So as not to hijack this topic: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5540.aspx, I've decided to make a new topic for a more focused discussion.
Giles Stratton: Brainpolice:Didn't you just side-step his objection, which is that the scenario is predicated on a uniform law already being there, and hence is NOT free competition. No, each of these land holdings would have uniform laws. There would, however, be many of them, which means competition. Once again, it's analogous to competition between says steel factories. Moreover there's always the possibility of the owner being bought out. Brainpolice:The problem is that this is conceptually incoherant. A monarchy by definition is not something that is purely chosen. Correct, which is where the disctinction lies. Brainpolice:There is no such thing as a free choice between monarchs, the very fact that it is monarchs being chosen from means that the context is not fully free. It isn't "monarchs" being chosen though. That's the point, it's a choice between different feudal like land arrangements. Perhaps this doesn't quite coincide with your view of anarchism, but that's not my problem. Your whole view of being "fully free" confuses lack of coercion with being able to do as you please. You clearly favour the latter, in which case you shouldn't rush to get rid of the state. Brainpolice:We currently can also choose between democratic states, but that doesn't make us free. Yes and democratic states don't own their land as these feudal land arrangements would, which is precisely what makes the difference. Brainpolice:Furthermore, monarchy does not differ from democracy when it comes to the fundamentals of a state, I.E. it too is not funded purely voluntarily and it too is predicated on an illegitimate territorial monopoly. Yes, you're correct. Brainpolice:It is nonsensical to try to make the distinction you are making because switching to a libertarian theoretical context cannot logically lead us back to an authoritarian institution or framework. What people keep objecting to is the monarchy part, which inherently is predicated on a breach of the libertarian context. And once more, you're incorrectly conflating my position with that of a true monarch, who doesn't own the land that he rules. Brainpolice:The institutionalization of this rent as a uniform law for the entire community irrespective of the individual IS taxation. Not if I own the land, no, it isn't. Unless you say that the shops that have rented space in a mall are paying some form of taxation. Brainpolice: In this way, a feudal land arrangement is the perfect pretext for taxation and a state's territorial claim. I could say the same about the natural forces that counter the power of the state that you despise. Brainpolice:Your understanding of left-libertarianism is so bad that you've ended up accusing people who are in fact not left-libertarians of being left-libertarians. Your understanding of English is apparently so poor that you've intepreted me calling him a LL, I haven't.
Brainpolice:Didn't you just side-step his objection, which is that the scenario is predicated on a uniform law already being there, and hence is NOT free competition.
No, each of these land holdings would have uniform laws. There would, however, be many of them, which means competition. Once again, it's analogous to competition between says steel factories. Moreover there's always the possibility of the owner being bought out.
Brainpolice:The problem is that this is conceptually incoherant. A monarchy by definition is not something that is purely chosen.
Correct, which is where the disctinction lies.
Brainpolice:There is no such thing as a free choice between monarchs, the very fact that it is monarchs being chosen from means that the context is not fully free.
It isn't "monarchs" being chosen though. That's the point, it's a choice between different feudal like land arrangements. Perhaps this doesn't quite coincide with your view of anarchism, but that's not my problem.
Your whole view of being "fully free" confuses lack of coercion with being able to do as you please. You clearly favour the latter, in which case you shouldn't rush to get rid of the state.
Brainpolice:We currently can also choose between democratic states, but that doesn't make us free.
Yes and democratic states don't own their land as these feudal land arrangements would, which is precisely what makes the difference.
Brainpolice:Furthermore, monarchy does not differ from democracy when it comes to the fundamentals of a state, I.E. it too is not funded purely voluntarily and it too is predicated on an illegitimate territorial monopoly.
Yes, you're correct.
Brainpolice:It is nonsensical to try to make the distinction you are making because switching to a libertarian theoretical context cannot logically lead us back to an authoritarian institution or framework. What people keep objecting to is the monarchy part, which inherently is predicated on a breach of the libertarian context.
And once more, you're incorrectly conflating my position with that of a true monarch, who doesn't own the land that he rules.
Brainpolice:The institutionalization of this rent as a uniform law for the entire community irrespective of the individual IS taxation.
Not if I own the land, no, it isn't. Unless you say that the shops that have rented space in a mall are paying some form of taxation.
Brainpolice: In this way, a feudal land arrangement is the perfect pretext for taxation and a state's territorial claim.
I could say the same about the natural forces that counter the power of the state that you despise.
Brainpolice:Your understanding of left-libertarianism is so bad that you've ended up accusing people who are in fact not left-libertarians of being left-libertarians.
Your understanding of English is apparently so poor that you've intepreted me calling him a LL, I haven't.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
From here: http://mises.org/journals/jls/17_4/17_4_1.pdf
Spencer MacCallum: A small landlord, leasing or renting to perhaps one tenant, has little hope of improving or rearranging the environment of that small parce lto make it more valuable to the tenant. He is almost as helpless as an individual owner who uses the land directly. He lets it for whatever use and level of use the existing surroundings permit, and has little control over how community infrastructure is provided. If he looks for any improvement at all, it is for municipal government to intervene on hisbehalf. But as he enlarges his holding or combines with others to achieve a holding of more practical size, and begins to lease not to one but to multiple tenants, he gains leverage over the environment. He may now find it economically feasible and in his interest to build substantial physical infrastructure for tenants in a multi-tenant property. But even before that, he finds that he creates environment in the very act of leasing to multiple tenants, since each tenant becomes a factor in the environment of every other. This has been carried to high levels of sophistication in the selection and arrangement of tenants in shopping malls.
A small landlord, leasing or renting to perhaps one tenant, has little hope of improving or rearranging the environment of that small parce lto make it more valuable to the tenant. He is almost as helpless as an individual owner who uses the land directly. He lets it for whatever use and level of use the existing surroundings permit, and has little control over how community infrastructure is provided. If he looks for any improvement at all, it is for municipal government to intervene on hisbehalf.
But as he enlarges his holding or combines with others to achieve a holding of more practical size, and begins to lease not to one but to multiple tenants, he gains leverage over the environment. He may now find it economically feasible and in his interest to build substantial physical infrastructure for tenants in a multi-tenant property. But even before that, he finds that he creates environment in the very act of leasing to multiple tenants, since each tenant becomes a factor in the environment of every other. This has been carried to high levels of sophistication in the selection and arrangement of tenants in shopping malls.
And again:
Spencer MacCallum: Multi-tenant income properties are, essentially, communities. As such, they stand out against the tragic record of traditional, subdivided communities, which are unable to be run any way other than politically. Subdivisions are not market phenomena because they do not sell a product, nor have they any customers.Hence, they generate no income, but must subsist on assessments or tax levies. Multi-tenant income properties, on the other hand, are business enterprises. Because they serve customers, they earn an income. Producing a market revenue makes them self-supporting—and more than merely self-supporting. Not only do market revenues finance the current operation, they enable the accumulation of reserve funds from which to renovate as required
Multi-tenant income properties are, essentially, communities. As such, they stand out against the tragic record of traditional, subdivided communities, which are unable to be run any way other than politically. Subdivisions are not market phenomena because they do not sell a product, nor have they any customers.Hence, they generate no income, but must subsist on assessments or tax levies. Multi-tenant income properties, on the other hand, are business enterprises. Because they serve customers, they earn an income. Producing a market revenue makes them self-supporting—and more than merely self-supporting. Not only do market revenues finance the current operation, they enable the accumulation of reserve funds from which to renovate as required
Another very important quotation:
Spencer MacCallum: A natural question arises regarding the growth and spread of multitenant income properties. Why, with the major exception of apartments and hotels, has nothing comparable happened in the housing field?... A different explanation is cultural—the longstanding ideological bias in America favoring home ownership over renting or leasing that traces to colonial times and the repudiation of the last vestiges of feudalism in Europe. Still another explanation is public policy. Detached, single-family subdivision housing has been aggressively promoted since the 1930s by a close involvement of the federal government with the corporate building industry. In addition, federal income tax policy discriminates against renting or leasing for residential use. The federal government also directly subsidizes homeownership through its various federal mortgage insurance programs. The fact that such insurance only covers homes in a subdivision with a qualifying homeowners’ association in effect mandates subdivision housing, since most builders feel their product must qualify for federal insurance if they are to remain competitivein the industry Added to these various federal requirements, the taxing of dividends at substantially higher rates than capital gains (at top rates the difference is 39.5 percent versus 20 percent) encourages short-term venturing for capital gain, as in subdivision housing, over conservative, long-term investment for income.
A natural question arises regarding the growth and spread of multitenant income properties. Why, with the major exception of apartments and hotels, has nothing comparable happened in the housing field?... A different explanation is cultural—the longstanding ideological bias in America favoring home ownership over renting or leasing that traces to colonial times and the repudiation of the last vestiges of feudalism in Europe. Still another explanation is public policy. Detached, single-family subdivision housing has been aggressively promoted since the 1930s by a close involvement of the federal government with the corporate building industry.
In addition, federal income tax policy discriminates against renting or leasing for residential use. The federal government also directly subsidizes homeownership through its various federal mortgage insurance programs. The fact that such insurance only covers homes in a subdivision with a qualifying homeowners’ association in effect mandates subdivision housing, since most builders feel their product must qualify for federal insurance if they are to remain competitivein the industry
Added to these various federal requirements, the taxing of dividends at substantially higher rates than capital gains (at top rates the difference is 39.5 percent versus 20 percent) encourages short-term venturing for capital gain, as in subdivision housing, over conservative, long-term investment for income.
Spencer MacCallum:It is noteworthy that Spencer Heath, more than a half-century ago, was not so much proposing a social reform as he was merely predicting a future course of events, extrapolating from the market process as he understood it from events happening around him. If the scenario he forecast is correct, the commercial real estate industry will find it in its business interest to voluntarily assume the full provision of public services locally and regionally. Not the least of these services will be to untax land users and relieve them of the manifold burdens of political government. In this way will the industry promote general prosperity while building land values for its investors throughout the population. Through local and regional realty associations, neighborhoodwill compete with neighborhood, community with community, and region with region. On all of these levels, the competitive provision of common goods will be among the most highly profitable of all enterprises.
Spencer MacCallum: At the beginning of this article, I stated the unlikely sounding proposition that human environment, both social and physical, resembles any other good or service in that it is amenable to being manufactured, marketed, and maintained through the competitive processes of the market.
At the beginning of this article, I stated the unlikely sounding proposition that human environment, both social and physical, resembles any other good or service in that it is amenable to being manufactured, marketed, and maintained through the competitive processes of the market.
In a free society there are no criminal coke dealers(drugs would be 'legal' anyway) or gangs, and noise would be dealt with by PDAs I hope. The idea that if you buy an expensive house you'll be living in a place that resembles a slum is outright silly and shows how far fetched your ideas are.
You're just being pedantic now, and side stepping the issue. The fact of the matter is that in the arrangement you advocate there is nothing you can do to stop the price of your house declining in situations like these.
You got it backwards eh ? If in a given area houses are valued highly that means the place is 'exclusive'. I'll assume that in a free society people who have money to buy expensive houses made their money honestly which means they are good at business and generally successful. I don't see how successful entrepreneurs can be undesirable neighbors...
Once again, this is just you being pedantic.
I thought the myth of the free rider had been debunked ages ago ?
What do you mean? The problem of public goods is still relevant, the problem is that most people who raise them in opposition to anarchism consider them in a vacuum, which isn't the case.
You can build infrastructure by buying land between two properties. Of course, you must still allow free access to other properties (e.g. allow simple crossing of a long road without demanding payment). Besides, there's no reason land should be bought in square-like parcels. It's like saying a 1000x20 m^2 production facility is public goods.
"Inequality, conservatism, feudalism, elitism. Better known as libertarianism."
Give me a break. Your principles and/or your application of them blatantly contradict libertarianism, and it doesn't take a left-libertarian perspective to see why it is absurd to define libertarianism in terms of "inequality, conservatism, feudalism, elitism". Clearly, you are being trollish and disingenous.
GilesStratton:You're just being pedantic now, and side stepping the issue.
What do you mean? The problem of public goods is still relevant,
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."
Under libertarianism there won't be a state around to pass laws against inequality, conservatism, feudalism and elitism.
Under libertarianism there won't be a state to promote or back up inequality, conservatism, feudalism and elitism. Under libertarianism there is likewise no state to uniformly ban equality, liberalism, "alternative lifestyles", communes, unions, and so on. So what's your point? It does not logically follow from libertarianism that those things (your clear preferance for traditionalism and conservatism) become dominant or uniform, and the moment that you advocate them in such a way (I.E. as uniform or compulsory) you are no longer being consistant with libertarianism.
Compare the mediocrity, the dysfunction, the frustrated gnosticism under the state's ruthlessly egalitarian order
And here you return to the same false premises that have already been debunked. The state's order is not egalitarian. The structure of the state itself is not egalitarian, and the structure of society that a state enables is not egalitarian either. So your claims are simply detached from reality.
to, say, a successful football team, a complex construction project, or Porsche's brilliant financial coup of Volkswagen, and watch the Left's pretty little lies perish.
Your rhetoric about "the left" (which is just a buzzword for you at this point) is amusing, as well as the fact that you naively attribute all success in the world to conservative values and assume that "the left" is opposed to such things per se.
I must agree with Brainpolice.
As an aside: as I lurk, it sounds as through Byzantine And GilesStratton are striving to sound like cartoon villain caricatures. This is all very entertaining! Keep it up.
I think some people on here don`t know what feudalism is. Which wouldn`t be a problem if they weren`t so eager to use the word.
No. I'll continue to comment as I wish. I won't tell you to shut up however; your ideas are hilarious!
Byzantine: spires: As an aside: as I lurk, it sounds as through Byzantine And GilesStratton are striving to sound like cartoon villain caricatures. This is all very entertaining! Keep it up. There's a website about people like you: www.stuffwhitepeoplelike.com
spires: As an aside: as I lurk, it sounds as through Byzantine And GilesStratton are striving to sound like cartoon villain caricatures. This is all very entertaining! Keep it up.
There's a website about people like you:
www.stuffwhitepeoplelike.com
Way to ignorantly lash out. You don't know anything about me! Keep going, this is fun.
If this is directed towards me, I neither support public schools nor hiring quotas. I support no state action; I am an anarchist.
I don't believe all people are equally educable, and I have had experience with employers hiring people for reasons that do not amount to merit. I do believe that all employers are not equally educable, for instance.
All those activities owe their existence to the democratic state because the market could give a shit about them.
That premise is unjustifiable. The state did not invent equality, social liberal preferances, alternative lifestyles, communes and unions. There are people in society who have a demand for such things. The market, in turn, is capable of supplying those things. So long as there are people in society who have a demand for such things, a supply will tend to arise in the attempt to appease such demands. You're very blatantly conflating "the market" with your demands as an individual, but "the market" tends to represent the sum total of demands of those who participate in it. There is no rational basis for you to claim that "the market" inherently will lead to a uniformly conservative society, other than to merely assert your preferance for it to.
Alternative lifestyles are just that: marginal and isolated.
It does not follow from the mere fact that a particular lifestyle is alternative or practised by a minority that it is not tolerated per se, or that it is illegal per se, or that it is completely isolated per se. All you're doing is asserting your preferance for it to be marginalized and isolated, not proving a fact that it inherently must be.
Personally, I can't wait for anarchy.
Me too, because anarchy is NOT what you're defining it as - a society that is even more heirarchical than what we have today.
Well I think it`s pretty clear Byzantie is an Amish hater. He is always going on about communes and alternative lifestyles.
spires: I must agree with Brainpolice. As an aside: as I lurk, it sounds as through Byzantine And GilesStratton are striving to sound like cartoon villain caricatures. This is all very entertaining! Keep it up.
They both gladly play the bad guy, but if you follow the argument closely, they make their arguments, and their opponents do not refute them with ideas or facts. Just dissent.
I think the people most irritated by what they say, are the ones who think that anarchy or libertarianism will guarantee social justice in the broadest sense of the word. Read carefully, and Giles and Byzantine never make an argument for coercing someone. They merely point out, that the state coercively supports a lot of social institutions that would probably wither from lack of support and special privilege in a free market.
And that really upsets some people, who ironically claim that their opponents (apparently including myself based on past posts) are conservative (attached to established order) when in fact, their notion of social justice is the state established position.
Also note, that while Giles and Byzantine are attacked for being pro-hierarchy, ask yourself honestly, does mankind naturally order itself hierarchically? I would say so. There are too many examples outside of the state to make the case.
And yet BP will argue that hierarchy by itself is a state institution and the post state world (anarchy) would feature a flat social order.
This is counter to honest discourse on liberty. The state seeks to make us all equal, it's our differences that drive evolution in the market, in ideas, in genetics when set free. All preferences are not equal. All preferences do not share the exact same opportunity costs.
I can't see how, with rigorous seriousness and realism, the post state world will not be closer to Giles and Byzantine's model, and further from the flat model of the Rod Longs and Brainpolice.
liberty student:I can't see how, with rigorous seriousness and realism, the post state world will not be closer to Giles and Byzantine's model, and further from the flat model of the Rod Longs and Brainpolice.
What I mean is that there might be a lot more secrecy by default. Most people will not care about what is going on in Oakland or Camden because they will not be threatened by Oaklandians or Camdenites.
liberty student:They both gladly play the bad guy, but if you follow the argument closely, they make their arguments, and their opponents do not refute them with ideas or facts.
liberty student: spires: I must agree with Brainpolice. As an aside: as I lurk, it sounds as through Byzantine And GilesStratton are striving to sound like cartoon villain caricatures. This is all very entertaining! Keep it up. They both gladly play the bad guy, but if you follow the argument closely, they make their arguments, and their opponents do not refute them with ideas or facts. Just dissent. I think the people most irritated by what they say, are the ones who think that anarchy or libertarianism will guarantee social justice in the broadest sense of the word. Read carefully, and Giles and Byzantine never make an argument for coercing someone. They merely point out, that the state coercively supports a lot of social institutions that would probably wither from lack of support and special privilege in a free market. And that really upsets some people, who ironically claim that their opponents (apparently including myself based on past posts) are conservative (attached to established order) when in fact, their notion of social justice is the state established position. Also note, that while Giles and Byzantine are attacked for being pro-hierarchy, ask yourself honestly, does mankind naturally order itself hierarchically? I would say so. There are too many examples outside of the state to make the case. And yet BP will argue that hierarchy by itself is a state institution and the post state world (anarchy) would feature a flat social order. This is counter to honest discourse on liberty. The state seeks to make us all equal, it's our differences that drive evolution in the market, in ideas, in genetics when set free. All preferences are not equal. All preferences do not share the exact same opportunity costs. I can't see how, with rigorous seriousness and realism, the post state world will not be closer to Giles and Byzantine's model, and further from the flat model of the Rod Longs and Brainpolice.
I largely disagree with your perception of the exchanges here. I do believe that everyone is being sincere, however. Your attempted defense of GilesStratton and Byzantine is thin. Brainpolice in particular gives very specific rationales for his positions, he does not just slither in and whine 'boohiss'. A problem libertarianism has generally, is that many of it's adherents don't care about liberty, but liberty towards achieving some other social agenda that does not remotely exist within the spirit of liberty, and just barely the letter.
If you wish to just strike down the 'inferior' or exclude the 'culturally unworthy' or demonize 'immigrants' or the 'faithless' after just blithely assuming the cultural status quo will persist under real liberty, just bypass the liberty part and become an outright racist, or a high priest, or a high school quarterback, or start a moralist religious cult, or attempt to conscript subjects into your new kingdom, or just become a corporate lobbyist. Why drag all that baggage into a movement primarily about human liberty? It seems like lots of steps removed from the goals chosen.
liberty student: The state seeks to make us all equal, it's our differences that drive evolution in the market, in ideas, in genetics when set free.
The state seeks to make us all equal, it's our differences that drive evolution in the market, in ideas, in genetics when set free.
Actually, I think the state manages to do both at the same time. The socialist states in Eastern Europe are good example of this: While the general populance was more or less "united in poverty", the inner circle of the party could live a life comperable to someone with a high income in say, West Germany.
And this seems to be a feature of most planning: a race to the bottom for those at the recieving end of the plan while those doing the planning will be sheltered from the effects.
liberty student: I think the people most irritated by what they say, are the ones who think that anarchy or libertarianism will guarantee social justice in the broadest sense of the word. Read carefully, and Giles and Byzantine never make an argument for coercing someone. They merely point out, that the state coercively supports a lot of social institutions that would probably wither from lack of support and special privilege in a free market.
This is true. But how true is it that the state enforces equality? There are plenty of libertarian made cases proclaiming with good reasoning and evidence that things such as quotas and racial one-ups in legislation do more to harm those infatuated wroshipers and recipients than to aid them.
Also note, that while Giles and Byzantine are attacked for being pro-hierarchy, ask yourself honestly, does mankind naturally order itself hierarchically? I would say so. There are too many examples outside of the state to make the case. And yet BP will argue that hierarchy by itself is a state institution and the post state world (anarchy) would feature a flat social order.
I believe I know and understand brainpolice fairly well. I also believe that he and I are much the same in speaking of ethics and our politics. And so I feel rather comfortable saying that this statement of yours, quoted above, is just well... wrong.
I do not believe Brainpolice has ever put forward that society would be 100% horizontal, or even that it ought to be. I believe he takes a position much like my own in that the state has subsidized vertical-ness in society, and that in the states abscence, various economic and social organizations would likely be far MORE horizontal, not completely horizontal. A result of the forces of compeititon, demand, and free choice to determine ones own fate found in anarchic society.
This is counter to honest discourse on liberty. The state seeks to make us all equal, it's our differences that drive evolution in the market, in ideas, in genetics when set free. All preferences are not equal. All preferences do not share the exact same opportunity costs. I can't see how, with rigorous seriousness and realism, the post state world will not be closer to Giles and Byzantine's model, and further from the flat model of the Rod Longs and Brainpolice.
I think it would do you much good to clear up the way in which Brainpolice and I support equality by reading Roderick Long's article here on Mises.org entitled: Equality: The Unknown Ideal
The state is a disease and Liberty is the both the victim and the only means to a lasting cure.
Juan:Giles' theories about land ownership/usage are nonsense and easily refuted by basic economics.
Such as?
Juan:Also, the fact that conservatism is not libertarianism needs no further explanation.
Thankfully, no one put that burden on you.
Juan:It should be fairly obvious that a free society can only exist if people have a healthy disregard for authority and hierarchy and acknowledge the fact that only individual self-government can work in the long run.
Cooperation requires a hierarchy. Sophisticated cooperation like the division of labour, require sophisticated hierarchies. They can be temporary, voluntary and spontaneous, but hierarchies can, will and do emerge.
Juan:Conservatives are childish. They are attached to their religious fairy tales, arbitrary customs and authoritarian worldview, and don't realize, or pretend they don't realize that such mindset is the basis for statism. Conservatives only dislike the state as long as it's not a conservative state...
I agree. I find your and BP's conservative egalitarianism anachonistic and offensive.
Charles Anthony: liberty student:I can't see how, with rigorous seriousness and realism, the post state world will not be closer to Giles and Byzantine's model, and further from the flat model of the Rod Longs and Brainpolice. I am of the belief that we would never be able to know. What I mean is that there might be a lot more secrecy by default. Most people will not care about what is going on in Oakland or Camden because they will not be threatened by Oaklandians or Camdenites.
I'm not sure I agree, but that is an honest response. And I have to acknowledge it could be very true.
spires:I do believe that everyone is being sincere, however. Your attempted defense of GilesStratton and Byzantine is thin. Brainpolice in particular gives very specific rationales for his positions, he does not just slither in and whine 'boohiss'.
Please reference some of these specific rationales.
spires:A problem libertarianism has generally, is that many of it's adherents don't care about liberty, but liberty towards achieving some other social agenda that does not remotely exist within the spirit of liberty, and just barely the letter.
Nearly every libertarian is guilty of that. And it should be so, if we believe in a market, then we believe to some degree in utility. And a freedom agenda that undermines utility, or provides no gain in utility (real or perceived) would lack the energy to gain momentum. That's just human nature.
spires:If you wish to just strike down the 'inferior' or exclude the 'culturally unworthy' or demonize 'immigrants' or the 'faithless' after just blithely assuming the cultural status quo will persist under real liberty, just bypass the liberty part and become an outright racist, or a high priest, or a high school quarterback, or start a moralist religious cult, or attempt to conscript subjects into your new kingdom, or just become a corporate lobbyist.
What rubbish. First, you strawman, second you are taking your own super-moralistic stance, while accusing others of being guilty of the same.
No one here has spoken about striking anyone down. On the contrary, those who must be propped up, be they christian or atheist, muslim or jew, buddhist or hindu, straight, bi or gay, white, black, brown, red or yellow will have to swim and thrive on their own merit in the marketplace. And if you believe there are no differences in genetics, or sex, or age or creed/code, then you are a fool. Some will be disadvantaged, and the state will not be there to protect them coercively. Thus, some, might even perish due to the fact that they were distortions in nature or under the state in the first place.
That rant from you comes across as very immature, very unintellectual.
spires:Why drag all that baggage into a movement primarily about human liberty? It seems like lots of steps removed from the goals chosen.
What baggage dragged in? In a free market, if you are of a different race or sex or orientation, you can be ostracized and that is totally compatible with the liberty of others, and the fact you cannot impose a positive obligation on anyone to respect, like, employ, feed, talk with etc. you. You have no right to demand that others treat you the same as someone else.
The failure to understand that, is a failure to look at liberty in the broadest sense. Liberty isn't utopia, or goodness and light. There are downsides to liberty (depending on your perspective) and it's childish to ignore those and dream some egalitarian dream that has never been a reality in or out of the state.
liberty student: The state seeks to make us all equal...
This is pure nonsense. The state presumes there are rulers and the ruled. That is a fundamental inequality irreconcilably at odds with natural equality. People will form hierarchies, but they will form natural hierarchies. Hierarchies between people who possess the same natural rights and are voluntary. People will form voluntary hierarchies, because there exist natural elites. However these hierarchies are not a negation of equality but its confirmation, since they are associations of people of equal legal rights and therefore of equal status. And further such hierarchies are never to be confused with phony, artificial and forceful hierarchies of today or of the past which is something that byzantine and Giles don`t seem to graps or pretend not to by invoking "feudalism" which is synonymous with artifical, phony, forceful, statist hierarchies.
liberty student: [I think the people most irritated by what they say, are the ones who think that anarchy or libertarianism will guarantee social justice in the broadest sense of the word. Read carefully, and Giles and Byzantine never make an argument for coercing someone. They merely point out, that the state coercively supports a lot of social institutions that would probably wither from lack of support and special privilege in a free market.
[I think the people most irritated by what they say, are the ones who think that anarchy or libertarianism will guarantee social justice in the broadest sense of the word. Read carefully, and Giles and Byzantine never make an argument for coercing someone. They merely point out, that the state coercively supports a lot of social institutions that would probably wither from lack of support and special privilege in a free market.
Actually what they do is ride their hobby horse in order to wave the red cloth. Which would be fine it they did not try to make themselves particularly obnoxious by trying to pass their preferences for the preferences of society at large. They can have their private kingdoms or whatever, but if they think regular people are just dying to move in with some rich dude that likes to stick his nose into other people`s buisiness then they are delusional. People care about their family, their job, their beer and their football club. They could care less about playing serfs for a local half-king-of-the-hill-half-moral-authority.
ThorsMitersaw:This is true. But how true is it that the state enforces equality? There are plenty of libertarian made cases proclaiming with good reasoning and evidence that things such as quotas and racial one-ups in legislation do more to harm those infatuated wroshipers and recipients than to aid them.
Collectively. Individually, many people benefit from state privilege. The aggregate net may be a loss, but certainly some prosper.
ThorsMitersaw:I believe I know and understand brainpolice fairly well. I also believe that he and I are much the same in speaking of ethics and our politics. And so I feel rather comfortable saying that this statement of yours, quoted above, is just well... wrong.
We'll see.
ThorsMitersaw:I do not believe Brainpolice has ever put forward that society would be 100% horizontal, or even that it ought to be.
I don't believe I claimed that either.
ThorsMitersaw:I think it would do you much good to clear up the way in which Brainpolice and I support equality by reading Roderick Long's article here on Mises.org entitled: Equality: The Unknown Ideal
I think I have read it before, I will read it again. I'm not too big on Long these days. I don't find him very credible.
Marko:This is pure nonsense. The state presumes there are rulers and the ruled. That is a fundamental inequality irreconcilably at odds with natural equality.
It's only nonsense because you didn't understand my statement in the context it was made in, and as usual, look for any excuse to argue, whether there is a disagreement or not.
Marko:People will form hierarchies, but they will form natural hierarchies. Hierarchies between people who possess the same natural rights and are voluntary. People will form voluntary hierarchies, because there exist natural elites. However these hierarchies are not a negation of equality but its confirmation, since they are associations of people of equal legal rights and therefore of equal status. And further such hierarchies are never to be confused with phony, artificial and forceful hierarchies of today or of the past which is something that byzantine and Giles don`t seem to graps or pretend not to by invoking "feudalism" which is synonymous with artifical, phony, forceful, statist hierarchies.
Yes, this is exactly what Giles and Byzantine are talking about, but one or both use the word feudal, and you react like a 3 year old who has lost his lolly.
You're talking past me and others as usual.
Marko:Actually what they do is ride their hobby horse in order to wave the red cloth. Which would be fine it they did not try to make themselves particularly obnoxious by trying to pass their preferences for the preferences of society at large.
O Rly?
Marko:They can have their private kingdoms or whatever, but if they think regular people are just dying to move in with some rich dude that likes to stick his nose into other people`s buisiness then they are delusional.
Now who is trying to ascertain the preferences of society at large?
liberty student: Collectively. Individually, many people benefit from state privilege. The aggregate net may be a loss, but certainly some prosper.
Point taken but I still think there is little to say that equality is TRULY enforced, not that it ever CAN be enforced, as its enforcement neccesitates that some are not equal to the enforcing persons. I think that at the very least there are always two classes who ar enot equal, those who make their living with labor and effort and ideas and trade, and those who make their living by forcing the aformentioned to cede their belongings. Nock and Oppenheimer would agree with that. And in this way at the least, the state can never be said to enforce equality in any MEANINGFUL way.
"And yet BP will argue that hierarchy by itself is a state institution and the post state world (anarchy) would feature a flat social order." - your words. But none the less, I believe it is absolutely true that by shielding business from competition through regulation and controls and license and the like, that the state simotaneously protects them from their own internal inefficiencies - including excessive and unwaranted expansion of power (the never ending string of managers). The same incentive that the bearucrat has to expand his arbitrary power exists in this mercantile economy. This incentive may not exist to the extent that it does in state, but this is like saying the incentive to bereaucratize is less prevelant in America than in Britain or Switzerland or Soviet Russia. Its only a matter of degree and a very small degree at that.
ThorsMitersaw:I think I have read it before, I will read it again. I'm not too big on Long these days. I don't find him very credible.
I fail to se how he is not credible. I think he has done much good for libertarianism. In both his vindication and defense of Austrian economics from objectivists and others, and his incredible work on libertarian ethics in the Aristotilean tradition. Hopefully, with his efforts, the influence will continue and expand.
LS: J: Giles' theories about land ownership/usage are nonsense and easily refuted by basic economics. Such as?
J: Giles' theories about land ownership/usage are nonsense and easily refuted by basic economics.
Sophisticated cooperation like the division of labour, require sophisticated hierarchies. They can be temporary, voluntary and spontaneous, but hierarchies can, will and do emerge.
Juan:Division of labor is not the same thing as hierarchy. Your argument reduces to conflating division of labor and hierarchy. But notice I'm opposed to authority and hierarchy, not to division of labor.
Do you have a job?
ThorsMitersaw:I don't believe I claimed that either. "And yet BP will argue that hierarchy by itself is a state institution and the post state world (anarchy) would feature a flat social order." - your words.
"And yet BP will argue that hierarchy by itself is a state institution and the post state world (anarchy) would feature a flat social order." - your words.
Right, but I never claimed it would be 100% flat, although I didn't remove that possibility either.
My point is, BP's position in many posts here, is that hierarchy is state. He makes little or no allowance for voluntary hierarchical ordering. Juan also parrots this (see up thread).
ThorsMitersaw:I think I have read it before, I will read it again. I'm not too big on Long these days. I don't find him very credible. I fail to se how he is not credible. I think he has done much good for libertarianism. In both his vindication and defense of Austrian economics from objectivists and others, and his incredible work on libertarian ethics in the Aristotilean tradition. Hopefully, with his efforts, the influence will continue and expand.
His recent anti-business letters have featured arguments made in a shoddy manner. He's much too clever to make such poor arguments unintentionally. I'm left to believe that he is not very credible.
liberty student: Nearly every libertarian is guilty of that. And it should be so, if we believe in a market, then we believe to some degree in utility. And a freedom agenda that undermines utility, or provides no gain in utility (real or perceived) would lack the energy to gain momentum. That's just human nature.
I find libertarianism useful, but not because I want to become a feudal lord. I'm not saying ideas shouldn't have utility. I was suggesting that the self-identified adherents of liberty should find libertarianism useful for the purposes of liberty, not for the purposes of feudalism - for example. Perhaps a freedom agenda not motivated by freedom lacks the energy to find new adherents. Imagine a would-be baron faced with the sheer face of austrian economics, when all he wants is some free labor and a rent check!
liberty student: What rubbish. First, you strawman, second you are taking your own super-moralistic stance, while accusing others of being guilty of the same. No one here has spoken about striking anyone down. On the contrary, those who must be propped up, be they christian or atheist, muslim or jew, buddhist or hindu, straight, bi or gay, white, black, brown, red or yellow will have to swim and thrive on their own merit in the marketplace. And if you believe there are no differences in genetics, or sex, or age or creed/code, then you are a fool. Some will be disadvantaged, and the state will not be there to protect them coercively. Thus, some, might even perish due to the fact that they were distortions in nature or under the state in the first place. That rant from you comes across as very immature, very unintellectual.
What was my implicit stance? Your hyperbole sensor is broken, apparently. I was just saying in a very colorful way, that if these were some goals, (I have gotten the impression in places here, that perhaps they were) then I was suggesting quicker ways to achieve them, without all the hassle of dismantling the state. Perhaps the idea of a new kingdom might be hard to establish, but establishing some of the other ones shouldn't be as hard as bringing down the whole state just to create a private version.
liberty student: In a free market, if you are of a different race or sex or orientation, you can be ostracized and that is totally compatible with the liberty of others, and the fact you cannot impose a positive obligation on anyone to respect, like, employ, feed, talk with etc. you. You have no right to demand that others treat you the same as someone else. The failure to understand that, is a failure to look at liberty in the broadest sense. Liberty isn't utopia, or goodness and light. There are downsides to liberty (depending on your perspective) and it's childish to ignore those and dream some egalitarian dream that has never been a reality in or out of the state.
In a free market, if you are of a different race or sex or orientation, you can be ostracized and that is totally compatible with the liberty of others, and the fact you cannot impose a positive obligation on anyone to respect, like, employ, feed, talk with etc. you. You have no right to demand that others treat you the same as someone else.
This isn't news. You actually sound like me two years ago, which has its own introspective value! I've baited a strawman objection out of you, and then you turn around and strawman me. I'm not an egalitarian, despite what you've gleaned from a few short posts. Also, that charge has an imprecise whiff about it. Even if people are all radically unequal, which I'm perfectly comfortable with, does not lead to the conclusion that certain social aesthetics will eventually dominate.
I've never defended coercive association here, so don't pretend or react as though I have. That the logical end of liberty is a society where free association is used as a club universally and consistently against certain perceived groups, is a fallacy. Other people may have a different idea of who to accept and who to exclude. Perhaps your social values will be surprisingly and consistently excluded. I don't hang my hat on social aesthetics.
Also, I guess light joking, sarcasm and hyperbole will be labeled 'anti-intellectualism' and will actually kill much of the enjoyment here, especially if the antics are not RL sensitive.
LS: Do you have a job ?
Byzantine:Ever play team sports? Work for a business? Or does your principled opposition prevent you from engaging in such authoritarian, hierarchical ventures?