Eric:I don't accept your premise that states massively undermine markets.
That's fine and I know that. Although you have yet to prove any of your positions. It's all just been offered in the context of beliefs and opinions.
Eric:It is not necessarily true that markets will be more prevalent in the absence of a state, as there is no guarantee that property rights would be enforced to the extent that they are now.
They aren't enforced now. It's a myth. The state takes 50% of my income. They charge me 14% when I buy anything. And those are the obvious costs. In return for the supposed civility the state brings, I am paying probably close to 90% of my net income to them, directly and indirectly.
There are no guarantees at anything in life, and you've read enough of my posts to know I am not a Utopian. That said, the state is the single biggest violator of property rights, and you still want to maintain that there would not be more market relations if people had more of their own property to trade...
Eric:I will accept for the sake of argument that I own myself. How do you go from that to property rights?
You don't own yourself. According to you, the state owns all of us in return for providing the civility of the market.
Eric:As I said, your appeals to your preferred beleifs as being voluntary are not well founded.
I never offered a foundation for them. I'm using your language. The burden of proof is on you to prove I am not an individual, I do not control myself, and that I must subject myself to another authority. If you can't prove that, then you can't make the case for the state, can you?
Eric:They are voluntary for you, not necessarily for everyone else. Someone who has a different conception of legitemate ownership will not find a markets which are based on the enforcement of private property as being voluntary, as they do not accept the legitemacy of private property.
We're not dealing with the belief systems of others. It's a non argument you are offering. Some people believe in fractional reserve banking, some do not. Neither position changes the nature or chacteristics of fractional reserve banking qua fractional reserve banking.
If someone else thinks that a system of involuntary relations is ideal, then I would offer that they need to prove their authority or superiority if they intend to be the one directing those involuntary relations. If you feel I must be subjected to the state against my will, you better be ready to prove why YOU have the authority to hold that position.
If you want to convince me the state is better, then you're trying to get my voluntary compliance, and buying into my position about voluntary relations. You've backed yourself (as most statists do) into a corner, and now you have to use naked aggression to be consistent with your own position.
Of course, I don't expect you to argue consistently because I think we both know you neither have the guts or the power to use force against me without significant cost to yourself. Which is why you will use an agent, and argue an ideology, so your hands remain clean while I get taken to the cleaners.
Eric:I do support property rights to an extent.
Conditional rights. Based on what conditions? Who chose those conditions? Who judges those conditions are met?
Eric: I also think that without a state, property rights wouldn't be enforced to the extent that they are now.
You keep saying this, but you have made no effort to explain it.
Eric:You keep coming up with this supposed "contradictions" that arent actually contradictions.
They absolutely are. You claim there are property rights, but that they can be limited by the state. A limited right is not a right.
You claim that the state provides for more market, but you completely overlook that the state is the single biggest thief and killer in society.
You argue that the state has some legitimacy, without actually laying the basis for that legitimacy, when we all know the legitimacy doesn't come from voluntary interactions, but from compulsion. And you continually avoid addressing the burden of proof, specifically with regard to how the state is justified in using compulsion against people who do nothing aggressive or harmful to another individual.
When you're ready to address the substance of the argument, and meet the burden of proof for your claims, this discussion will advance. Right now, you're just avoiding saying anything substantive, and I am starting to tire of pointing out how vacuous your posts are.
liberty student: AJ:The point is not that no state agent ever protects property That is precisely the point. It's a myth. The state is a mass delusion. It's a con job. The emperor has no clothes. Talking about the state like it is anything other than a well believed pack of lies, or avoiding the fact that the state admits it is not what people think it is, continues to perpetuate the nonsense.
AJ:The point is not that no state agent ever protects property
That is precisely the point. It's a myth. The state is a mass delusion. It's a con job. The emperor has no clothes. Talking about the state like it is anything other than a well believed pack of lies, or avoiding the fact that the state admits it is not what people think it is, continues to perpetuate the nonsense.
I know what you mean, but if a cop intervenes when someone is getting beat up by some thugs, it will pretty hard for that person to swallow the notion that no state actor ever protects them. And it would surely be backward for the statist to be the one refering to individual human action while the Austrian answers with a statement that seems to view the state through a collectivist lens.
"That IRS agent stole from you and gave it to that cop, so that cop didn't really protect you."
Nah, it sounds silly when you look at individual action. It only sounds reasonable when you look at the state as a collective blob. I can understand the tactic of working within the statist's collectivist paradigm and trying to turn it against him, but I just don't think it's prudent to fight error with error unless it's a TV soundbite.
Why anarchy fails
AJ:I know what you mean
I don't think so my dear brother, but I appreciate you trying.
AJ:if a cop intervenes when someone is getting beat up by some thugs, it will pretty hard for that person to swallow the notion that no state actor ever protects them.
So we should engage in a charade to make them feel better? Tell some white lies?
AJ:"That IRS agent stole from you and gave it to that cop, so that cop didn't really protect you."
One, the cops stole from ME. Two, the cop didn't protect them because he is a cop. Cops have no duty to protect. That's why you can't sue a cop for failing to recover your stolen property or arriving on time to prevent an attack. It's called sovereign immunity, and it is carte blanche to not live up to any of the delusions of service the [sic] citizens concoct in their heads.
AJ:Nah, it sounds silly when you look at individual action. It only sounds reasonable when you look at the state as a collective blob. I can understand the tactic of working within the statist's collectivist paradigm and trying to turn it against him, but I just don't think it's prudent to fight error with error unless it's a TV soundbite.
What error am I making? Can you be specific please?
>> Cops have no duty to protect.
It is amazing how so few people know this stuff....
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
I have explained my beliefs on this more than once. Granted it may not have been to you, as I have been responding to more than one person.
To copy from one of my other posts....
"For starters, look at Somalia. In fact, Somaliland, the portion of somalia that is the most prosperous, is also the portion of the country with the closest thing to a functioning government. There are other historical examples [look at how the citrus farmers of sicily were treated by the mafia]. I mentioned one earlyer in my post.
Also, people have long term plans built around todays government. Such a gigantic change would surely cause panic. I don't see how the stock market and the financial system in general wouldn't collapse, given that the governemnt plays important roles in both these sectors. People have their retirement funds tied with the governemnt. There are many other examples. I just don't envision a smooth transition to a well functioning market."
Markets require private property to be enforced to a certain degree. We currently have markets, and they are more complex than simple barter (which would exist even if property rights were almost nonexistent). The fact that this is the case is evidence that property rights are enforced to a reasonable extent.
I do not think the state "owns" us. Although I still want to know, how do you go from self ownership to property rights?
So you agree then that markets are not voluntary for people who disagree with property rights? I don't know where you are getting the idea that I don't think you control youself or that you aren't an individual. Also, when someone commits a crime in an anarcho-capitalist society, they are still subjected to another authority.
I am a consequentialist.
Eric:So you agree then that markets are not voluntary for people who disagree with property rights?
How does such a belief make markets involuntary? Is someone forcing you to participate in propertarianism against your wil???
My neighbor forces me to clean my house against my will because he does not come do it for me. I should instead be allowed to force him to clean my house for me. (This essentially the equivilent of such logic) Honestly do you consider your statements before posting them? heh....
How does such a belief make markets involuntary? Is someone forcing you to participate in propertarianism against your wil??? My neighbor forces me to clean my house against my will because he does not come do it for me. I should instead be allowed to force him to clean my house for me. (This essentially the equivilent of such logic)
My neighbor forces me to clean my house against my will because he does not come do it for me. I should instead be allowed to force him to clean my house for me. (This essentially the equivilent of such logic)
I think Eric is trying to say that both systems will restrict liberties because both systems will vigorously enforce property rights and the non-aggression axiom. There is room for disagreement about consistency, but it is clear that they will both coerce in order to protect property rights. This isn't using some perverse leftist logic by claiming coercion because one cannot, for instance, read the darker passages of Hegel, or because they cannot jump six feet in the air. The coercion is being prohibited from acting in a certain fashion.
Eric is assessing both systems and is concluding that (because he's a consequentialist) that minarchy is a far more sensible solution. I know that is, of course, contentious, and he should substantiate it, but I think we should at least make sure his position is clearly known.
Also, your two examples are equivalent by what rule?
Eric:markets are not voluntary for people who disagree with property rights
What I read was, an old argument I've heard repeated, that markets are forced onto people who don't beleive in them. Just like my untidy house is forced onto me because I don't beleive in maintaining it myself. My personal liberty of having a clean house is violated because my neighbor won't clean it.
I could be mis-characterizing it but based on the statement above it's hard to tell. Having said that I do think your assessment of his argument is more acurate. The assertion being that a regulated market outperforms a free market.
It would be nice if he could substantiate it but LS asked for that pages ago...
How does such a belief make markets involuntary? Is someone forcing you to participate in propertarianism against your wil??? My neighbor forces me to clean my house against my will because he does not come do it for me. I should instead be allowed to force him to clean my house for me. (This essentially the equivilent of such logic) Honestly do you consider your statements before posting them? heh....
Markets depend on the enforcement of private property. Not everyone agrees with the legitemacy of private property. Markets are not voluntary for these people. You can tell a militant anarcho-communist that markets are voluntary, but the reality is that markets are not voluntary for him. If someone thinks resources ought to be owned collectively by everyone, then they oppose the concept of property based markets.
Also, on a side note, if we had all of society have a vote, the vast majority of people would vote for some form of governemnt. Given the choice, people would voluntarily choose government over anarchy.
Eric: Markets depend on the enforcement of private property.
Markets depend on the enforcement of private property.
Not true. Markets coalesce and formulate on their own. Whether or not their actors are aware of property as a concept or not. Even those who disagree with "private property". Also the handling and dealing of property can and will be handled differently based on cultural norms. While there are some fundamental attributes to property which are near universal that doesn't mean all aspects of property are the same.
Eric:Not everyone agrees with the legitemacy of private property. Markets are not voluntary for these people.
Quite right. And I disagree with me having to clean my own house. I beleive it's involuntary labor and my neighbor should come do it for me. He is in effect forcing me to clean my own house (by your reasoning).
(Mind you no one is forcing people who disagree with property rights to participate or associate with those that do, just like no one is stopping me from cleaning my own house) Markets do not force people against their will to participate in them or not. Are you arguing that they do?
Eric:You can tell a militant anarcho-communist that markets are voluntary, but the reality is that markets are not voluntary for him.
So your argument is everyone is forcing the anarcho-communist because he can't force his will on everyone else? I am certain this is a logical fallacy though I can't say which off the top of my head. Seems to be a cousin of a loaded question or a false delimma. Perhaps someone more up in logic can share what exactly it is.
Furthermore why is the anarcho-communist too lazy to go make his own commune? Free of "private property"(A near impossible feat and I don't mean economically alone. Property is a praxeological concept. You can't really get rid of it. You can only treat it differently).
Eric:If someone thinks resources ought to be owned collectively by everyone, then they oppose the concept of property based markets
And I think my neighbor ought to clean my house for me.
Eric:Also, on a side note, if we had all of society have a vote, the vast majority of people would vote for some form of governemnt. Given the choice, people would voluntarily choose government over anarchy.
Is your reasoning ever built from a logical premise? And if not how can you expect to come to any meaningful conclusion?
argumentum ad populum
I think this is what he means:
Ludwig trades a zebra for a watering can. Ludwig waters his garden and then puts the watering can down and walks inside. Richard comes and takes the watering can. Ludwig then threatens Richard with violence if the latter does not return the watering can. Therefore, property requires force.
The fact is that Ludwig was still using his watering can, even it was not attached to his physical being. The initiation of force is therefore Richard's.
You don't understand what it is about private property that bothers those who disagrees with it. If I trade an apple for an orange, no socialist is going to care. However, if you come and claim absolute ownership over some piece of land, or some means of production, some people will not view that claim as legitemate. You also bring up cultural norms even though there are people who obviously disagree with cultural norms.
You say it is your house, but someone could view your claim to that house to be as legitemate as you consider a theifs claim to his house. Or maybe someone doesn't agree with the homesteading principle. There is some indian tribe that used land commonly for hundreds of years, and you come along, build a house, and claim a certain area of the land is yours. Now suddenly even though this claim is not viewed as legitemate by the native americans, this is still somehow all voluntary?
Are you too lazy to go to some uninhabited island and start your own anarcho-capitalist commune?
Is your reasoning ever built from a logical premise? And if not how can you expect to come to any meaningful conclusion? argumentum ad populum
It was just an interesting side note. Just how more people would voluntarily choose government over what you consider to be the most voluntary social system.
liberty student: AJ:"That IRS agent stole from you and gave it to that cop, so that cop didn't really protect you." One, the cops stole from ME. Two, the cop didn't protect them because he is a cop. Cops have no duty to protect.
One, the cops stole from ME. Two, the cop didn't protect them because he is a cop. Cops have no duty to protect.
But the cop did protect them, which allows statists to correctly object to the idea that no state agents do any protecting.
liberty student: An expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms.
An expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms.
Then vaccines and chemotherapy (both cell-killing cell-protectors) must be contradictions in terms, as well. Even if they were, it doesn't follow that contradictions cannot be useful or subjectively valued.
I also wanted to chip in with kudos to Eric for his collected calmness under fire.
@ Eric
Markets and private property for people who don't want to initiate force against others. They are only involuntary for aggressors.
@ LS
The justifications offer for the state may be fictions, but the state is very much a real organization.
Also, I was and I believe Eric was also talking about what the state actually does, not the idea of a state.
Also, where is the contradiction if the state is not both protector and violator in theory? If it were only one, we couldn't call it a contradiction. We don't call a protection racket a contradiction.
And while I would never say that a school teacher/molestor is a good caretaker some of the time, I would also not deny that he is a school teacher just because he is a molestor. I would say that he is both, just as I would say that the state is both a sytematic violator of property which sometimes protects the property rights of its taxpayers to maintatin the capital value of its tax base.
nirgrahamUK:>> Cops have no duty to protect. It is amazing how so few people know this stuff....
It is sad how many people believe the contrary.
Eric:I have explained my beliefs on this more than once.
I don't care about your beliefs. The rationale for your core belief system is what we are looking at. You surely believe all sorts of nonsense. The question here, which you have tried to answer many times, is why you believe it.
Eric:Also, people have long term plans built around todays government. Such a gigantic change would surely cause panic.
People had long term plans built around slavery, flat earth and Zeus living on Mount Olympus. What does that have to do with anything? Are people entitled to their erroneous plans based on flawed and irrational premises?
Eric:Markets require private property to be enforced to a certain degree.
Nonsense. Markets only require that private property be respected. Two individuals trading voluntarily don't require a 3rd party using force to create a market transaction. One is truly a Philistine if they would believe that the market works because someone is threatening others with a club,
Eric:The fact that this is the case is evidence that property rights are enforced to a reasonable extent.
Who defines what a reasonable extent is.
Eric:I do not think the state "owns" us.
Then go smoke a joint outside a police station in broad daylight, or stop filing your taxes, and then I will believe that is really what you think.
Eric:Although I still want to know, how do you go from self ownership to property rights?
Do you or do you not own yourself? I need to know who I am talking to before I can answer this question.
Who can disagree with property rights, without having the property rights to disagree?
Eric:Also, when someone commits a crime in an anarcho-capitalist society, they are still subjected to another authority.
Yes, the authority of a property owner asserting his rights. You see, its a consistent system, unlike your beloved state. Property rights = authority. Lack of rights is lack of authority.
Eric:I am a consequentialist.
And what is consequentialism?
AJ:But the cop did protect them, which allows statists to correctly object to the idea that no state agents do any protecting.
State agents do not have a duty to protect. If they did it without a duty as a member of the state, then surely they were not acting as state agents when they were protecting.
If you continue to debate this line of indulging mass stupidity with me, I will dislike you intensely for a long time.
z1235:Then vaccines and chemotherapy (both cell-killing cell-protectors) must be contradictions in terms, as well.
Uhm, no. But thanks for trying to participate.
z1235:Even if they were, it doesn't follow that contradictions cannot be useful or subjectively valued.
Wrong domain.
z1235:I also wanted to chip in with kudos to Eric for his collected calmness under fire.
It's easy to be calm when you're writing nonsense and may not know any better.
Stephen:The justifications offer for the state may be fictions, but the state is very much a real organization.
Vanilla may be sweet, but it is very much a cold dessert.
Stephen:Also, where is the contradiction if the state is not both protector and violator in theory? If it were only one, we couldn't call it a contradiction. We don't call a protection racket a contradiction.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Worse, I think you may not have an idea of what you are talking about.
Eric doesn't think the state is a protection racket.
Stephen:And while I would never say that a school teacher/molestor is a good caretaker some of the time, I would also not deny that he is a school teacher just because he is a molestor.
And your point is?
Stephen:I would say that he is both, just as I would say that the state is both a sytematic violator of property which sometimes protects the property rights of its taxpayers to maintatin the capital value of its tax base.
Sounds like feelgood mindless bullshit to me. There is no such thing as a taxpayer.
I guess I will post this again, as you only adressed one scentence in it.
The government is a much larger and more influential institution. It currently plays a very influential role in the economy.
What so you don't think some entity has to enforce property rights? I maintian my claim that property rights need to be enforced for markets to function properly.
I don't have some specific point. But the fact is that markets require property rights to exist to some extent in order to emerge. We currently have widespread markets, which suggests that property rights exist. So this is proof that property rights can coexist with a government.
How does this prove that the state owns me?
Sure, I own myself. I am curious to know how you get from this to property rights, since it seems like your entire argument rests on this.
Can you rephrase this?
Come on...
Eric:I guess I will post this again, as you only adressed one scentence in it.
Post it until you are blue in the face. It's complete bullshit and doesn't address any of my arguments.
Eric:The government is a much larger and more influential institution. It currently plays a very influential role in the economy.
And? You keep avoiding my arguments Eric. Why?
Eric:What so you don't think some entity has to enforce property rights?
That is what I wrote.
Eric:I maintian my claim that property rights need to be enforced for markets to function properly.
Maintain whatever you like. Now prove it.
Eric: Who defines what a reasonable extent is. I don't have some specific point.
I don't have some specific point.
So you are making a claim to reasonable, without being able to define it. And I am the one with an irrational argument?
Eric:We currently have widespread markets, which suggests that property rights exist. So this is proof that property rights can coexist with a government.
We don't have widespread markets, we have people pretending they are participating in markets. It is a delusion. People do not own their money, they cannot choose their money, and are subject to thousands of regulations and taxes. Less than a fraction of any given transaction is actually free, the markets are simply a rigged game with predefined outcomes.
Don't confuse owning a copy of Windows 7 with being Bill Gates.
Eric: Then go smoke a joint outside a police station in broad daylight, or stop filing your taxes, and then I will believe that is really what you think. How does this prove that the state owns me?
You can explain to us how it is illegal for you to do anything with your body, which of course implies that you are not the legitimate owner of your body in the eyes of the state.
Eric:Sure, I own myself. I am curious to know how you get from this to property rights, since it seems like your entire argument rests on this.
My argument doesn't rest on property rights at all. But that said, if you own yourself, I think you just established property rights for me.
Eric: Who can disagree with property rights, without having the property rights to disagree? Can you rephrase this?
If property rights don't exist, then how can anyone make a claim? How are they interacting with the physical world? Are your posts illegitimate because you hijacked another's body?
Eric: And what is consequentialism? Come on...
I've made it clear that I believe Consequentialism is bullshit, and I would like you to define it so I can be sure my opinion of it applies here.
What is Consequentialism?
liberty student:An expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms.
liberty student:Uhm, no.
How so?
I'd like to point out that the majority, if not all, of the 3rd worlds markets and micro markets amongst communities exist quite productively absent enforcement.
More astounding is the fact that even in 1st world countries most police agencies do not specialize and in many cases neglect the protection of property between individuals. The USA alone has enough empirical evidence to shut Eric's arguments down entirely.
I have no idea how Eric will prove such a claim when there are no praxeological dependencies of enforcement out there. Logically I don't even how you can come to that conclusion unless your extremely confused about what markets are.
z1235: liberty student:An expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms. z1235:Then vaccines and chemotherapy (both cell-killing cell-protectors) must be contradictions in terms, as well. liberty student:Uhm, no. Z1235:How so? I can't believe I am seriously reading this dialogue. Your trying to compare biochemistry to humans? If the cops went around and murderd every 3rd living person in an effort to "Cleanse" society would we call them property protectors? Are you mad? Seems like a country in world history did something very similar to this Z1235, you've placed your self on shakey ground. I expected you would have known better.
Z1235:How so?
I can't believe I am seriously reading this dialogue. Your trying to compare biochemistry to humans? If the cops went around and murderd every 3rd living person in an effort to "Cleanse" society would we call them property protectors? Are you mad?
Seems like a country in world history did something very similar to this Z1235, you've placed your self on shakey ground. I expected you would have known better.
z1235: liberty student:An expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms. z1235:Then vaccines and chemotherapy (both cell-killing cell-protectors) must be contradictions in terms, as well. liberty student:Uhm, no. How so?
Simple fallacy of composition Z.
LS, what is the "uhm, no" refering to? Are you denying: (1) that vaccines and chemoterapy are cell-killing cell-protectors, or (2) that they are contradictions in terms? What composition is fallacious?
filc: If the cops went around and murderd every 3rd living person in an effort to "Cleanse" society would we call them property protectors? Are you mad?
filc, I don't understand your emotional response. I've implied nothing of that sort.
I guess I don't understand how your analogy is valid then.
Z1235:your emotional response
Can you properly assess my emotional condition on a web forum to adequately make such a statement?
lolz...
z1235:LS, what is the "uhm, no" refering to? Are you denying: (1) that vaccines and chemoterapy are cell-killing cell-protectors, or (2) that they are contradictions in terms? What composition is fallacious?
Yes. No. (1).
liberty student: z1235:LS, what is the "uhm, no" refering to? Are you denying: (1) that vaccines and chemoterapy are cell-killing cell-protectors, or (2) that they are contradictions in terms? What composition is fallacious? Yes. No. (1).
Which part about chemotherapy are you denying, that it is: (1a) cell-killing or (1b) cell-protecting?
Just confirming on (2), so you agree that chemotherapy is a contradiction in terms?
How is the composition of (1) fallacious? I have a feeling you could have anticipated these questions and maybe charitably added your explanations to your two-word reply from the outset. Just saying.