fancyshirtman:So you just want to control people? Make 'em conform to your way of life? Under the threat of violence?
Once again, let me reiterate that, in the best of conditions, we all conform to a large set of social norms; furthemore, violating these implict or explicit regulations can result in various penalties: ostracization, stigmatization, shaming, jailing, etc.
I don't "just want to control people"; clearly, the ideological black-and-white version of libertarianism you believe colors all that you see with a very rigid perspective. Frankly, I consider "control" more amorphous than you: not only is government coercion "control," but so is billion-dollar corporate influence. Once again, there is evidence that propaganda campaigns from corporations outcompete other scientific proselytizing. Furthermore, using even more evidence, private tort litigation during the Gilded Age was incredibly ineffective at curbing corporate wrongdoing.
I believe we should advance pragmatically: if letting people free to save or squander their incomes results in an amount of severely-poor old persons, then that is unpalatable to my conscience, and I would recommend forced savings for greater well-being. In essence, if sticking to your short list of ethical principles results in bad outcomes for many people, then maybe your ideology sucks.
We should maintain our skepticism about grand theoretical visions that seek global change. It's easy to morally shrink our complex social order into a "coercion versus freedom" framework and then see the wretchedness of government everywhere; it's more challenging to accept an organic evolution of society where all the moving parts have accumulated to produce stability, prosperity, and other civilizational benefits.
"I'm not a fan of Murray Rothbard." -- David D. Friedman
"If I don't agree with someone's personal preferences, then I have the right to force them to do something that they do not want to, in the name of their own 'well-being'."
Political Atheists Blog
krazy kaju:"If I don't agree with someone's personal preferences, then I have the right to force them to do something that they do not want to, in the name of their own 'well-being'."
Exactly. Like I said, another not-quite-libertarian-anarchist becomes an authoritarian. It happens every 6 months like clockwork.
libertystudent: krazy kaju:"If I don't agree with someone's personal preferences, then I have the right to force them to do something that they do not want to, in the name of their own 'well-being'." Exactly. Like I said, another not-quite-libertarian-anarchist becomes an authoritarian. It happens every 6 months like clockwork.
I thought he was the only one?
Strangeloop, how an earth do you "de-radicalize" yourself from libertarianism when you never were one in the first place? You don't even grasp basic AE, and throughout this post you fail to explain why. No, don't even be detailed, continue spouting that your "position is right because you said so".
I asked you a question a while back. What do you think of bailouts? Should we bailout 5 major corporations in order to avoid mass unemployment(45% let's say)?
liberty student:It happens every 6 months like clockwork.
I hope you're right.
A.G.B:Strangeloop, how an earth do you "de-radicalize" yourself from libertarianism when you never were one in the first place? You don't have grasp basic AE understanding and throughout this post you fail to explain why. No, don't even be detailed, continue spouting that your "position is right because you said so". I asked you a question a while back. What do you think of bailouts? Should we bailout 5 major corporations in order to avoid mass unemployment(45% let's say)?
Here's another sure sign of a cult: "You were never really one of us!"
I was an anarcho-capitalist for years--not that it matters. I hope none of us need to be Islamic terrorists to be able to criticize its fundamentalist errors.
I do "grasp basic AE understanding"; of course, that especially doesn't matter, since Austrian economics is not linked to anarcho-capitalism in a necessary manner. Furthermore, I'd appreciate you proving to our audience (and me) how I have displayed ignorance about "basic AE understanding." It's easy to make an accusation when it is untied to evidence.
I won't dig into your hypothetical because it's vague: why did the firms require bailing out? what would the bailouts be like? how long would "45%" of the country be unemployed? would the restructuring help avoid moral hazard?
I hope none of us need to be Islamic terrorists to be able to criticize its fundamentalist errors.
I couldn't agree more.
You are being misleading. Nobody is saying that just becasue we don't agree with a personal preference, that we then have the right to force the person to do something that they don't want to do. I for example do not agree with heavy drinking, but I do not think that alone gives me the right to force a heavy drinker to stop drinking even if I thought the drinker would be better off.
In certain cases however, it is acceptable to force people to act agaisnt their preferences. Should socialists be forced to respect others property rights? I say yes. Why? Because it benefits society (including the socialists who if they knew the true alternatives would support property rights), and it upholds the rule of law if this is the case.
I think we're not on the same page, I never said "You were never really one of us!" nor did I make it sound like it. Did you read my whole post, did you read everyone else's?
I myself was really interested in reading a good critique of libertarianism, you offered none mate?
All you do is point out how ignorant you are and continue with the same " morality matters" central planner dogma.
Please be detailed, avoid insults and do point out the flaws of libertarianism.
If you are going to continue with the moral argument "it's my duty to protect others from themselves to save our culture" then we have nothing to say to each other anymore.
StrangeLoop:Here's another sure sign of a cult: "You were never really one of us!"
How is logic a cult? Something either is, or is not. A mathematician should be able to understand that 2+2 is not equal to 5.
StrangeLoop:I was an anarcho-capitalist for years--not that it matters.
Labeling yourself has to be one of the easiest things to do. You'll swap labels again soon when it suits you, because the label is just a cloak for ideas, and if your ideas aren't coherent, it doesn't matter what you call yourself.
StrangeLoop:I hope none of us need to be Islamic terrorists to be able to criticize its fundamentalist errors.
You haven't criticized any errors though. You just argue through fallacies. Where is your critique?
eric:In certain cases however, it is acceptable to force people to act agaisnt their preferences. Should socialists be forced to respect others property rights? I say yes. Why? Because it benefits society (including the socialists who if they knew the true alternatives would support property rights), and it upholds the rule of law if this is the case.
It's not the same thing, there's a difference between forcing someone to not coerce me and forcing someone to save money for his retirement because it's what you think is "right".
Eric:You are being misleading. Nobody is saying that just becasue we don't agree with a personal preference, that we then have the right to force the person to do something that they don't want to do. I for example do not agree with heavy drinking, but I do not think that alone gives me the right to force a heavy drinker to stop drinking even if I thought the drinker would be better off.
But you do prefer that food is labeled a certain way, so you favor coercion of business to satisfy your preferences, right?
Eric:In certain cases however, it is acceptable to force people to act agaisnt their preferences.
Acceptable to whom? Which cases?
Eric:Should socialists be forced to respect others property rights? I say yes. Why? Because it benefits society (including the socialists who if they knew the true alternatives would support property rights), and it upholds the rule of law if this is the case.
How can you force someone to respect property rights, without violating their property rights? Can you not see that your solutions are performative contradictions? An expropriating property protector is a contradiction. It's pretty basic.
A.G.B:we have nothing to say to each other anymore.
Absolutely true.
To expose your lie (one among others): you first asked, "Strangeloop, how an earth do you 'de-radicalize"'yourself from libertarianism when you never were one in the first place?" Then, you state, "I think we're not on the same page, I never said "You were never really one of us!" nor did I make it sound like it."
Of course, first you also stated that I didn't grasp basic "AE understanding," but you never followed that up with evidence, even when I asked. When you want to accuse me of ignorance, you should be especially pressed to prove it. Otherwise, you're just rude.
Furthermore, if you want good criticisms of libertarianism, you should look elsewhere than the forum at Mises.org; I'm not particularly motivated to provide one, and this lengthy debate has produced more heat than light, since dogmatism closes its ears and eyes to counterpoints. I have made recommendations of books and journal articles; read those.
At this point, I will claim, "You are stupid. You don't know Austrianism. You don't believe in anarcho-capitalism. You can't do simple logic." I hope you and liberty student can appreciate the lack of a need for evidence.
Strangeloop you haven't been exactly the least rude person here. You insulted LibertyStudent for no reason too. I think we should all just relax a bit. Everyone has been posting here a while. Anonymity is so no reason to be disrespectful.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
The person who does not believe is property rights is being coereced in their mind when they are forced to abide by them. In their mind, forcing you to abide by communal property laws as opposed to property rights is them forcing you not to coerce them.
Libertyandlife:You insulted LibertyStudent for no reason too.
Not unprovoked.
liberty student:After all this time, you STILL do not understand AE? Unbelievable. I mean, I can believe it, I just can't believe you have the gall to keep returning to the scene of the crime so to speak, since you've been shown to be very ignorant about Austrian economics by at least a half dozen people here.
Unbelievable. I mean, I can believe it, I just can't believe you have the gall to keep returning to the scene of the crime so to speak, since you've been shown to be very ignorant about Austrian economics by at least a half dozen people here.
Do you know how grating it is to be called ignorant of Austrian economics by (1) someone who hasn't proved it (2) someone who is a "true believer" but understands Austrian economics less than I do?
To call someone stupid is an insult, and I'll happily retort. And I always will to liberty student. Has he ever, in the history of this forum, even contributed to technical economic discussions? No. Not ever. I won't take him as someone worthy of degrading my knowledge.
In some circumstances, I favor regulations. Product labelling is one of those cases.
Acceptable to me. Other people will have different opinions when it is acceptable. Some people will believe that it is never acceptable.
I do not believe that property rights would be enforced to the extent that they are now in the absence of a government.
strangeloop:Of course, first you also stated that I didn't grasp basic "AE understanding," but you never followed that up with evidence, even when I asked. When you want to accuse me of ignorance, you should be especially pressed to prove it. Otherwise, you're just rude.
I think this is quite amusing, especially since it follow this post.
strangeloop:I'm not particularly motivated to provide one, and this lengthy debate has produced more heat than light, since dogmatism closes its ears and eyes to counterpoints.
Enough said.
StrangeLoop:To expose your lie (one among others): you first asked, "Strangeloop, how an earth do you 'de-radicalize"'yourself from libertarianism when you never were one in the first place?" Then, you state, "I think we're not on the same page, I never said "You were never really one of us!" nor did I make it sound like it."
You called yourself a libertarian. You never promoted or demonstrated any understanding of libertarian ideas. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it's probably a duck. I called you out as pro-state months ago, you're just getting around to labeling yourself consistent with your beliefs. Big shocker, not original, seen it many times before.
StrangeLoop:Of course, first you also stated that I didn't grasp basic "AE understanding,"
You don't. Your posts on most things economic here demonstrate it in spades. You can't articulate a praxeologically sound argument, and you can't refute praxeology. I'm not even sure you understand what praxeology is.
As recently as this thread, you were sneering at a priorism, while claiming to be a big fan of math (your last avatar/personality change) completely oblivious that without the process of deduction there could be no maths.
You don't employ methodological individualism, you reject value as subjective and your political beliefs require a suspension of understanding of the calculation argument.
What do you understand about Austrian economics is actually the better question.
Eric:In some circumstances, I favor regulations. Product labelling is one of those cases.
Yes, this was my point. You favor coercion to satisfy your preferences. I am happy we agree upon this. When Eric wants something, it is ok to get it by force.
Eric: Acceptable to whom? Which cases? Acceptable to me. Other people will have different opinions when it is acceptable. Some people will believe that it is never acceptable.
So then why is it ok to use violence when you want it, but not ok when I want it? And if it is acceptable for all of us to use violence when we see fit, how do you explain a war of one against all society as being superior to a society based on non-aggression?
Eric:I do not believe that property rights would be enforced to the extent that they are now in the absence of a government.
Ok, that's actually reasonable. You don't know, but you're going with an instinct, that things would be worse with the state.
Question for you, does it matter what type of government we have, or is the Kingdom of Saud and the USSR just as good with property rights as the US and Canada?
liberty student:What do you understand about Austrian economics is actually the better question.
Please point me to one--just one!--post that displays above-average knowledge of Austrian economics. You're clearly very vocal about your beliefs; I'm not sure why technical economic discussions would be so mysteriously absent.
Culture is gonna evolve however it wants to, and less smoothly with such restrictions. It's like thinking that people aren't going do drugs or alcohol if we make it illegal. It doesn't do anything towards it's goal except impede progress.
StrangeLoop:Please point me to one--just one!--post that displays above-average knowledge of Austrian economics. You're clearly very vocal about your beliefs; I'm not sure why technical economic discussions would be so mysteriously absent.
I have very little interest in technical economics. I do however have a fantastic grasp of Austrian methods for a layman.
I do not think that it is okay to forcibly take something just becasue I want it.
What you do not realize is that you want to "coerce" people as well. Not everyone agrees with your conception of property rights, but you still want to force people to respect them.
Practically everyone favors coercion to a degree, as it is necessary to maintain civilization.
How is it ok for you to use violence when you want, but not when I want it? Same question could be applied to you, and everyone else who doesn't propose an all v all society.
I do not beleive it is acceptable for all of us to use violence when they see fit. I believe it is accpetable for people to use violence when I see fit. You believe this as well. For society to function properly there need to be laws, and there will always be people who disagree with these laws, and there will be others who agree with them. That does not mean either group proposes and all v all society.
The government does matter. For example, I would prefer anarchy in North Korea as opposed to its current government.
liberty student:I have very little interest in technical economics. I do however have a fantastic grasp of Austrian methods for a layman.
Let's get to the heart of the matter and replace "interest in" with "knowledge of."
And, I wouldn't even care, except that you consider it morally upright to accuse others of ignorance, when it's truly you that lacks learning.
It's almost as bad as how often you misapply the argumentum ad populum.
StrangeLoop:Let's get to the heart of the matter and replace "interest in" with "knowledge of."
I don't have an interest in it. It's absolutely irrelevant to what I do on a day to day basis. I also have little interest in mathematics but that doesn't mean I can't solve an equation. Your tu quoque is cute but ultimately fruitless.
StrangeLoop:And, I wouldn't even care, except that you consider it morally upright to accuse others of ignorance, when it's truly you that lacks learning.
You demonstrate ignorance, and I point it out. I don't have to accuse you of ignorance, your posts speak for themselves.
StrangeLoop:It's almost as bad as how often you misapply the argumentum ad populum.
lol. I love when you guys appeal to an abstract society as "reality" and proof of some sort of consent or intent. Not only is the aap a logical fallacy, but it isn't compatible with subjective value OR methodological individualism, which is why you will almost never see an Austrian make such an elementary mistake.
Not everyone agrees with not raping me, but I still want to force them to agree with me on that point.
Eric:I do not think that it is okay to forcibly take something just becasue I want it.
Ok, because that's important for us to figure out. So what justification do you have for demanding that companies label food a certain way?
Eric:What you do not realize is that you want to "coerce" people as well. Not everyone agrees with your conception of property rights, but you still want to force people to respect them.
You're confusing coercion with aggression. When I defend myself, that's non-aggression. When you force people to label, that's aggression.
Eric:I do not beleive it is acceptable for all of us to use violence when they see fit. I believe it is accpetable for people to use violence when I see fit. You believe this as well. For society to function properly there need to be laws, and there will always be people who disagree with these laws, and there will be others who agree with them. That does not mean either group proposes and all v all society.
Who makes the laws?
Eric:The government does matter. For example, I would prefer anarchy in North Korea as opposed to its current government.
Why? I thought we needed government?
Also, what about government matters? What is the difference between a good government and a bad one?
No I am not, becasue what constitutes aggression will differ from person to person. When you stop a socialist from trespassing on land you consider to be your private property, you are the aggressor in their mind.
Eric:No I am not, becasue what constitutes aggression will differ from person to person. When you stop a socialist from trespassing on land you consider to be your private property, you are the aggressor in their mind.
Did you miss my post on this point? Because I have already addressed it in a previous discussion. Would you like me to link it?
Sure.
liberty student: Eric:As I said, if one does not accept natural rights, then what constitutes aggression will differ from person to person. It differs from person to person regardless of whether natural rights come in to play or not. Everyone's value judgments are unique.
Eric:As I said, if one does not accept natural rights, then what constitutes aggression will differ from person to person.
It differs from person to person regardless of whether natural rights come in to play or not. Everyone's value judgments are unique.
Even if there is a state promoting one kind of property rights, you're never going to get everyone to agree on everything, which means neither government nor anarchism can solve it. To truly achieve the sort of property rights ubiquity you're asking for, you need one world government and an end to subjective value.
Which is basically the platform for communism.
Earlyer you stated that I was confusing coercion with aggression. Given that we both agree that what constitutes aggression will differ from person to person, and that nobody is right or wrong (since it is merely a preference), you should not have made this point.
This is why it gets so tiring to hear ancaps refer anything besides the complete respect for their conception of property rights (which still depend on an inadequate homesteading principle that doesn't even accurately reflect how actual property rights developed) as aggression. It is aggression in their opinion, we all know this, but the fact that they think this is not a good argument for anarcho-capitalism.
liberty student: lol. I love when you guys appeal to an abstract society as "reality" and proof of some sort of consent or intent. Not only is the aap a logical fallacy, but it isn't compatible with subjective value OR methodological individualism, which is why you will almost never see an Austrian make such an elementary mistake.
Anarcho-capitalism (individual freedom) is unrealizable/unsustainable for a species 99% of which is socio-biologically pre-wired to: - think as a collective - seek and follow leaders like lemmings - be susceptible to a manufactured sense of purpose - accept aggression (against themselves and others) because the tribal leadership said so
Eric:Earlyer you stated that I was confusing coercion with aggression. Given that we both agree that what constitutes aggression will differ from person to person, and that nobody is right or wrong (since it is merely a preference), you should not have made this point.
I didn't say that no one was right or wrong. Obviously aggression has a meaning, but getting two people to agree to it at the same time can't be more than coincidence, unless they subscribe to a particular framework for understanding what is and is not aggressive behavior. You were indicating people had different preferences. Absolutely, I agree. However, that does not mean people cannot agree upon norms between each other.
Your notion that people won't agree isn't a problem it is a fact of reality. The problem comes when there is conflict, and a system like ancap which has a very specific notion of property rights helps us deal with conflicts that may arise as people interact socially.
Eric:This is why it gets so tiring to hear ancaps refer anything besides the complete respect for their conception of property rights (which still depend on an inadequate homesteading principle that doesn't even accurately reflect how actual property rights developed) as aggression. It is aggression in their opinion, we all know this, but the fact that they think this is not a good argument for anarcho-capitalism.
I don't understand this paragraph at all. I am not making an argument for anarcho-capitalism. I don't particularly care if you become an Ancap or not. I am refuting your arguments against Ancap. At the end of the day, I feel somewhat confident I can refute all of your consequentlist critiques as being rife with contradiction, thus making your rejection of Ancap strictly a preference, and not based on a contradiction in Ancap itself.
I choose Ancap (or more specifically, Voluntarism) because it aligns with my morality. That's a subjective value preference. However, I can defend the means I use to achieve my ends as being consistent through simple logic and economic reasoning. That doesn't mean they are right for you.
Without making this too complicated, I can also use an approach closer to de Jasay's which puts the burden of proof on you (and I have done this to a degree) to prove why we need a state. Either way, I don't think you can't debunk Ancap without showing its internal contradictions (disconnect between means and ends).
This is not to be dismissive, but many of your arguments against Ancap have been strawmen or non sequiturs. Ancap simply holds non-aggression as a principle. And again, aggression has a meaning. To argue otherwise removes the possibility for any intelligent discourse.
The purpose of an Ancap order is to have functioning system for the resolution of the conflicts which arise from differences in interpretation. No matter what social system you have, communism, fascism, or anarchism, you still have to deal with conflicts. Ancaps believe we can resolve more conflicts at a lower cost, and with less bloodshed if we start from the premise of non-aggression. I believe this is primarily because eliminating the state as monopoly agent without consent, puts the costs closer to the source of the conflict.
In other words, if some guys here want "free" student loan money
z1235:Anarcho-capitalism (individual freedom) is unrealizable/unsustainable for a species 99% of which is socio-biologically pre-wired to: - think as a collective - seek and follow leaders like lemmings - be susceptible to a manufactured sense of purpose - accept aggression (against themselves and others) because the tribal leadership said so
Unlike you, I cannot speak for the species. I can only speak for myself. And I am ready for individual freedom.
z1235:This is and has been human nature (the realm of human action) for all recorded history. If this wasn't so, anarcho-capitalism would have long ago obliterated all other societies.
This is both an appeal to history and an argument from ignorance. Just saying.
z1235:If, by some freak accident, capitalism becomes advanced enough (i.e. creates enough wealth), then collectivist claims to same wealth (by the parasitic blob) inevitably also grow, leading to completion of the societal cycle into utter destruction. The blob demands and the tribal leadership promises that 2+2=5, but this parasitic "symbiosis" can only last for so long. Economics is nature's ultimate "government" imposing laws that no one can circumvent.
Perhaps you missed the collapse of the USSR. Or the reformation of various churches. Or American blacks being recognized as self-owners.
z1235:How could the logically consistent and principled 1% enforce anti-murder and anti-theft (anti-parasitic) laws against this giant unthinking parasitic collective? Convincing blind lemmings that they ought to stop jumping off cliffs is futile.
If you think this little of humanity (and I am sympathetic to how lazy, ignorant and dishonest most people are) then I cannot imagine why you hang out here, since this organization in particular operates in a completely contrary fashion. I don't want you to leave, but I am just trying to figure out if you are advocating for us to stop agitating for liberty and a better understanding of human action, or some other agenda.
Eric:The person who does not believe is property rights is being coereced in their mind when they are forced to abide by them. In their mind, forcing you to abide by communal property laws as opposed to property rights is them forcing you not to coerce them.
In the lunatic's mind the rape victem he is trying to have sex with is trying to coerce him off of her. What right does she have to deny her body to him? She is a resource which should be shared with the community! See! The rapist is giving up his body in exchange!
IE Drivel.
I don't gather evidence of Strangeloop's ignorance of AE. What I do gather evidence of is that his participation on this forum amounts mainly to a variety of underhandedly or blatantly banal remarks.
liberty student:Perhaps you missed the collapse of the USSR. Or the reformation of various churches. Or American blacks being recognized as self-owners.
Old modes (expressions) of lemming-like behavior are constantly being replaced by new ones. The type of cliffs off of which the blind lemmings jump changes but the fact that they jump remains a constant. Yes, humans stopped sacrificing goats and virgins few centuries ago but most of them still believe in a bearded God, a nation, a class, a union, a war, an ethnicity, a culture, a sports team. The majority of humanity is still willing to put on a uniform and hurrah across the field behind a tribal parasite carrying a flag, any flag. The drive to belong, to be a part of something larger than oneself is just burned too deep into the human genome.
liberty student:If you think this little of humanity (and I am sympathetic to how lazy, ignorant and dishonest most people are) then I cannot imagine why you hang out here, since this organization in particular operates in a completely contrary fashion. I don't want you to leave, but I am just trying to figure out if you are advocating for us to stop agitating for liberty and a better understanding of human action, or some other agenda.
I'm still here because this forum has the largest concentration of individuals belonging to the other 1% of humanity -- the statistical aberation, if you will. By no means am I advocating that you stop agitating and educating. That's the only hope. But don't for a moment delude yourself that you can "re-engineer" Man. We (the 1% aberation) are literally slaves to this collectivist force of nature (the blob), just like we're "slaves" to gravity. The only things we could expect to achieve is maximize freedom within these constraints over whose existence, I'm afraid, we don't have much say.
Z.