: Your summary of an-cap jives fine with mine. But according to you, you're a socialist "about certain things". What things and why? Roads, infrastructure, military, police, courts, garbage disposal etc.
Daniel Waite: Your summary of an-cap jives fine with mine. But according to you, you're a socialist "about certain things". What things and why?
Your summary of an-cap jives fine with mine. But according to you, you're a socialist "about certain things". What things and why?
Roads, infrastructure, military, police, courts, garbage disposal etc.
There are plenty of perfectly good private roads. Florida Turnpike for example. There is at least one private road with only houses less than a mile from my house. New communities and housing developments are booming all over the country, with their houses on private roads and even underground utility lines.
Infrastructure? I was under the impression that infrastructure IS privately provided. The question is to whether one or more service of the infrastructure is monopolized within a given area. I know for a fact that in my town of Bethel, CT, I can choose from more than one private electricity provider.
Don't know about the choices of water in my area, but I could swear that there are places where you have more than one choice.
Cable TV? Maybe back in the day, you only had one choice, but nowadays, there are many places where you have multiple choices of providers. This does not even take into consideration Satellite TV.
Ditto for phone and DSL. Virtually anywhere, you have a list of cell phone providers.
Virtually anywhere, you can choose between one or more oil and/or gas heat providers.
Many people still use their own septic tanks as opposed to public sewers. I do not know if there are private sewers.
Railroads for the longest time were quite an effective form of transportation in private hands. They became more and more strangulated with regulation, and gradually lost the ability to fight with trucks and airplanes. In fact, the trucking lobby was one of the biggest players in the whole fiasco. Freight and industrial rail is still privately owned and operated (and still profitable after all the regulatory chainballs). They even provide the lines for Amtrak passenger rail to use.
Private garbage disposal is actually pretty common. There is always enough market demand for it. Only in dumbass places with control freak mayors like Nanny Bloomberg is it a public service.
And, yes, there are even private courts! Businesses increasingly are settling their matters in these courts.
bloomj31: basics. Because I see no reason to switch things around. I don't understand why I should want to make them private. They work ok for me the way they are and I don't try to fix things unless I think they're broken. The broken parts of socialism are mainly entitlements imo. They're utterly unsustainable. It would be nice if that kinda socialism could work forever, but it can't. Now, is the trade off between getting stuff now and not having stuff later worth it? I don't know. Modern progressives think so. I think not.
The response to any arguments of poverty is the fact that the free market lifts people out of it. Start with that, and not an apologetic argument.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
More nonsense from my friend.
"What.... the **** are you even talking about? Even if the minimum wage had a more than substantial impact on unemployment, it still would fall under the realm of natural unemployment. Europe has a higher natural rate of unemployment for that very reason.The summation of frictional and structural unemployment is the natural rate of unemployment."
I don't even know what to say to this.
Tues. 10/04/06 18:58 EDT.post #46
Joe:I think it would be neat to have a catch all thread of all the various arguments that people find out there in defense of the state
I would much prefer any meaningful discussions to get their own thread. This is sort of meant for a bit of shock and/or laugh
'statist said what?!!?'
couple more:
"I'm English by the way, so enjoy (wince at) watching how the US media works and its apparent lack of serious regulation. Just makes you appreciate just how good the BBC is by comparison - it also shows you what Sky News would be like if we didn't have the regulations in place relating to balanced journalism."
"I do think the minimum wage is a good thing it's certainly helped me out in the past - and as long as the increase doesn't occur in one hit, it shouldn't be so much of an issue. I presume the £7 figure quoted is also for over 21s, with lower minimums for younger age groups? (Although how that can be justified in the light of age discrimination legislation is beyond me.) A slow, steady increase should help to offset any issues that the increase may cause in terms of increasing costs for employers being passed onto consumers. It should also give time for public services to find the necessary extra cash (although christ knows where from as I thought we were all strapped for cash these days)."
would certainly cause more 'discrimination' if there wasn't an exception, and I don't understand how implementing a bad idea over time, suddenly makes it a good idea.
I've got a doozy here. It's gotten kind of complicated for my tastes.
Exactly, and that is why it can increase unemployment.
As you can see, output to unemployment has deviated from okun's law. It has moved to a percentage higher than okun's law would predict given our output gap. A large amount of people are leaving the labor force,as you can see in Q4 2009 the amount of people leaving the labor force was lower than the trend. This should work to lower unemployment percentage. You can also see hours worked has fallen, and this should reduce the unemployment/output gap. Therefore, I would not think this could be causing the deviation from okun's law. Finally, we have productivity, which you can see increased relative to the trend. This is something that could explain at least some of the deviation from okun's law. Some of the increase in productivity is structural, but no doubt some of this is also due to cyclical effects such as laying off less productive workers, increased work effort, etc. So I halfway agree with you that this could go into the same category as unemployment benefits type structural unemployment. Of course, I am not sure if an increase in productivity is really bad, since it is something that eventually leads to an increase in quality of life. We can work less and get more. Of course, this may also show why money is not always neutral, as says law would imply. Wages don't fall or rise quickly. Despite the large increase in productivity, I doubt you are seeing a large amount of people getting a raise, at least right now. If wages could rise and fall instantaneously according to the economic conditions, I am not sure there would even be a problem.
found this gem today:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2010/may/20/us-politics-libertarianism-is-kookoo#start-of-comments
When we write about libertarianism, most liberals feel compelled to say something like, you know, I disagree with that viewpoint, but I respect that it's principled and intellectually consistent.
I say balderdookey. Libertarianism is kookoo. There can be no such thing as a basically stateless society (except for national defense and barest administration of law, I think are the exceptions they typically allow for). It's just ridiculous. Civil society would collapse without the state.
I've written this before, a few months ago. Conservatives, and libertarians, seem to think that we have regulations in this society because we have a bunch of underemployed pencil pushers sitting around dreaming up ways to make small business people's lives miserable.
It's ridiculous. We have regulations because throughout history people in various pursuits did really sleazy and unethical things. They swindled investors, they dumped toxins into bodies of water, they made children work long hours for slave wages. Et cetera. And so laws were passed and regulations were written.
And unfortunately such is man's endless capacity for sleaze and unethicality that this process will never end: as technology presents new ways to be sleazy, we'll always need to invent new ways to prevent sleaze from happening.
Yes, fine. Some regulations are onerous. Liberals should always be sensitive to legitimate concerns along these lines.
But you need a state. Time and history have proven no one else will perform these tasks.
So there's nothing in the least inellectually respectable about libertarianism. Intellectually consistent? Great. So was Goebbels. That doesn't mean much to me.
We all support a few libertarian-ish principles; we all agree that the state should have some limits. For example, I think it's perfectly fine for the state to make fast-food joints post nutrition information. But I would oppose the state having the right to ban the Quarter Pounder. So we all get that kind of thing.
But big-L Libertarianism is vapid. I hope in the next few months it is properly exposed as such.
I've argued with statists in too many comment threads to count. Mostly on Digg.com as Rothbardosaurus. Mention that you're an an-cap, and someone immediately brings up the US interstate highway system.
I guess the assumption is that only a coercive state could have brought highways into being.
Starting this kind of argument on the Internet is a bit like Jesus' analogy of "throwing pearls before swine", because the rest of his analogy is exactly what happens next. They "trample [the pearls] under their feet, and then turn to attack you."
Yes, people inevitably bring up government built roads as if they've brilliantly found the flaw in your position.
came across this one today that actually came from a 'libertarian':
"People that write articles for mises, always denote some superficial effect of the Federal Reserve on interest rates... but that isn't what caused this crash. The lack of equity, and loss of social stigmatism to default, is. The world went from 20% down payments w/closing costs and absolute fear of default... to no money down w/ seller covering closing costs and default is the result of the lender trying to defraud you."
"Here is our conversation on the Drug War. At least she agrees that Marijuana is not a "drug" or harmful at all.. 4/2/2010 4:05:29 AM Kelly Carl Legalizing them tells people it's okay to do them."
"Here is our conversation on the Drug War. At least she agrees that Marijuana is not a "drug" or harmful at all..
4/2/2010 4:05:29 AM Kelly Carl Legalizing them tells people it's okay to do them."
The thing you failed to bring up is the element of choice. She's assuming that if you make every dangerous drug 100% legal, people will think 'oh, cool, these must be good for me!' and will become drug addicts. She's ignoring the fact that anyone who would become a drug addict just because it became legal is probably already a drug addict. The war on drugs doesn't stop anyone from taking drugs if they really want to, lets be honest, it just makes it harder and more expensive.
I personally believe that most people with a small modicum of common sense would still not do hard drugs even if they were legal. I'm one of them, and I know plenty of others! It's not as if cocaine and meth are shrouded in mystery as to whether they're harmful or not, the average person has probably got at least some second-hand knowledge concerning their effects, be it from pop culture, education or society. Were drugs to become legal, I would still advocate for education on the aftereffects of all substances to encourage thoughtful decisions, hopefully put out by a private third party.
I did really like how you pointed out that if they were legal you could actually punish people for commiting crimes, not just possessing something illicit.
Avatar by me | Contact me if you need artwork or graphic design done for an Austrian/Libertarian/Anarchist purpose.
why are you arguing with someone that appeals to emotions?
Matthew M.: The common theme among arguments I observe is the (fallacious) assumption that, because I do not want the government providing a service, I do not want the service provided at all.
The common theme among arguments I observe is the (fallacious) assumption that, because I do not want the government providing a service, I do not want the service provided at all.
Bastiat even quotes that as an argument that was used against him. Ha.That slop 'argument' is old!
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/28/infrastructure.report.card/index.html
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/08/infrastructure_numbers.html
if only government can provide anything better than the market
this one was too funny:
Statist: you won't make me agree that taxes are theft
Me: well, then what are they?
Statist: It's society investing in all the things it needs to continue to function.
Confusing consequences with causes.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Seems like the problem is that you're letting her completely own the emotional side of the argument, and you do come off as a bit callous by saying things like "Americans are the only ones who complain about wages".
What you needed to do was get on HER Back for being the one who doesn't care about people. Ask her what do you think the people who work in a sweatshop would tell her if she told them all she's coming there to close down their factory? No one said working in a sweatshop was fun- but ask HER what the alternative is for those people FIRST before you give her the answer. You're letting her say whatever she wants and get off scotch free without defending herself, yet she forces you to defend your positions. The solution isn't to close down the sweatshops or to raise the minimum wage so that people are fired but to invest in the poor country, support more free-market activity so that more factories can open and the owners can compete for the workers by providing better conditions.
I mean really, she tells you that YOU have no idea, but what idea does SHE have? What credentials does she have for any of her points? I don't think she's been to India or Bangladesh because if she did, she'd know that a lot of kids that worked at the sweatshops there WERE child-prostitutes before the factories opened. You gotta call her out on her bullshit. Emotional arguments can't be won by the meek.
If you don't have the emotional upper-hand you will always lose. You need to grab that first. Free-market supporters always have the upper-hand morally but rarely if ever leverage it and prefer to go into logical diatribes which is useless unless the other person is trying to make an economic argument.
Being a new yorker, I find her comment about coming here to see how the homeless live laughable especially because its thanks to the CITY OF New York that more homeless are on the streets. The NYPD constantly harasses homeless, arresting panhandlers, and forcing places like churches to kick homeless into the streets http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/11/21/2008-11-21_churches_forced_to_boot_homeless.html . Even running campaigns discouraging people from giving homeless any change.
Reading the other arguments you had with her- it sounds to me like she's only watched movies with people who do cocaine or heroin because they don't "make you violent" especially if compared to Alcohol. Especially if she lives in New York, she should know that making those things illegal DOES NOTHING to prevent people from using it. Nothing at all. Anyone can go figure out where to get cocaine in less than an hour in New York if they wanted to. Plus, it being more expensive, the poor that get addicted to it will rob people so they can afford it. If its cheaper, obviously less people are going to be robbed. You don't solve these addictions by locking people up. If her complaint is that these drugs produce violent behavior, then with that logic alcohol should obviously be illegal since its the #1 drug causing violent activity. You don't get arrested for walking down the street drunk, but you do once you commit a crime. If it was up to her, everyone in the city would be locked up because they "might" commit a violent crime.
And if she's living in New York(sounds to me like she lives in the nice areas of NY), then she'd know that street crime over drugs is absolutely terrible- we don't need more people dying in these streets. Drug gangs would significantly lose their power if they couldn't sell drugs anymore- as they'd have to resort to means of making money that are much easier to catch and stop, i.e. auto-theft, extortion. Stopping a black market on drugs IS IMPOSSIBLE and will be to the end of time. Who's been helped or saved by drugs being illegal? Especially with things like craigslist even the least street-smart person can get any drug they want, any time of the day they want, delivered to their door if they want, RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW even with it being illegal.
lol I hope my post came off emotional enough as to show you what I mean. She makes blind assertions all the time, so you can too. From her point of view you only came to your conclusions based off of a video. So that communicates that you don't "Truly" believe in your positions, and that somehow you think you're smarter than her just because you saw the video(not saying that's really how you feel, but thats why she states that she can't even talk to you about your points of view. Its almost like if you saw another video that supported Communism you'd believe in that too) so she'll reject your arguments right away without even trying to prove them false. The more emotion you can attribute to your belief (while maintaining civility and open communication), the more power it will wield in persuasion. You need to put more emotion into it, not less. I hope everything I said makes some kinda sense.
Edit: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/07/07/2010-07-07_brooklyn_cops_bust_craigslist_pill_ring_that_shipped_1_million_of_adderall_vicod.html People like that will make sure every drug in demand is supplied.
Also, if socialist nations are so compassionate, how come they have closed borders and (many have) racial homogenous populations :P
"But if thought can corrupt language, language can also corrupt thought" - Orwell Theft is a word with very bad very specific connotations. If you don't think taxes have the same connotations as theft (which I don't), than you don't call it theft. Its really pretty simple. You pay taxes, you vote for officials, you expect services. Hopefully you work your way to comfort in a harsh world. If I were to say a little bit of theft is necessary, then I would be yielding to your highly charged use of the language. Many of the 'state apologists' you talk to may feel comfortable ceding a major point in favor of others that seem more important and easy to make, but that is because they don't realize how important a role language plays in the construction of ideas. I do, and therefore to me 'taxes' means one thing and 'theft' means another.
"But if thought can corrupt language, language can also corrupt thought" - Orwell
Theft is a word with very bad very specific connotations. If you don't think taxes have the same connotations as theft (which I don't), than you don't call it theft. Its really pretty simple. You pay taxes, you vote for officials, you expect services. Hopefully you work your way to comfort in a harsh world.
If I were to say a little bit of theft is necessary, then I would be yielding to your highly charged use of the language. Many of the 'state apologists' you talk to may feel comfortable ceding a major point in favor of others that seem more important and easy to make, but that is because they don't realize how important a role language plays in the construction of ideas. I do, and therefore to me 'taxes' means one thing and 'theft' means another.
anyone else see the irony in him quoting Orwell at the beginning.
Joe: '
'
I made that graphic. :) Seems like forever ago.
A common argument used by statists that I encounter, is about the the 'historical creation of the state'. By their definitin, the state, that great achievment, was created a long, long time ago by some very wise men and it is perfect in definiton and intention. They give this moment of statebirth mythical proportions and sometimes link it with an intervention of some higher power. Since I guess they find history very dull, they never link it with earliest known form of state-monopoly and only cherry-pick from the good ole days, namely the state(empire) in its mightiest, strongest and most destructive (for them most useful). I think most of you from North America don't have that problem since USA and Canada are known as immigrant countries with a detailed histography and you don't have this extra dimension that reaches into the unknown past and tries to strenghten the arguments for the existence of the state. It is pathetic and it makes me sick.
Do you know if Dr. Block has seen the poster? I wonder what he thinks/would think about it.
this one was too funny: Statist: you won't make me agree that taxes are theft Me: well, then what are they? Statist: It's society investing in all the things it needs to continue to function.
Basically it is.
scineram: this one was too funny: Statist: you won't make me agree that taxes are theft Me: well, then what are they? Statist: It's society investing in all the things it needs to continue to function. Basically it is.
after pushing further:
First off, I don't have to pay taxes, I can decide to live off the grid, like our newly jobless toilet cleaner, harvesting wild berries and trapping bunnies. But I know that I'll probably have a more comfortable life if I adhere to the rules of the society in which I live in, rules like I cannot murder, steal from other people, and that I have to pay taxes. In return I expect certain things. I expect to have good roads, schools, law and order, etc. I expect protection and assistance in the event of natural disasters, wars, even losing a job. If I'm failed in these respects I can kick up a fuss and, especially in a democracy, I can facilitate change. When I'm 'stolen' from, I don't expect anything in return. Thus, the context is completely different. Its like saying that 'sad' and 'suicidal' mean the same thing, because in some ways the two words are similar. That's where nuance becomes so important. But you know these arguments very well Joe, its not like I'm telling you anything new. The argument really boils down to whether or not you believe in Mises' idea that war could be put out of business in an anarchic world.
Heh your friend is funny Joe
First off, I don't have to pay taxes, I can decide to live off the grid, like our newly jobless toilet cleaner, harvesting wild berries and trapping bunnies
When I'm 'stolen' from, I don't expect anything in return. Thus, the context is completely different
Because society is a person with needs the satiation of which it can weigh up against the opportunity costs they'd cause it to endure...
steal from other people, and that I have to pay taxes.
As for this... the former is violated if you are for welfare, the latter is a figment of the mind. You only "have" to pay taxes to avoid repercussions of not doing so. Else he should advance a moral argument justifying this "have to".
I guess thieves should offer their victim fortune cookies. Then no one would consider them thieves and hunt them down and lock them up.