It does appear so. When someone argues against libertarianism they say "well what if the market doesn't create the optimal situation?" They either precede this or follow it with something along the lines of "libertarians try to impose their values on me."
This belies a fundamental doublethink in their argument. The values of libertarians are subjective, and hence should not be forced on me, they claim. They go on to say that markets may not produce the "optimal" scenarios.
This creates an internal contradiction once the definition on "optimal" is deconstructed. There is nothing that is inherently "optimal" in the universe. Hence, when one says "optimal", they mean what they think is optimal. In this respect, they would like to force their values on other people.
During such arguments, we see that they're merely saying "I don't like your world, and want to instead impose X set of restrictions on people."
Hence, they are monarchists.
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
I agree. Most people think the world would be better if they were the dictator of it.
We're all egoists and radical individualists procuring our will in a creative destructive world by logical necessity - I would say Austrians have this figured out and have taken these imlications more seriously than most. If that mans we are a type of radical form of "monarchists" - or liberterians who are just talking about the facts of how the world works, so be it.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
There is nothing that is inherently "optimal" in the universe.
This is true, but I think there is a way to talk about things being "better, worse, optimal, etc." without rendering it to individual relativism. A certain move in chess is optimal because it is the most likely to bring achieve its goal of winning the chess game. Whether or not the player desires to win the game doesn't really change that because "optimal" is relative to the purpose of the move within the game, not the purpose of the actor.
When someone says that a certain policy or institution isn't optimal, it isn't necessarily that they mean it isn't optimal for them personally, they might just mean that it isn't the best policy or institution given its purpose. Minimum wage is less than optimal, not because I disagree with it or its effects, but because it fails to acheive its goal.
Also, libertarians can be as guilty as anyone else of wishing to impose restrictions on the world. After all, the non-aggression principle is a statement of prohibition and not permission.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
Monarchy is really no different from a federal republic. In a monarchy, you can do nothing other than what the monarch says you can. In a federal republic, you can do nothing other than what the ruling class allows and even though that ruling class may be composed of several people, they still form one sovereign.
I’d rather say that most people might be dictators rather than monarchists. A monarch will rarely try to impose his own values, or at least will try to do so far less so than a dictator would.
I usually sum it up like this:
No one fights for democracy, no one wants democracy, NO ONE. People don't want democracy they want their will to be enacted, and anyone who hides behind "the will of the majority" only does so to justify what they already wanted. Joseph Schumpeter has a brilliant section at the beginning of the democratic section in "Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy" where he describes the situation perfectly, specifically talking about socialist parties and the allegation of them being "anti-democratic"
vive la insurrection: We're all egoists and radical individualists procuring our will in a creative destructive world by logical necessity - I would say Austrians have this figured out and have taken these imlications more seriously than most. If that mans we are a type of radical form of "monarchists" - or liberterians who are just talking about the facts of how the world works, so be it.
I haven't been able to figure out what a mutualist likes other than hating anything "right wing" and the phrase "you are misunderstanding my position"....come to think of it that may be true of all neo-leftists, except you might be able to throw their hobby horse of an unreflective deconstruction / textual criticism technique to that.
I wouldn't mind seeing a thread where you've done that, those can be funny
I'm part of a Facebook mutualists group and I don't put up much of a debate; my debating style is that of showing mass disinterest and never forming a real foundation while deconstructing their own. I'll accept bourgeoisie insults as gratifying comments. Only position I'll be upfront about is that of an aristocratical egoist, and if my only foundation is my own individual self it's really easy to move throughout strawmen and any problems they have with libertarianism on a whole without getting pinned down. Comments like "I'm just trolling mutualists who are about as 2 dimensional as Rothbardians before I go to bed" and "Aristocracy appeals to me" can ruffle their feathers.
Thing with some mutualists they are quick to criticize libertarians/an-caps/Austrians as well as statists and Marxists. With people who are so quick to criticize, start by taking no position at all beyond your own self. Them taking it a part is like punching water.
"I'm just trolling mutualists who are about as 2 dimensional as Rothbardians before I go to bed"
Orly? I guess the fact that I'm an Anarcho-Monarchist makes me SUPER 2 dimensional. Haha, what an idiotic JOKE.
Not really a joke. Your past posts have shown you are pretty 2 dimensional with your die hard Rothbard stance.