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

Not Ranked
Female
Posts 635
Points 13,150
Vichy Army replied on Wed, Jun 16 2010 11:11 PM

Why should you 'face' anything? Why should any individual have an obligation, or even an interest, in dealing with a society of fools?

“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini
"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

Why should you 'face' anything? Why should any individual have an obligation, or even an interest, in dealing with a society of fools?

It is unseemly if you flap your lips/fingers all day in some backroom/forum and sit idly.  Why babble the day long about how terrible everything is?  You are almost a satire on two feet.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator

Caley McKibben:

Education of the masses is technically far easier than having a lot of babies.  The problem is that most people are extremely cowardly.   This is where Stefan Molyneux hit the bullseye.  How many people here do so much as educate the people around them- forget the masses?  The appeal of babies is that you can just hide in your hole and not have to face anything.


Yes, because as everyone knows, educating people of no biological relation to you is much easier than raising a child, whom only looks up to the parents for guidance & dependence for the initial one or two decades of their life (YMMV).  

The assumption that because one has a family and somehow is resigned to live in a bubble is wrong.  I'm sure this is why many homeschool advocates have an easy life relative to their state's various meddlings into laws prohibiting or obsfucating homeschool to be as difficult as possible to incentivize more people to resort to public education.  Oh wait.
 

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator

Caley McKibbin:

Why babble the day long about how terrible everything is?


Don't we already do that here?    

 

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

Yes, because as everyone knows, educating people of no biological relation to you is much easier than raising a child, whom only looks up to the parents for guidance & dependence for the initial one or two decades of their life (YMMV). 

Correct.

The assumption that because one has a family and somehow is resigned to live in a bubble is wrong.

That sentence makes no sense.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 488
Points 8,140
LeeO replied on Thu, Jun 17 2010 12:54 PM

Why should you 'face' anything? Why should any individual have an obligation, or even an interest, in dealing with a society of fools?

I have an interest because I am young and would like to avoid living under a totalitarian world regime. Yes, things are already pretty bad now, but there is potential for life to get a lot worse, especially in places like the United States. Right now our economy is undergoing a controlled demolition, and at the rate we're going it won't be long before UN "peacekeepers" are putting down riots in the streets and distributing food in breadlines. I am a member of the middle class that is being destroyed right before my own eyes.

But in general, I am less interested in dealing with a "society of fools," and more interested in engaging the elite collectivists who hold the power to make my life, my family's life, and my children's lives a living hell. These people are not fools, they are master strategists who understand how to manipulate the masses to their will. Even if I have no chance of winning, it would give me great pleasure to do battle with them and know that I stood up for freedom, peace, and rationality.

Or maybe I should just look out for numero uno? Or go live on a seastead?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

Don't we already do that here?

We?  No.  You?  Maybe.  Think about who actually does the whining.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,124
Points 37,405
Angurse replied on Thu, Jun 17 2010 12:58 PM

"Education of the masses is technically far easier than having a lot of babies."

Can you actually prove this statement?

"The appeal of babies is that you can just hide in your hole and not have to face anything."

I think the appeal in babies is making them.

"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality."
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator

Caley McKibbin:

That sentence makes no sense.


Yes it does; the sentence is structurally sound, & while I could've used a comma somewhere, is on point to your response.

Your assumption was: parents are somehow resigned into some sort of ignorance or lesser active position (too busy raising kids, & only raising kids, and not having personal live, apparently), & subsequently, this pre-occupation with raising a family somehow doesn't achieve anything beyond simply raising a family.

It's not my fault you apparently lack the imagination to see why strategic fertilitty might be a useful tactic.    I would love for anyone who was raised in a libertarian like family, or plans to raise one of their own, to weigh in on this.      

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

"Education of the masses is technically far easier than having a lot of babies."

Can you actually prove this statement?

Sure.  Build a website.  Now, change 10000 diapers, spend years of income on child expenses, etc. and wait 20 years.  Which was easier?  Not to mention quicker.  I trust you'll find it is a no brainer.

"The appeal of babies is that you can just hide in your hole and not have to face anything."

I think the appeal in babies is making them.

That is the appeal in making them, not having them and I meant the appeal of using it as a political strategy.

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator

Caley McKibbin:

We?  No.  You?  Maybe.  Think about who actually does the whining.


I was referring to the general dislike for mainstream politics, & trying to understand non-Austrian economists & statist voters, not literal whining, amid the forum.  You should check your sarcasm detector, as you've decided to make this personal for some reason.

Aside from minor modding duties, I haven't been very active (beyond the past week or two) for a few months before so. I guess I should stop my uppity posting since you apparently have a problem with it.  

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

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

Just imagine if Lew Rockwell's dad hadn't been a "Taft Republican".

"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 3,055
Points 41,895

Your assumption was: parents are somehow resigned into some sort of ignorance or lesser active position (too busy raising kids, & only raising kids, and not having personal live, apparently), & subsequently, this pre-occupation with raising a family somehow doesn't achieve anything beyond simply raising a family.

Strange how your method of interpretation works.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,124
Points 37,405
Angurse replied on Thu, Jun 17 2010 1:15 PM

Sure.  Build a website.  Now, change 10000 diapers, spend years of income on child expenses, etc. and wait 20 years.  Which was easier?  Not to mention quicker.  I trust you'll find it is a no brainer.

That isn't proof. There are millions of websites out there are seriously contending that the masses are educated by one?

 

"That is the appeal in making them, not having them and I meant the appeal of using it as a political strategy."

The appeal of it as a political strategy is obviously that you will devote more time towards making them as opposed to knocking on your neighbours doors, plus the whole family thing that people seem to do anyways. Why not merge life and activism? Studies show that political philosophy is hereditary, as a long-run solution it really isn't that bad of an idea.
"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality."
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator

Caley McKibbin:

Sure.  Build a website.  Now, change 10000 diapers, spend years of income on child expenses, etc. and wait 20 years.  Which was easier?  Not to mention quicker.  I trust you'll find it is a no brainer.


Wow, this isn't a biased example at all. 

1.) Online activism does not automatically equal offline gains.  Otherwise, I think the anarchist & libertarian sub-reddits would be winning some sort of "up-vote" war by now.  
 
1a.) Also, "build a website" is vauge.  Could you elaborate?  Because I don't think going to Angelfire to make a site filled with my own rants is going to cut it.  

2.) 10,000 diapers seems far too much considering there are only 365 days in a year, and you're child won't be in diapers for more than the first few years of their live.  Assuming more than diaper is changed a day, the ultimate amount (from first wearing diapers to last time wearing them), the amount may be around the 1,000's. 

3.) Wait 20 years?  Doing nothing?  You're assuming parents don't do anything else sans being on static standby for every waking breathe a child makes.  If the parent's aren't complete disorganized maroons, they can balance work, a personal life, & the needs of their family as well.  

3a.)  I'm sure also the child will learn nothing from you until they hit the magical point at 20 years.  Nothing at all, especially if you had an option to homeschool.  


There is no "no brainer", unless you've already made up your mind & haven't critical thought out options beyond your own preferences.

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator

Lilburne:

Just imagine if Lew Rockwell's dad hadn't been a "Taft Republican".


At least someone gets it.  Small ripples, big effects.  

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

Aside from minor modding duties, I haven't been very active (beyond the past week or two) for a few months before so. I guess I should stop my uppity posting since you apparently have a problem with it.

I don't have a problem with any posts.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator

Caley McKibbin:

Strange how your method of interpretation works.


Strange how this isn't a rebuttal, on your part.  Are you going to play it off, or defend your position?  It was pretty clear that you are placing online activism as more worthwhile than strategic fertility.  

I would like more than just a preferntial argument on your part, when the benefits of strategic fertiltiy have been referrences do regarding the possibilities of genetics playing a strong role in political attitudes.  

Even if it is something as benign as "I don't think the concept of the family should be leveraged for political gains", at least that would be an actual position than saying, "Build a website, parenting is a waste of time."  
 

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator

Caley McKibbin:

I don't have a problem with any posts.


Alright, cool.  No need for me to defend my posting further, then.  

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

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

I just bought fruit from someone on the side of the rode!  lol!  Anarchy does exist!

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 488
Points 8,140
LeeO replied on Thu, Jun 17 2010 7:44 PM

I would love for anyone who was raised in a libertarian like family, or plans to raise one of their own, to weigh in on this.

Although my parents are not libertarians ("small government" Republicans is a better characterization), their values had much to do with me becoming one. I hope to have kids, and to instill in them a respect for private property, freedom-of-choice, and voluntary charity.   

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Fri, Jun 18 2010 9:20 PM

Apparently, not only are "states" capable of acting, but so is "statism".

Banned
  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 130
Points 1,585
G8R HED replied on Sun, Jun 20 2010 8:03 AM

"Apparently, not only are "states" capable of acting, but so is "statism".

 

Well, I don't know but I've been told....that without the state you couldn't tell anyone.

"Oh, I wish I could pray the way this dog looks at the meat" - Martin Luther

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Sun, Jun 20 2010 8:15 AM

G8R HED:
Well, I don't know but I've been told....that without the state you couldn't tell anyone.
Sufficient, but unnecessary condition.

Banned
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 130
Points 1,585
G8R HED replied on Sun, Jun 20 2010 8:28 AM

Agreed.

I am just a little giddy this morning from being out in the heat too long yesterday and I thought I'd get one in before I leave for church.....

Have a good one.

"Oh, I wish I could pray the way this dog looks at the meat" - Martin Luther

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Sun, Jun 20 2010 3:35 PM

Sorry to break my rule about responding in here, but it is not to debate, only to clarify.  Yes, DD5, assuming secession is possible and the seceded community is large and wealthy enough to defend itself against outside aggressors, a small community need only have a sufficiently large proportion of its own members believe in the benefits of maximal capitalism for anarcho-capitalism to be sustainable.--grayson

 

I presume this means that the useless rule that we cant post on other threads is jettisoned.

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

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

I made one post to clarify (not debate), so you can make one post to clarify (not debate).  And that's it.

It's obviously not a useless rule, because it's short-circuited the flame wars you were having with others before.

The debate is still on.  I'll respond to your latest posts when I get a chance.

"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 Sun, Jun 20 2010 5:44 PM

[USE ISSUES FORUM]

Banned
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
DanielMuff replied on Mon, Jun 21 2010 12:46 AM

Anyone else find Rettoper to be Quixotic? It's like he's fighting imaginary pro-anarcho-capitalist arguments.

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
Not Ranked
Posts 304
Points 4,800
cporter replied on Mon, Jun 21 2010 10:17 AM

Grayson Lilburne, you are a man of great patience.

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

Thank you, cporter.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 1,129
Points 16,635
Giant_Joe replied on Mon, Jun 21 2010 11:09 PM

Good stuff, Grayson. This is a pretty good thread for demonstrating the validity of the idea of the "ancap society". He's thrown everything at it, from assertions of how it would fail to attacking the philosophical foundations of it. The idea still stands as valid and useful, from what I've seen.

Although I think you have too much patience for your own good. :p

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
DanielMuff replied on Tue, Jun 22 2010 12:02 PM

Rettoper: "unlike classical liberals, ancaps rejects the use of force, and force is required to obtain and preserve power" (emphasis mine)

For seriously? He did it again! ... Again! ... Again! ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Again!

 

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 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

I hope Lilburne sticks to his guns about the 'naive arguing from history' point

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
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
DanielMuff replied on Tue, Jun 22 2010 12:07 PM

Rettoper: "unlike classical liberalism, anarchic societies allow the introduction of dangerous controlled substances into society" 

Wut? Not even the Constitution prevented that. This is an odd one that, ironically, is not supported by history.

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 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
DanielMuff replied on Tue, Jun 22 2010 12:09 PM

Rettoper: http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/17464/342205.aspx#342205

**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: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 1,649
Points 28,420

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/PalOMine?page=3&action=comments&display=blog&sort=newest

Read the 3rd comment under "Bush's Baghdad". I didn't say it!

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

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,592
Points 63,685
Sieben replied on Tue, Jun 22 2010 2:33 PM

You guys, mises is dead. Apparently.

Banned
  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 304
Points 4,800
cporter replied on Tue, Jun 22 2010 2:57 PM

It's all very unfortunate. A debate between Grayson Lilburne and a classical liberal committed to serious discussion could have been instructive. Instead, Rettoper seems to change his stance (especially in regards to the merits of praxeology) based solely on its convenience in making the latest baseless assertion.

If there were a moderator this debate would have been stopped long ago. It's like watching Milton Friedman pummel that red-headed kid on Free to Choose.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 871
Points 15,025
chloe732 replied on Tue, Jun 22 2010 10:21 PM

Rettoper - "for starters,  you are an anarchist --- von mises is not.  you have not sufficiently reconciled this contradiction."

Lilburne - "There is no contradiction in that statement.  I think you are taking my avatar too literally.  I do not claim to be von Mises."

After 5 minutes I'm still laughing at this...

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

  • | Post Points: 20
Page 4 of 5 (195 items) < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next > | RSS