Have Austrian Economics and Libertarianism Influenced You in Daily Life?

Jacob Bloom:

Most Republicans are theists, so they never think about a world with no God, this is probably why they've never thought about "if there's no God, who gives us inalienable rights?"

You need to read some of the links that Conza88 posted you on page 12 of this thread:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/8926/229440.aspx#229440

Jacob Bloom:

I really think that in your anarchist region, only the most wealthy will have any rights at all.  Because they're the only ones who will have the money to enforce them.  Everyone else will live as serfs, because they won't have the ability to protect and enforce their rights.

Only the wealthy have cars, only the wealthy have refrigerators, I think only the wealthy have computers.  The most money is made by serving the masses, and if there is a group of people who do not have such a product/service, a clever entrepeneur will find a way to satisfy their demands and make the product/service cheaper.  Just as with insurance, there would probably be different levels of protection, a basic plan which would be cheaper, would be to just protect your property from theft/damages.  Who knows what extra ammenities might be in the higher levels of protection, perhaps a personal bodyguard, perhaps a security guard to guard your house... Who knows what the market would provide, all we know is that it would be provided.

Jacob Bloom:

And if you think that powerful men will respect people will no power just because you tell them it's moral to do so...I've got another thing to sell you.

There is no political position to control people in a given area with your will, unlike government.  In a free market the only way to do "gain power" is to satisfy consumer wants.  Sure there might be some gangs here and there, but this violence will be extremely small scale, PDAs would be focused on prevention of crime (so it would be harder for these gangs to cause it), and this small scale violence would NEVER grow into huge scale wars like those which the government causes.

Jacob Bloom:

Yes, it does.  Because for a right to be natural, it has to be upheld by nature.  But nature is indifferent to the rights of man.  Nature has watched as men have taken and given rights to one another since the dawn of mankind.  With no God to balance out the indifference of nature, there are no inalienable rights.  You have to be able to protect your rights, Betsy.

Read more on Natural Rights, because you know nothing about them.  Rights are not given or taken, you have Natural Rights (derived from Property Rights), and they can be violated.

Jacob Bloom:

However, under your system, I'd have no one to call, and you would come to my house and lynch me.  Do you think I want that?

Again, go read... or at least read the posts more thoroughly.  You can have protection from aggression.  There will be "police" to call.  You said that you wouldn't want a government monopoly on firemen, what would happen if you pay for a private fire department and a fire starts in your house?  The firemen will just drive up to your house and laugh as your property burns?  Of course not, same logic applies to a criminal or two, or three, or fifty which are on your property causing problems.  Police will come and protect your property, this is what you pay them to do.  I would tell you to just imagine them like bodyguards, but then they might join the mob and kill you and take all your property.

Jacob Bloom:

No, but I know some people will be able to afford to go to court as many times as they need to to get the ruling they want.  Some people won't be able to afford to go to court at all.  Those people will have no rights and no protection in your anarchist region.

Also, if the case was already heard by an honorable/respected court, the new court would probably refuse to appeal your case after seeing you try to appeal multiple times without new evidence.  You would need some sort of new proof every time you wanted to appeal the next step, or you could just see that it would be cheaper to follow the ruling of the honorable court, instead of appealing 5 or 6 or 10 times and it getting harder each time.

Also, those who cannot afford to go to court would probably receive charitable help.

Jacob Bloom:

Any business that maintains its competitive edge not by being the best, but by making it nearly impossible for anyone new to break into their industry is going to be in favor of the state.

Cheaper labor, lower costs, no taxes, stable monies.  Businesses would come flowing to the region.

And again, these regulations "making it nearly impossible for anyone new to break into their industry" is a consequence of giving a monopoly of courts to the government... exactly what would happen under your mythical small government system.

Jon Irenicus:

No, what you want is nonsense that fits your existing predispositions. That is all.

I agree completely... I also want to comment that DW89's posts are excellent.

Jacob Bloom:

Yes, it does.  Because for a right to be natural, it has to be upheld by nature.

Humans are natural.

Under your system, we have a monopolist which violates my rights. I don't want that. Looks like it sucks to be you.

 

Jacob Bloom:

Yes, because they are wrong.  Rights can be taken, and rights can be given.

Wrong. Stop conflating rights with privileges.

Jacob Bloom:

So wait a minute, you're the rich guy, you get a ruling against me.  You've got your own private army too.

Oh, you're one of THOSE idiots who thinks "private army" is like the mercs for a drug lord. It's not.

Please PLEASE PLEASE disabuse yourself of the Hollywood stupidity.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Jacob Bloom:

Yes, because they are wrong.  Rights can be taken, and rights can be given.

Wrong. Stop conflating rights with privileges.

About half of his posts are based on that conflation.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Jacob Bloom:

So wait a minute, you're the rich guy, you get a ruling against me.  You've got your own private army too.

Oh, you're one of THOSE idiots who thinks "private army" is like the mercs for a drug lord. It's not.

Please PLEASE PLEASE disabuse yourself of the Hollywood stupidity.

This guy is worse than 1001nights...

Lilburne:

About half of his posts are based on that conflation.

Lil, you are too generous....

All his posts declare privilege of the strong over the weak...

Rights to him are a myth...

Jacob Bloom:

You have fear.  You fear prison.

No, been there, it is like club med... I just prefer to not be there, has nothing to do with fear Jake, but I know it is hard for you to believe that people live without fear when you fear what you would do if you did not have big brother...

Spideynw:

Jacob Bloom:

No, but I know some people will be able to afford to go to court as many times as they need to to get the ruling they want.  Some people won't be able to afford to go to court at all.  Those people will have no rights and no protection in your anarchist region.

You don't understand neutral courts.  A court that is biased towards the wealthy, will not get money from the middle class and poor.  Second of all, the reason people want a neutral court is to avoid retribution.  A wealthy person that just "gets his or her way" will still have to worry about retribution from the other person.

The problem is Spidey, that Jakobski believes that in a free society the poor will have nothing, there will be no middle class, it will be an elite (Bourgeoisie) and a poor (Proletariat), the poor will have to be subject to the elite because the evil capitalists will exploit them, he completely ignores that the poor have more money than each individual elite in his scenario, and have more power to purchase than they do....

He in reality is exactly what Marquise was telling me about on the phone the other day, in America there is a statist fusion of sorts, like an nationalist communist movement...

I am going to explore this, maybe write a piece on my findings...

Harry Felker:

The problem is Spidey, that Jakobski believes that in a free society the poor will have nothing, there will be no middle class, it will be an elite (Bourgeoisie) and a poor (Proletariat), the poor will have to be subject to the elite because the evil capitalists will exploit them, he completely ignores that the poor have more money than each individual elite in his scenario, and have more power to purchase than they do....

Yeah, in his later post, he claims that someone would be wealthy enough to have a personal army.  What he does not understand is that in a free society, most likely no one would be able to become that wealthy, comparitively speaking.  In other words, there would be a pretty even distribution of wealth.

So yes, you are right, in that he thinks entrepreneurs would be able to exploit the poor, or that there would be some bourgeoisie class and some pletariat class.  And he thinks he is small government.

Jacob Bloom:

crime lords live ancap lifestyles.

No they do not...

Been there, Organized criminals, hell all real professional criminals know, without government their services are less valued...

Do not be on the outside looking in and try to understand the criminals world

Jacob Bloom:

Also, what you're basically telling me is that everyone will know they need to own sniper rifles and bombs.

This, Jake, is the reasoning of the second amendment, not that everyone will HAVE TO own and operate weapons, but anyone can, do you want to gamble on being on the business end of a final arbiter?  The Second Amendment basically made it illegal for the government ot do anything about individuals owning weapons in the United States to be a constant threat against tyranny....

Jacob Bloom:

You gonna make sniper rifles and bombs legal to own?

They are supposed to be, it is a constitutional violation to ban these items (yes Jake this was one of the reasons I liked limited government, then I realized that the fallacy was that they would, by use of public welfare, subvert the restrictions on themselves and ban items from people)

Jacob Bloom:

Is there going to be a bomb store in your region?  Or am I going to have to resort to terrorist activity to get my fair hearing?!

You should not have to, the fact that anyone could is a deterrent enough to encourage neutral behavior (I know not to you, but I am sure you are the minority)

I am going to correct this last sentence for you....

Jacob Bloom:

The current system is better, I don't have to be able to threaten anyone with a sniper rifle or a bomb to get biased legal protection under the state.

We will not mention that even your idea of limited government is backwards, the people are not under the state, in the limited government that most aggrandize, Constitutional Republic, the individual is the ultimate authority, and the state is bound under the authority of the individual....

Instead of answering all these posts, I will simply say that in some cases, most of the objections raised against me are literally protests of the weak against the strong.

You're trying to use morality and guilt as a weapon against something that is immune to those weapons. 

I don't fear being "evil" or "communist" or whatever to you people, so I won't change my position just to fit in.  Because blending in on this site would give me nothing but some artificial sense of community that I don't really care about.

I don't care so much about ideas per se.  I care about actions.  Talking on this site reminds me of when I was a kid and we would run around with nerf guns and yell "you're dead, I got you" and then I'd say "No, you didn't, I'm ok."  Or vice versa.  If ancap is as practically sound as you say it is, then it shouldn't be a problem to make it a reality.  Except that ancap is fundamentally weak because it refuses to use force to get what it wants.  Which is fine.  But that's weak.  It's a nerf gun philosophy.

Well perhaps in the way of your philosophy then I should extirpate you. Your own incoherent garbage is what is "weak". Good riddance. The end is upon you.

Spideynw:

So yes, you are right, in that he thinks entrepreneurs would be able to exploit the poor, or that there would be some bourgeoisie class and some pletariat class.  And he thinks he is small government.

When I finish my findings and write the piece I will mail you a link to it

I also wanted to say that ancap is in a sense absolute individualism.  Which is appealing for obvious reasons but it's not realistic to me.

Anyways, instead of continuing our nerf gun philosophy wars, I have started a new thread called "Anarcho-Capitalism deserves its shot" and its more of an action oriented thread.

Jacob Bloom:

Instead of answering all these posts, I will simply say that in some cases, most of the objections raised against me are literally protests of the weak against the strong.

You're trying to use morality and guilt as a weapon against something that is immune to those weapons. 

I don't fear being "evil" or "communist" or whatever to you people, so I won't change my position just to fit in.  Because blending in on this site would give me nothing but some artificial sense of community that I don't really care about.

I don't care so much about ideas per se.  I care about actions.  Talking on this site reminds me of when I was a kid and we would run around with nerf guns and yell "you're dead, I got you" and then I'd say "No, you didn't, I'm ok."  Or vice versa.  If ancap is as practically sound as you say it is, then it shouldn't be a problem to make it a reality.  Except that ancap is fundamentally weak because it refuses to use force to get what it wants.  Which is fine.  But that's weak.  It's a nerf gun philosophy.

So go away....

We could better spend our time working on educating and acting instead of listen to you whine about how people are applying guilt to you because you see lack of government as an opportunity to rape a man in the street...

But thanks for outing yourself Jake, I will aim for the groin first, to at least avoid the rape...

 

Jacob Bloom:

I don't care so much about ideas per se.  I care about actions. 

Then you have no understanding of power.  Ideas are the ultimate power.  Power is not being able to kill someone.  Power is being able to kill someone and then convince everyone that it was OK.  Power is not about being able to steal from someone, but about stealing from someone and then convincing everyone that it was OK.  Government is one big sales pitch.  It is all about confusion and disinformation.  Governments can only do as much as the general populace will allow it to do.  It is all about ideas.

So what we are fighting are not necessarily murderers and thieves, but ideas.  And all of us have the ability to fight ideas.  We can blog, we can financially support organizations trying to educate people, and any other number of things to help spread the word.

Spideynw:

Then you have no understanding of power.

He understand only the power of the lash

Spideynw:

Jacob Bloom:

I don't care so much about ideas per se.  I care about actions. 

Then you have no understanding of power.  Ideas are the ultimate power.  Power is not being able to kill someone.  Power is being able to kill someone and then convince everyone that it was OK.  Power is not about being able to steal from someone, but about stealing from someone and then convincing everyone that it was OK.  Government is one big sales pitch.  It is all about confusion and disinformation.  Governments can only do as much as the general populace will allow it to do.  It is all about ideas.

Damn, that was a cool post. Saved.

Jacob Bloom:

Instead of answering all these posts, I will simply say that in some cases, most of the objections raised against me are literally protests of the weak against the strong.

No, they're proper logic against contradictions.