Here comes the "If you don't like the state, you can just get out" argument.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
EmperorNero: But if people know there's going to be a sign at every danger, they stop being careful and have more accidents.
With increased safety in automobiles, drivers have driven more riskily. With fire insurance on home, homes more likely burn. The point: market institutions suffer the same downside you are reserving for government.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
Libertyandlife:Here comes the "If you don't like the state, you can just get out" argument.
And it should always follow the "I'm being oppressed in America!" argument.
StrangeLoop: When people are actually oppressed, the benefits of fleeing increase.
When people are actually oppressed, the benefits of fleeing increase.
I wasn't careful to mention this the first time, but keep in mind that the same people can consent at one point in their life and not at another.
StrangeLoop: If the costs of this "oppression" are so immense, why not settle in a region of the world unmolested by State governance (they do exist)?
If the costs of this "oppression" are so immense, why not settle in a region of the world unmolested by State governance (they do exist)?
Yeah, why not?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
StrangeLoop:Oh all-powerful logician of this Internet hideaway
Actually, Mises.org is the most popular economics website in the world. It's far from a hideaway.
And I am not an all powerful logician, although using logic allows me to expose a lot of your arguments, so I can see how you trying to make fun of my capacity to reason without contradiction serves your ego, if not your positions.
StrangeLoop:can you please just enlighten me on how I misrepresented Austrian economics first?
Go back and read your claim. Then check your premises. It's your job to correct your work, not mine. I (and others I believe) have been subsidizing your lack of knowledge for long enough. If you cannot see what is wrong with that claim, then that makes you look pretty foolish. I suggest you stare at it until the answer comes to you rather than continue to admit you don't understand enough about AE to defend that statement as sound.
StrangeLoop:Afterward, I'll take your kindly advice to heart and begin purging myself of all historical knowledge
The only historical knowledge YOU have is the knowledge of your lifetime. Are you completely unfamiliar with epistemology?
Even if you believed something historical to be true, appealing to it in argument is a logical error. Not even a really obscure one, but one everyone knows. Like your appeal to popularity where you say that people wanted the state, and yet you cannot name those people. As I pointed out a couple weeks ago, you almost never make a logically sound argument. It's all just contradiction and false premises.
StrangeLoop:O(which is wholly useless, of course, when one can master a priori reasoning).
For someone who claims to like math, I am suprised you reject deduction. Of course, if you are as good at math as you are at economics, it all makes perfect sense.
"The state isn't that bad guize, let's just stop fighting it and cooperate"
That's your argument. Just because state's have been worse, and I live in a better one, does not mean I can look to progress. That's what limiting and eliminating the government is to libertarians. If one looks at a society and sees that are good things, but sees that slavery and mass murder still exists, why shouldn't I, at the very least, morally be against it?
Some consent, and others don't. The former supports oppressing the latter.
Some consent to property rights, and others don't. The former supports oppressing the latter. Is it okay to enforce property rights even though some don't consent? I would say yes.
Also, far more people consent to the status quo than anarcho-capitalism.
Eric:Also, far more people consent to the status quo than anarcho-capitalism.
Great argumentum ad populum bro!
^When you can't argue, resort to insult?
If someone is going to say the government is wrong because people don't consent to it, I will point out that more people don't consent to anarcho-capitalism.
strangeloop:I'm betting you're obese. Like, I would wager a lot on that.
You're kidding right,?Answer the question and don't be an ass please.
Eric: Some consent to property rights, and others don't. The former supports oppressing the latter. Is it okay to enforce property rights even though some don't consent? I would say yes.
What's it mean for something to be "okay"?
Eric: Also, far more people consent to the status quo than anarcho-capitalism.
Far more people use running shoes than not, but that doesn't mean that they're better. Given the right information, I think that most people would reject them. Maybe it's the same way with statism?
@Eric
Anarchism= lack of force. Thus you can't not consent to it.
State= Force, thus many people don't consent to it.
Eric:If someone is going to say the government is wrong because people don't consent to it, I will point out that more people don't consent to anarcho-capitalism.
That's a non sequitur Eric.
StrangeLoop: I'm betting you're obese. Like, I would wager a lot on that.
I'm betting you're obese. Like, I would wager a lot on that.
Absolutely unacceptable.
How are his insults not unacceptable?
This must be random insult day.
StrangeLoop: How are his insults not unacceptable?
Point them out, and I will pronounce my all-powerful judgement upon them.
No it doesn't. It is a lack of what you consider illegitemate force. (I am assuming for the sake of argument that it would look anything remotely like anarcho-capitalism)
I also don't consent to anarchism, even if you claim otherwise.
Libertyandlife: Anarchism= lack of force. Thus you can't not consent to it.
Isn't coercing murderers a normal part of our idea of anarchy?
Murderer's give away their freedom to be left alone, when they take away someone else's life.
Acceptable.
I was pointing out that the argument that the government is wrong because some people don't consent to it is a bad argument, because more people don't consent to anarchy. The argument doesn't depend on a persons specific reason for consenting or not consenting.
Libertyandlife: Murderer's give away their freedom to be left alone, when they take away someone else's life.
But you would force them in some way, right? That's not a lack of force.
Eric: Acceptable.
For who?
Eric: I was pointing out that the argument that the government is wrong because some people don't consent to it is a bad argument, because more people don't consent to anarchy. The argument doesn't depend on a persons specific reason for consenting or not consenting.
Yeah, that would be a bad argument.
That is a boringly weak rhetorical question-argument. The "cost" of oppression is the condition with oppression versus condition without it all else equal. Not condition in location A versus location B.
For whoever is considering the question. Each person decides for themselves if enforcing property rights is acceptable even though some people don't consent to them. In my opinion, it is acceptable.
Libertyandlife: ^When you can't argue, resort to insult?
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."
Eric:Acceptable.
To whom?
Eric:I was pointing out that the argument that the government is wrong because some people don't consent to it is a bad argument
Whose argument is that?
Eric:because more people don't consent to anarchy.
That's still a logical fallacy. It's not a proof.
To anybody who might care:
The last of my reasoning power just dried up. I can't even follow this conversation anymore. I'm gonna go to bed.
Isn't taking such a homogenous view of anarchy a bit presumptuous? After all the whole purpose of the polycentric legal order would be to create a multitude of differing social organizations and property arrangements that individuals could fluidly move in and out of without major restrictions. Hence, an objection to the modern nation-state project which by definition utilizes constructions of ethnicites and historical narratives in order to exclude some from its discourse and alienate other citizens. Liberalism's main triumph we could say is that of showing man that there is a way to construct social narratives through intercourses not involving such exclusionary concepts as the modern nation state which tend to lead to autarky,war and worse.
"Man thinks not only for the sake of thinking, but also in order to act."-Ludwig von Mises
Daniel Muffinburg: Libertyandlife: ^When you can't argue, resort to insult? We should edit StrangeLoop's posts for his own good. Lol.
I think they are great the way they are. They say everything about his ideas that anyone needs to know.
liberty student: Eric:I was pointing out that the argument that the government is wrong because some people don't consent to it is a bad argument Whose argument is that?
Repeated for your benefit Eric. Whose argument is the above?
libertystudent: Daniel Muffinburg: Libertyandlife: ^When you can't argue, resort to insult? We should edit StrangeLoop's posts for his own good. Lol. I think they are great the way they are. They say everything about his ideas that anyone needs to know.
I think it's sad, I just wasted my time thinking I was going to get a good critique of libertarianism and AE.
A.G.B:I think it's sad, I just wasted my time thinking I was going to get a good critique of libertarianism and AE.
If you're looking for a good critique, avoid laymen on forums. There are a handful of people here who understand both at a high level, at best most people can only grasp one really well, and a lot of the so-called critics don't understand either very well. You'll find most of the arguments are fallacious and ignorant ala Paul Krugman.
I think Bryan Caplan has done a critique of AE and there are replies to it. Caplan is intelligent enough about AE to articulate a good argument.
Wrt libertarianism, it's a value system. People who aren't into it, won't be into it. We can make a case that someone who is not for human freedom, should be willing to accept if we enslave them, but that sort of logical progression eludes a lot of people who want to be treated as equals when they lack leverage, and superior when they have leverage. It is the odd duck who has principles come rain or shine.
StrangeLoop: EmperorNero:But if people know there's going to be a sign at every danger, they stop being careful and have more accidents. With increased safety in automobiles, drivers have driven more riskily. With fire insurance on home, homes more likely burn. The point: market institutions suffer the same downside you are reserving for government.
EmperorNero:But if people know there's going to be a sign at every danger, they stop being careful and have more accidents.
Yes, but the obvious difference is that one is forced on people by an authoritarian state, the other is a voluntary transaction. The utilitarian argument is all the mandatory policies have. (You don't seem to disagree that they are destructive.) Voluntary institutions are additionally justified because people should be allowed to engage in self harm. Mandatory policies require justification, voluntary interaction should be allowed by default and require justification to be prohibited. It's the difference between legalized marijuana use and mandatory marijuana use - does the former being harmful excuse implementation of the latter?
http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/6247/Bowles_paper.pdf
Essentially, I want to also add that "privatizing everything" leads to cultural erosion. This was one of the more prominent reasons I recently rejected anarcho-capitalism (to put it bluntly, Hoppe's belief that conversativism will flourish is outlandishly wrong).
StrangeLoop: http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/6247/Bowles_paper.pdf Essentially, I want to also add that "privatizing everything" leads to cultural erosion.
Essentially, I want to also add that "privatizing everything" leads to cultural erosion.
What does is mean for a culture to erode and so what if it does?
[...] Hoppe's belief that conversativism will flourish is outlandishly wrong).
Source please.
If he's talking about cultural erosion I assume he's talking about social institutions of practical knowledge. Similar to what Burke and Oakeshott would write about.
StrangeLoop:Essentially, I want to also add that "privatizing everything" leads to cultural erosion.
Which culture? There are literally thousands of cultures around the world. Which is the one worth preserving? Slave culture?
Nazi culture? The culture of the crusades? The inquisition? The culture of Mao? Yankee culture?
And are you really arguing that only the state can provide cultural adhesion? Have you not read any of my posts where I point out that the state can do nothing more than the market can except apply violence? Do we really need cultural enforcement enough that we must use violence to maintain it?
All of this reasoning, whether it is yours or Eric's or the last Whigs here or "reformed libertarians" denies the equal humanity of all men, as any fractionally statist argument must. The question is, are you guys really the elite humans who are meant to run things, or are you not, in which case, don't all of your arguments (as inferior humans by your own reasoning) come into question?
So you just want to control people? Make 'em conform to your way of life? Under the threat of violence?
"No person is so grand or wise or perfect as to be the master of another person." ~ Karl Hess
"look, property is theft, right? Therefore theft is property. Therefore this ship is mine, OK?" ~Zaphod Beeblebrox