laminustacitus: Surely the government is an institution per se; nevertheless, it is a very complex animal, with many independent, side-by-side bureaucracies, and departments that definately do not share the same purpose, ergo interests, and might not even be completely friendly with one another. To complicate matters you have regional divisions between governments that may very well include differing ideologies between each other. Resulting from this will be that the "class" of government-employees will be anything but homogenous, and that "class" will be nothing other than a descriptive category.
Surely the government is an institution per se; nevertheless, it is a very complex animal, with many independent, side-by-side bureaucracies, and departments that definately do not share the same purpose, ergo interests, and might not even be completely friendly with one another. To complicate matters you have regional divisions between governments that may very well include differing ideologies between each other.
Resulting from this will be that the "class" of government-employees will be anything but homogenous, and that "class" will be nothing other than a descriptive category.
Parasitism is the common defining characteristic of people who choose to be employed by the state, rather than seeking market alternatives both in career and remuneration.
liberty student: laminustacitus: Surely the government is an institution per se; nevertheless, it is a very complex animal, with many independent, side-by-side bureaucracies, and departments that definately do not share the same purpose, ergo interests, and might not even be completely friendly with one another. To complicate matters you have regional divisions between governments that may very well include differing ideologies between each other. Resulting from this will be that the "class" of government-employees will be anything but homogenous, and that "class" will be nothing other than a descriptive category. Parasitism is the common defining characteristic of people who choose to be employed by the state, rather than seeking market alternatives both in career and remuneration. All statism is parasitism. All trade offs of political power (votes or acceptance) for personal/career financial gain, is parasitism.
All statism is parasitism. All trade offs of political power (votes or acceptance) for personal/career financial gain, is parasitism.
The world is not a manichaean struggle between the forces of the state v. the market; many in the state actually believe that they are doing something positive in the world, and many who are employed by the state, college professors for instance, actually do have positive benefit to the world.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus:There are no "economic classes" per se, they are at best analytical tools to describe the a mean tendancy of a group of individuals to be used as each case-study necessitates. Individuals act out of their own interests, not those dictated to them by their economic status. In addition, the entire idea of "class conflict" throws to the wind methodological individualism for groups do not act, only individuals do.
While it is the individual that performs action. People often act in line with norms and patterns that are influenced by social, cultural and biological factors.
I thought as a christian you would have a manichean view of the world, God and the devil etc. but whatever....
laminustacitus:positive benefit to the world.
positive net benefit?
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
nirgrahamUK:I thought as a christian you would have a manichean view of the world, God and the devil etc. but whatever....
Mind taking Christian theology 101, or just reading some St. Augustine before you make a fool out of yourself? After all the belief in a cosmic Manichaean struggle is a Christian heresy, not doctrine.
nirgrahamUK: laminustacitus:positive benefit to the world. positive net benefit?
That doesn't matter.
laminustacitus:The world is not a manichaean struggle between the forces of the state v. the market;
For those of us the parasites feed off, yes it is.
laminustacitus:many in the state actually believe that they are doing something positive in the world
Che Guevara and Hitler thought they were doing something good. Eugenicists think they are doing something good. Neocon republican war mongers think they are doing something good. People who wiretap illegally think they are doing something good.
Intent is meaningless, what counts is action. We can never meaningfully judge intent, only results.
laminustacitus:and many who are employed by the state, college professors for instance, actually do have positive benefit to the world.
Actually, they do not. They provide a loss on the services they provide without market competition.
Scientists on the state teat in particular help crowd out private funding of research, and every dollar of state subsidy to science results in a greater loss of private funding due to crowding out.
The Myth of Science as a Public Good - h/t Nielsio
There is nothing to stop college professors from pursuing education as a career privately. And certainly demand for education is not created by the state.
Anyway, parasitism is parasitism. It's obvious to everyone, of course except the people acting parsitic. They have all sorts of justifications for feeding on the life and labour of others.
Torsten: People acting in their own interest would be a good start. Often enough they don't, while they actually may think they do. While it is the individual that performs action. People often act in line with norms and patterns that are influenced by social, cultural and biological factors.
People acting in their own interest would be a good start. Often enough they don't, while they actually may think they do.
And are you the enlightened ubermensh who is one of the only individuals who act out of his own interests?
laminustacitus: nirgrahamUK: laminustacitus:positive benefit to the world. positive net benefit? That doesn't matter.
Of course it matters.
laminustacitus:And are you the enlightened ubermensh who is one of the only individuals who act out of his own interests?
Everyone acts out of his own interests. That is the root of methodolical individualism.
liberty student: laminustacitus:The world is not a manichaean struggle between the forces of the state v. the market; For those of us the parasites feed off, yes it is.
The world is painted in shades of gray; not black, and white. All who view the world in black, and white lack the empathy to actually realize that many individuals who do great harm do so in an attempt to do great good.
liberty student: laminustacitus:many in the state actually believe that they are doing something positive in the world Che Guevara and Hitler thought they were doing something good. Eugenicists think they are doing something good. Neocon republican war mongers think they are doing something good. People who wiretap illegally think they are doing something good.
And we should keep that in mind when analyzing their behavior.
liberty student:Intent is meaningless, what counts is action. We can never meaningfully judge intent, only results.
Intent is where the morality of an action lies.
liberty student: laminustacitus:and many who are employed by the state, college professors for instance, actually do have positive benefit to the world. Actually, they do not. They provide a loss on the services they provide without market competition.
Most of modern science has been created by individuals from public universities, if that is not a positive benefit, I do not know what is. But of course, you are all going to say that the market could have done a better job - but, the market did not do that job, and we will never know how it would have done that job, so mind as well credit the actual individuals who did the creating, and the institutions that facilitated them. That does not mean that you have to be completely in favor of them, or in favor of them at all, but mind as well give credit to what actually happened then pondering about "what-if" scenarios.
liberty student:The Myth of Science as a Public Good - h/t Nielsio
That's not what I'm arguing.
By the way LS, why cannot I have a basic intellectual conversation without you demanding that we all have a libertarian-slant while doing so? Why cannot there be a single politcs-free conversation in this entire forum? This is the reason why I don't care about politics, and why I'm apathetic about political libertarianism, LS, people like you cannot have a simple chat without mentioning it, and if I even mention the fact that the public university system has yielded some positive benefit, which (outside of "what-if" scenarios) it truly has, immediatly there's a post claiming that I am essentially a statist synchophant. Not only is it tiring, but it ensures that there is not a single conversation that can occur without either libertarianism, or anarcho-capitalism being endorsed, and proceeds to stifle any intellectual worth to it. I don't understand why most libertarians, and essentially all anarcho-capitalists can't have a politics-free academic discussion, perhaps it is just bitterness: you're angry at the world because you're not free, and the world does not share your own judgments of value, but its certainly not done in the pursuit of truth. As long as Austrian economics is nothing but libertarian-apologetics, it will go nowhere. Surely, you might be able to catch an adolescent disciple here, and there, but eventually they will grow out of it like all adolescents do with their radical politics when they mature, but that will be all that you will catch.
why are you so passionate about not hearing about libertarianism?
laminustacitus: The world is painted in shades of gray; not black, and white. All who view the world in black, and white lack the empathy to actually realize that many individuals who do great harm do so in an attempt to do great good.
Can you paint this for me? All these colors seem fantastic...
laminustacitus: Intent is where the morality of an action lies.
If you want to keep morality hidden, then keep it with intent. If you want to be morally scientific, then take note of their actions.
nirgrahamUK:why are you so passionate about not hearing about libertarianism?
My comments were apolitical, but then all of a sudden I was ambushed because they did not fit into the libertarian-view orthodoxy (e.g. state-run universities having a positive benefit) even though my comments were not at all an endorsment of such a system.
wilderness:If you want to keep morality hidden, then keep it with intent. If you want to be morally scientific, then take note of their actions.
Was morality even a subject of my commentsbefore LS proceeded to hijack this thread: no.
nirgrahamUK: why are you so passionate about not hearing about libertarianism?
why can't he look at the free market and take note that political actions impact the market... Businesses have this potential U.S. universal healthcare plan looming over their heads and will they hire more people with the possibility of their businesses having to weigh the costs of government mandatory regulations, aside from all the health care regulations that already stifle economic competition in the market place currently? A huge part of the economic equation is ignored by Keynesians: the consumer... a big economic equation is ignored by lamin.: the state.
but then theres no reason to be upset by people who you do not disagree with. both you and libertarians do not endorse such a system. so why the tantrums?
also for the record, and any statists viewing the board, please note that state-run universities do not have a net positive benefit.
laminustacitus: wilderness:If you want to keep morality hidden, then keep it with intent. If you want to be morally scientific, then take note of their actions. Was morality even a subject of my commentsbefore LS proceeded to hijack this thread: no.
Hey, I'm only going with the flow and I made a comment about what you said dealing with morality and intent.
nirgrahamUK:but then theres no reason to be upset by people who you do not disagree with. both you and libertarians do not endorse such a system. so why the tantrums?
Because I am speaking in a academic, and theoretical propositions, not meant to convey my political beliefs, and yet those propositions are taken as my political beliefs.
Anarchist Cain main point is government workers are net tax consumers and these taxes are consumed whether those government workers: know it, like it, or don't know it - by coercion. The government doesn't produce anything from its premise of coercion. Workers in the free market on the other hand are trying to voluntarily play in accord with the free market system. The class divide, or better yet the category divide is government worker - coercion - free market worker. The divide is coercion coming not from the free market, obviously, but from the government. I think that was the simple point being made until unnecessary complexities arose in the discussion.
laminustacitus: yet those propositions are taken as my political beliefs.
its not all about you lam. some of us have an eye on the thoughts of others that read the boards. if you are dropping knowledge bombs that can easily be misinterpretted to support naive statists in their arguments we will point them out, to be on guard for them as an aide to each other, and as a flag to pro-statist that this 'ammo' will misfire on them. please forgive us for our trespasses. im sure they will continue.
laminustacitus:By the way LS, why cannot I have a basic intellectual conversation without you demanding that we all have a libertarian-slant while doing so? Why cannot there be a single politcs-free conversation in this entire forum?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
laminustacitus:The world is painted in shades of gray; not black, and white. All who view the world in black, and white lack the empathy to actually realize that many individuals who do great harm do so in an attempt to do great good.
This is just rambling. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
laminustacitus:And we should keep that in mind when analyzing their behavior.
Please be serious.
laminustacitus:Intent is where the morality of an action lies.
Morality is based on analysis of action, not intent.
laminustacitus:Most of modern science has been created by individuals from public universities, if that is not a positive benefit, I do not know what is. But of course, you are all going to say that the market could have done a better job - but, the market did not do that job, and we will never know how it would have done that job, so mind as well credit the actual individuals who did the creating, and the institutions that facilitated them.
A logical fallacy based on negative proof.
But I want to be clear here. You believe the public sector is superior to the market in the provision of services?
laminustacitus:By the way LS, why cannot I have a basic intellectual conversation without you demanding that we all have a libertarian-slant while doing so?
On a site that promotes the Austrian conception of liberty, I expect libertarianism to be a factor in discussion. If you want somewhere that no one judges parasitism or pats everyone on the back for being such brilliant state sponsored intellectuals, I am sure there are sites for that. If you don't like libertarian analysis, I recommend not having public discussions on a libertarian website.
laminustacitus:Why cannot there be a single politcs-free conversation in this entire forum?
Because you endorse funding by political force.
laminustacitus:This is the reason why I don't care about politics
Sure you do. That's where your funding comes from, and surely you care about that, right?
laminustacitus:LS, people like you cannot have a simple chat without mentioning it
I'm pretty fixated on who is threatening me, controlling me and ripping me off. And the apologists for such.
laminustacitus:there's a post claiming that I am essentially a statist synchophant
Are you, or are you not?
laminustacitus:Not only is it tiring, but it ensures that there is not a single conversation that can occur without either libertarianism, or anarcho-capitalism being endorsed, and proceeds to stifle any intellectual worth to it.
It's not possible to divorce these discussions from theories of human action.
laminustacitus:I don't understand why most libertarians, and essentially all anarcho-capitalists can't have a politics-free academic discussion, perhaps it is just bitterness: you're angry at the world because you're not free, and the world does not share your own judgments of value,
It's because we're not parasites, and we oppose parsitism. if you generated an income by voluntary exchange, then you too might feel the same way when someone confiscates your life (time/labour) for their own sustenance and ends, while offering some holier and smarter than thou justification why their use of the fruits of YOUR labour is superior to your own.
So it's no surprise you don't understand. If you're state funded, and pay taxes, it is just a rebate on the stolen goods you receive. It's moving state money from the left hand to the right hand, and nudge nudge wink wink insisting you are paying your "fair share" too, just like all of us working class losers.
laminustacitus:but its certainly not done in the pursuit of truth
I'm giving you the truth. You want to compartmentalize conversations from context and inconvenient truths. The truth doesn't exist within limits.
laminustacitus:As long as Austrian economics is nothing but libertarian-apologetics, it will go nowhere.
Tu ne cede malis hombre. Seems to me that as long as AE gets co-opted by the state, it will go nowhere. Radical libertarianism is driving the promulgation of AE and Austrian ideas. And most certainly (but perhaps irrelevant to you) private funding for AE.
laminustacitus: Surely, you might be able to catch an adolescent disciple here, and there, but eventually they will grow out of it like all adolescents do with their radical politics when they mature, but that will be all that you will catch.
Petty ad hominem.
liberty student:Everyone acts out of his own interests.
liberty student:Scientists on the state teat in particular help crowd out private funding of research, and every dollar of state subsidy to science results in a greater loss of private funding due to crowding out.
You can't say this for sure. I often catch Rothbard and Hoppe saying that the demands of intellectuals is low on the free market, but that's nothing more than a baseless assertion.
Look you can't say that mainstream academics are parasites without a value judgement on behalf of other individuals., for me, they're most certainly not parasites. I greatly value science, especially economic science, so for me state subsidies to economists are wonderful. In fact, there is no way you can say that the current distribution of resources with regard to academia is not exactly as it would be if the state did not exist.
Also, AE would not exist without the state.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Juan:lovely trolling =]
In the long run, we're all trolls.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
A libertarian revolution is a proletarianr evolution insofar that it speeds the upward mobility of the proletariat and helps them become bourgeoisie.
Political Atheists Blog
GilesStratton: You can't say this for sure. I often catch Rothbard and Hoppe saying that the demands of intellectuals is low on the free market, but that's nothing more than a baseless assertion. Look you can't say that mainstream academics are parasites without a value judgement on behalf of other individuals., for me, they're most certainly not parasites. I greatly value science, especially economic science, so for me state subsidies to economists are wonderful. In fact, there is no way you can say that the current distribution of resources with regard to academia is not exactly as it would be if the state did not exist. Also, AE would not exist without the state.
challenge to Giles.
read this http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north240.html
noting any errors you see.
and then read the article a second time swapping out music for 'economic knowledge' and composer for 'economics professor' and the likeand please report back how contented you are with your old arguments
GilesStratton: liberty student:Scientists on the state teat in particular help crowd out private funding of research, and every dollar of state subsidy to science results in a greater loss of private funding due to crowding out. You can't say this for sure.
You can't say this for sure.
Yes I can. I supplied a source.
GilesStratton:Look you can't say that mainstream academics are parasites without a value judgement on behalf of other individuals., for me, they're most certainly not parasites.
If they get their resources and wages through taxation (all varieties) then they are parasites. There is no difference between a military contractor and a publicly funded research project. They both gain their funding outside the market via privilege, and they both claim that such a funding scheme is necessary to provide so-called public goods.
This is basic Hoppean class analysis which I believe has a place here at LvMI.
GilesStratton:I greatly value science, especially economic science, so for me state subsidies to economists are wonderful.
If you valued economic science, you wouldn't think subsidies are wonderful. You would see them (outside the moral argument) as inefficient or at the least, untested. What I surmise you value, is the privilege you can receive as a student and later scientist, if the public pays for your work, without having to prove the worth of said work, or your capacity to carry it out, in a market atmosphere.
That's the thrust of all state subsidy. To compromise capitalists, scientists, educators, social workers, by offering them an opportunity to operate without competition in the so-called "public interest".
GilesStratton:In fact, there is no way you can say that the current distribution of resources with regard to academia is not exactly as it would be if the state did not exist.
Negative proof fallacy.
GilesStratton:Also, AE would not exist without the state.
And again.
Funny how in one breath you can claim no one can know, and then a mere sentence later, claim perfect knowledge for yourself. What is funny, is not that you're contradicting yourself, but that you were actually wrong on both statements.
GilesStratton:Look you can't say that mainstream academics are parasites without a value judgement on behalf of other individuals.
for me, they're most certainly not parasites.
I greatly value science, especially economic science,
so for me state subsidies to economists are wonderful.
Nitroadict:In the long run, we're all trolls.
Or at least zombies.
What is being discussed here is whether or not a possible libertarian revolution would possibily mimick a proletariat revolution. This need not involve the correctness of libertarian teachings,or even a discussion about libertarian doctrines, only whether such a revolution would possibly take on the form of a class struggle. So, shall we get back on topic, here?
laminustacitus: No, an a priori statement, whether analytic, or synthetic, is true, otherwise it is not an a priori judgment, but an error.
No, an a priori statement, whether analytic, or synthetic, is true, otherwise it is not an a priori judgment, but an error.
So it is only a priori if it is correct?
laminustacitus:You are not making sense here.
To make an a priori statement one must at least have some empiricism or experience. Therefore common sense can be a priori for a priori is not prediction based on a life of sensory depravation.
laminustacitus:One needs to know the basics of the situation before one can make a prediction as to what are the most likely events to occur.
And we are incapable of understanding our current state of affairs?
laminustacitus:Economics does not exist to make predictions, and it cannot make predictions even close to the calibar of the physical sciences because there are far too many factors to account for, and all the information necessary to truly make such a prediction is decentralized throughout the entire economy - by the time you collect it, its relevance to the future has greatly diminished.
Tell that to Mises who predicted the Great Depression and Peter Schiff who predicted the housing bubble.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
On a side note I would just like to make two comments:
1. Why is it that everyone I talk to suddenly turns into a nihilist when we get to the basis of logic?
2. Giles has certainly fallen to the sway of statism, then again remembering his posts before...did he really fall?
I'm not sure how one can discuss a libertarian revolution without libertarian teachings or doctrines.
Libertarian class theory is based on the concept of parasitism. The Libertarian proletariat are the net tax producers, and the bourgeoisie are the net tax consumers. What separates them is not capital (as the net producers are the ones capable of creating capital) but social and political privilege which can only be manufactured through a monopoly on the use of force (law and justice).
I have to disagree with Kaju about upward mobility. A libertarian revolution is the replacement of privilege with exclusion and individualism. As I see it, an end to the notion of a social ladder. A proletariat revolution is the replacement of privilege and exclusion with collectivism.
I don't see many commonalities with left-socialist, left-anarchist notions of revolution and libertarian revolution.
The class lines are almost drawn in reverse, because left-socialism is based on an anachronism, and totally obselete in the face of modern social democracy.
liberty student:The class lines are almost drawn in reverse, because left-socialism is based on an anachronism, and totally obselete in the face of modern social democracy.
Really? Roderick Long hasn't convinced you there is things that we can learn from anti-authoritarian socialists? [ I am not speaking of economics ]
Anarchist Cain:1. Why is it that everyone I talk to suddenly turns into a nihilist when we get to the basis of logic?
It is your super-power.
Anarchist Cain:2. Giles has certainly fallen to the sway of statism, then again remembering his posts before...did he really fall?
I don't think Giles was ever a libertarian, folks just assumed because he was into Hoppe he would be sympathetic to ancap. He's always been pro-privilege and pro-state, he's just more obvious about it now. And I don't have a problem with that (as internet discussion), so long as people are honest about it, and acknowledge they view privilege as legit, instead of beating around the bush, trying to obfuscate a penetrating analysis into the legitimacy of those claims for monopoly and privilege.
Giles is clear, he likes when the state steals to provide things he likes. He thinks this is not only good, but economically sound.
Which is why prior to my last leave, I had stopped acknowledging him altogether, because that is largely what I do with the supporters and officials of my state.
you cant say socialist in a question and then demand an answer that does not mention economics, no fair!
liberty student:It is your super-power.
Some super power. I seem to attract them like a magnet.
liberty student:I don't think Giles was ever a libertarian, folks just assumed because he was into Hoppe he would be sympathetic to ancap. He's always been pro-privilege and pro-state, he's just more obvious about it now.
I concur with your assessment.