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

Sidelines thread to Lilburne and Rettoper's debate, since we can't post in the actual debate thread

rated by 0 users
This post has 194 Replies | 10 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
DanielMuff Posted: Sat, Jun 12 2010 3:43 PM

Unsurprisingly, Rettoper is already dodging and going off topic.

Also the over/under for when the first mention of Hitler will be is 26.5 posts. Mind you, this is a gentlemen's bet. And no bribing Rettoper.

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: 125
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

Let me just remind Retopper that we both agreed not to discuss the topic at hand in any other thread.  That includes this one.  You can respond to what people have said about your positions here after the debate is finished.  And everyone else, so as not to distract from the debate, please refrain from insulting or deriding the character of either of us in here.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Rettoper: "I think we need to establish that we live in the real world."

*sigh*

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: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 785
Points 13,445

So what exactly is this thread for?

"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: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

To comment on the debate.

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: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 785
Points 13,445

Ah.

Well as expected Rettoper isn't actually adressing anything Liburne says and Liburne seems so determined to actually set them on the right track (not going to happen) that he's not adressing much of what Rettoper says.

I just wish Liburne would start focusing on defence and ideological perpetuation and then this might actually get going somewhere.

"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: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

I think Rettoper just gave in to the original question.

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 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 871
Points 15,025
chloe732 replied on Sat, Jun 12 2010 4:41 PM

"[M]ore specifically, human beings would not  magically and genetically mutate from  brute statists that they have been throughout history to benevolent free marketeers just because their environment changed.  Humans have always exhibited certain traits (greed, avarice, jealousy, envy, pride, et al) that may be anathema to the permanent establishment of an anarchic society."

Strawman.  Anarcho-capitalist thought does not argue that people must change in any way.  Greed, avarice, jealousy, envy, pride, et al will exist in an anarcho-Capitalist society, and nobody argues otherwise.

The phrase "anathema to the permanent establishment of...."  Does he mean "may prevent the permanent establishment of..."  If these things are merely "anathema", then so what? 

"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner.   "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

I find it fascinating that he doesn't ever dein to compare and contrast market-anarchy with constitutional republics. He says, human beings have XYZ imperfection therefore market anarchy fails, without mentioning how these human defects play out in the form of government he advocates. MarketAnarchy 'looks enticing to outside predatory states', (well don't constitutional republics?)

Does he think the analysis is too obvious and mundane to perform, or is it cognitive dissonance of a sort?

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: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 366
Points 5,635
yessir replied on Sat, Jun 12 2010 5:03 PM

 

I wish this was the 1700s, he would be claiming that slavery will always exist, because it does and people are just aggressive and will make each other slaves. History has shown that slavery will just expand.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 96
Points 2,270

So, what does the future - in our lifetimes - look like for anarchy?  Will there be enclaves while we are still young?  Or will be die like most of civilization never seeing a glimpse at all?

I think the latter will happen.  I'm about 99.9999% sure.  There are too many superstitious aka religious people that will not allow it to happen.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Rettoper: "In addition, they were cited from wikipedia ( a habit of many anarchists)  which is not a source I trust without verification."

Emphasis added.

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 150 Contributor
Posts 785
Points 13,445

"So, what does the future - in our lifetimes - look like for anarchy?"

Probably nothing... I think that the best likely scenario is that a lot of states move twoards minarchism, but who can really know where things will go?

Who could have known in 1750 that within 50 years an English colony would be a constitutional republic that would eventually conquer the world? Who in germany in 1913 could have guessed that in 30 years the country would be a facist dictatorship which had the serious possibility of dominating the entire west, and was exterminating millions inside of its own  borders? What Roman could have guessed that a man, who may well have seemed like just another deranged jew who had been crucified, would eventually have the largest religeon on earth base itself off of his teachings?

We cannot know the future, and (to me) it appears as though we are reaching one of histories crossroads... To be realistic however, things often seem this way.

"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
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 871
Points 15,025
chloe732 replied on Sat, Jun 12 2010 5:20 PM

The debate question has been changed twice.  Rett's response to interation #3: "I think my statement above answers your question. ".  Well, I guess that's it then.   Nothing more to see here folks... move along.

"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner.   "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Did Rettoper just admit that his position is illogical?

Btw, if you want to learn how to straw man, then learn from Rettoper.

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: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,129
Points 16,635
Giant_Joe replied on Sat, Jun 12 2010 6:14 PM

Rettoper retracted some statements. I consider that commednable espeically given that it's the internet and people just want to argue from their position no matter what. At least he's trying to learn. Might have been a little less turbulent if he bothered to learn more before arguing against some of the ideas that are prevalent here. Oh well. We all learn.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 871
Points 15,025
chloe732 replied on Sat, Jun 12 2010 7:23 PM

Vocabulary word of the day:  Dirigiste

"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner.   "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Sat, Jun 12 2010 10:10 PM

[^ SEE SECOND POST ABOVE ^ {"And everyone else, so as not to distract from the debate, please refrain from insulting or deriding the character of either of us in here.")]

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 1
Points 20

Can we get a link to the debate please?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/17464.aspx

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Sat, Jun 12 2010 10:28 PM

Lilburne, you should make this your profile pic.

Banned
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

?

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Sat, Jun 12 2010 10:35 PM

Grayson Lilburn --> Grillburn.

Banned
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

ha!

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 488
Points 8,140
LeeO replied on Sat, Jun 12 2010 10:38 PM

I think Rettoper made some good points in his long list of problems with anarchy, and I benefitted from reading Grayson's well-reasoned responses. I am not quite an anarchist, mainly for reasons of practicality, so the debate is very interesting to me. I would enjoy taking an "anti-anarchy" position in a similar one-on-one debate sometime. On the other hand, the ancaps here have given me tons of literature to read which I should probably dig into before engaging in more debate.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 488
Points 8,140
LeeO replied on Sat, Jun 12 2010 10:39 PM

Grayson Lilburn --> Grillburn.

:)

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 488
Points 8,140
LeeO replied on Sat, Jun 12 2010 10:42 PM

Actually, it was a "short list." Apparently there is more to come....

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
DanielMuff replied on Sat, Jun 12 2010 10:45 PM

 

LeeO: "I am not quite an anarchist, mainly for reasons of practicality, [...]"

What do you mean by "reasons of practicality"?

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: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 488
Points 8,140
LeeO replied on Sat, Jun 12 2010 10:52 PM

That, practically speaking, it may be more feasible in the near future to work toward a freer society by attempting to establish a state limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property. It's part of the old "are politics useful or not" debate.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Bert replied on Sat, Jun 12 2010 11:36 PM

Is this the thread we make the bets in?

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 550
Points 8,575

That, practically speaking, it may be more feasible in the near future to work toward a freer society by attempting to establish a state limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property. It's part of the old "are politics useful or not" debate.

Retopper brought up a similar point, and I don't quite get it. I don't see why anarchists somehow hurt the battle for limiting the state just because we believe things would be best if the state was done away with all together, or why arguing for a stateless society comes at the expense of arguing for reining back the state. It's not as if the populous will one day be given a ballot in which they may choose 1) the status quo, 2) a minimal state or 3) no state, and those arguing for no state take away votes from the minimal state option. A free market anarchist scholar also does not somehow take away from the minarchist argument; that one studies how law can be formed voluntarily and without the state, instead of studying how something like roads or education could be provided privately under a minimal state, does not hurt the minarchist struggle.

"People kill each other for prophetic certainties, hardly for falsifiable hypotheses." - Peter Berger
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 12:55 AM

"That, practically speaking, it may be more feasible in the near future to work toward a freer society by attempting to establish a state limited to the protection of life, liberty, and property"

Except that there is nothing practical about it, considering your goal is impossible and thus utopian. It will never be reached and must therefore be discarded - if you want to be practical, that is wink.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 12:57 AM

Ffs, I get errors every time I try edit my post..



Anyway, here is your problem:

The Trouble With Libertarian Activism by Stephan Kinsella.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 8:43 AM

I don't see why anarchists are particularly hurt by the difficulty in achieving social change. It would be even more difficult if you were trying to start a monarchy in the United States, or a democracy in Saudi Arabia. Ancaps have an advantage because their movement simply wants to be left alone; they don't claim to own everyone else in the country.

Banned
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
DanielMuff replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 12:43 PM

Rettoper: "Difficult is the US team winning the world cup -- that may occur within this century.

 However establishment of  a viable and significant ancap society is in another league because there is no precedent and nothing on the horizon has changed to engender optimism for this happening." (emphasis added) source

This is funny because the USA has never won a World Cup. Btw, nothing on the horizon has changed to engender optimism for team USA to win the World Cup.

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 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 871
Points 15,025
chloe732 replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 1:32 PM

Here is the most recent version of the debate question, interation #3:  "History has proven that enclaves of anarcho-capitalism cannot survive for long given the existence of non-anarcho-capitalist societies.  Rettoper in the affimative, Grayson in the negative."

 

 

 

 

"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner.   "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 488
Points 8,140
LeeO replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 1:47 PM

Retopper brought up a similar point, and I don't quite get it. I don't see why anarchists somehow hurt the battle for limiting the state just because we believe things would be best if the state was done away with all together, or why arguing for a stateless society comes at the expense of arguing for reining back the state. It's not as if the populous will one day be given a ballot in which they may choose 1) the status quo, 2) a minimal state or 3) no state, and those arguing for no state take away votes from the minimal state option. A free market anarchist scholar also does not somehow take away from the minarchist argument; that one studies how law can be formed voluntarily and without the state, instead of studying how something like roads or education could be provided privately under a minimal state, does not hurt the minarchist struggle.

I understand and agree with these points. Here is the general problem I see:

Throughout history, humans have tended to organize themselves into two groups: a leading minority and a following majority. While there are examples of successful anarchic societies, no such societies currently exist on a large scale. Right now, Earth is dominated by coercive governments. Even when governments collapse, there have always been new rulers ready to fill the void and masses ready to follow them without complaint.

In order to become a member of the ruling class, one must have a desire to lead and then acquire the power to lead. Since political power grows from the barrel of a gun, human history is full of violent, predatory rulers. Oh, and power also tends to corrupt. All of these coercive and corrupt leaders are very good at one thing: destroying human liberty.

So what is the champion of liberty to do? As long as he remains in the group of de facto followers, all he can do is complain about the policies of the current tyrant. He does not have the power to implement his own policies. If he wishes to enact change, he must seek power and become a member of the leading minority. He must organize with other like-minded leaders and seek to establish a different sort of ruling structure based not on theft and violence, but on protecting individual liberty. Otherwise, he will forever be ruled by the predators and criminals who will always be interested in running the show.

However, an anarchist does not want to establish or implement anything - he simply wants to break the monopoly on law held by government. The anarchist envisions a society without rulers making rules - rather, with law and order determined by people working competetively within the structure of the free market. Therefore, anarchists are averse to the idea of entering the power structure, especially through politics. On the other hand, minarchists are more inclined to seek political power with goal of limiting the scope of government.

In principle, I am an anarchist who opposes all coercion and is able to envision a society without a monopoly on law. In practice, I believe it will perhaps take thousands of years for anarchy to emerge. In the meantime, I am trying to cope with the more immediate threat of the rise of totalitarian government all around the world with the understanding that more freedom is always better than less freedom. Therefore, I am tempted to take up the stance of the libertarian activist who is willing to become a member of the ruling class in order to shape the path of mankind.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

>>In principle, I am an anarchist who opposes all coercion and is able to envision a society without a monopoly on law. In practice, I believe it will perhaps >>take thousands of years for anarchy to emerge.

would you analyse prospects for anarchy differently if your peers held the same opinions that you hold?

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: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 488
Points 8,140
LeeO replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 5:16 PM

would you analyse prospects for anarchy differently if your peers held the same opinions that you hold?

Yes. If the "common people" like me were all anarchists, then we would be in much better shape. With a certain critical mass of people unwilling to enslave themselves, it seems that governments would topple and the world would become much more free. Unfortunately the masses are all too easily brainwashed by statist propaganda.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 366
Points 5,635
yessir replied on Sun, Jun 13 2010 5:23 PM

 

LeeO:

would you analyse prospects for anarchy differently if your peers held the same opinions that you hold?

Yes. If the "common people" like me were all anarchists, then we would be in much better shape. With a certain critical mass of people unwilling to enslave themselves, it seems that governments would topple and the world would become much more free. Unfortunately the masses are all too easily brainwashed by statist propaganda.

 

Do you believe in critical mass?
  • | Post Points: 20
Page 1 of 5 (195 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next > | RSS