Well here is his legal system in a nutshell. Say I like punching people in the face that I meet. I think that it is good [ moral ]. I walk up to person B and greet them in my face punching action and they say 'Hey I don't like that'. Well what are you going to say in a court case? 'Your honor, my subjective morality is better then his subjective morality....because.....'
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Laughing Man:Well here is his legal system in a nutshell. Say I like punching people in the face that I meet. I think that it is good [ moral ]. I walk up to person B and greet them in my face punching action and they say 'Hey I don't like that'. Well what are you going to say in a court case? 'Your honor, my subjective morality is better then his subjective morality....because.....'
Morality is not a legal argument. Morality is still subjective, it is your own personal beliefs of right and wrong. If mine are different than yours, who is right?
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
oh dear. another nihilist.
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
Poptech:Morality is not a legal argument. Morality is still subjective, it is your own personal beliefs of right and wrong. If mine are different than yours, who is right?
Morality [ a code of conduct ] is not a legal argument? Ok..why do we lock up thieves? Because stealing is good?
Laughing Man:Ok..why do we lock up thieves? Because stealing is good?
Because it is illegal.
Who defines morality? You have not answered this question.
Poptech:Because it is illegal.
Why is it illegal?
Poptech:Who defines morality? You have not answered this question.
Reason.
Morality can only be defined by those with the powers to coerce it, whether it is the church or the state.
Poptech:Morality can only be defined by those with the powers to coerce it, whether it is the church or the state.
Well at least you are admitting that the state coerces.
your quoting Mises' attack on socialist-anarchists is somewhat ridiculous since the reference to 'angels or saints' could not be comprehensible to someone with no concept of morality such as you purport yourself to be.
nirgrahamUK:your quoting Mises' attack on socialist-anarchists is somewhat ridiculous since the reference to 'angels or saints' could not be comprehensible to someone with no concept of morality such as you purport yourself to be.
Not ridiculous. Disingenuous. He is only here to argue. He has no interest in discussion.
Mises attack on anarchists, he made no mention of "socialist-anarchists". I never said you cannot have your own "morality", I said morality is subjective.
liberty student:He is only here to argue. He has no interest in discussion.
Discussion is only agreement?
socialist anarchists are who he was critiquing. they are who he mentioned whenever he said the word anarchist. or alternatively. he never critiqued anarcho-capitalism or voluntarism, hell he didnt even mention them. lol
Poptech: I never said you cannot have your own "morality", I said morality is subjective.
therefore according to your logic its perfectly possible for everyone to be angels and saints since by some subjective morality they are.
nirgrahamUK:socialist anarchists are who he was critiquing. they are who he mentioned whenever he said the word anarchist.
Prove it.
nirgrahamUK:therefore according to your logic its perfectly possible for everyone to be angels and saints since by some subjective morality they are.
That is not the world we live in.
Laughing Man: Poptech:Morality is not a legal argument. Morality is still subjective, it is your own personal beliefs of right and wrong. If mine are different than yours, who is right? Morality [ a code of conduct ] is not a legal argument? Ok..why do we lock up thieves? Because stealing is good?
Because thieves reduce the amount of social cooperation in society.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Poptech:Discussion is only agreement?
No, discussion is honest discourse. It's not appeals to authority, populism, or dictionaries. It is not strawmen or red herrings.
When you're asked to explain a point, you explain it, or admit you cannot.
When you assert a position, accept the burden of proof.
Poptech: nirgrahamUK:socialist anarchists are who he was critiquing. they are who he mentioned whenever he said the word anarchist. Prove it.
Wilderness already proved it earlier this evening by quoting Lew Rockwell on the origins of the term ancap.
Please remember what I told you about honest discourse.
laminustacitus:Because thieves reduce the amount of social cooperation in society.
Ok say I don't want to trade with anyone and I try to influence others to do the same. I am decreasing the sphere of social cooperation, am I not? Will I be arrested?
Poptech: nirgrahamUK:socialist anarchists are who he was critiquing. they are who he mentioned whenever he said the word anarchist.Prove it.
it is a historical fact that anarchism was a synonym for those opposed to the state and private property. yes there were marginal traditions of individualist (i.e. pro private property) anarchists . Mises arguments clearly have force against the socialist anarchists and fail to even address the substantially different framework of anarcho-capitalist positions. as such to read them as an attempt to refute anarcho-capitalism is to do the great man (Mises) a disservice.
Poptech: nirgrahamUK:therefore according to your logic its perfectly possible for everyone to be angels and saints since by some subjective morality they are.That is not the world we live in.
are you refuting yourself?
Are you allowed to disagree?
liberty student:When you're asked to explain a point, you explain it, or admit you cannot.
So why do you not hold this standard to anyone else?
liberty student:When you assert a position, accept the burden of proof.
I always do.
Laughing Man: laminustacitus:Because thieves reduce the amount of social cooperation in society. Ok say I don't want to trade with anyone and I try to influence others to do the same. I am decreasing the sphere of social cooperation, am I not? Will I be arrested?
Hopefully, there won't be a law against you. So, there's a bad consequence to the theory; nevertheless, its still far better than the terribly philosophically unsound NAP.
liberty student: Wilderness already proved it earlier this evening by quoting Lew Rockwell on the origins of the term ancap. Please remember what I told you about honest discourse.
He did no such thing. Quoting Lew Rockwell does not prove Mises use of the word anarchists was only socialist anarchists.
When someone cannot answer a question, cannot prove something or support a position you start declaring subjective rules that only apply to me. Interesting.
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."
Poptech:He did not such thing. Quoting Lew Rockwell does not prove Mises use of the word anarchists was only socialist anarchists.
Indeed, what he quoted from Lew did, because your quote from Mises, was from long before Rothbard created the term ancap. So the only anarchists that are not ancap, are in fact socialists (syndicalists, communists, mutualists etc).
A technique popular with the Austrian school, is a priorism. You should learn how to apply it if you intend to make Austrian arguments.
Poptech:When someone cannot answer a question, cannot prove something or support a position you start declaring subjective rules that only apply to me. Interesting.
Stay on topic. Your argumentation has been poor, and you really don't have surplus reasoning to spare on petty complaints.
laminustacitus:Hopefully, there won't be a law against you. So, there's a bad consequence to the theory; nevertheless, its still far better than the terribly philosophically unsound NAP.
The NAP is unsound yet your theory allows for the jailing of individuals who don't engage in an implied coercive environment. How wonderful.
Ludwig von Mises: No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want. Nation, State, and Economy p. 34
Ludwig von Mises : If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. Liberalism pp. 10910
since the scholarship of the LvMI has produced high quality academic work on the practicabity of market anarchism, it must simply be noted as a shame that Mises was not able to live longer and interrogate the new insights of his disciples....
nirgrahamUK:it is a historical fact that anarchism was a synonym for those opposed to the state and private property. yes there were marginal traditions of individualist (i.e. pro private property) anarchists . Mises arguments clearly have force against the socialist anarchists and fail to even address the substantially different framework of anarcho-capitalist positions. as such to read them as an attempt to refute anarcho-capitalism is to do the great man (Mises) a disservice.
Really? Private property is not mentioned in the definition of the word.
anarchy (defined) - "doctrine rejecting government: an ideology that rejects the need for a system of government in society and proposes its abolition"
It is purely anti-government. You have failed to prove Mises wished to abolish government.
nirgrahamUK:so we dont live in a world with all manner of subjective moralities? and therefore its impossible for everyone to be angels and saints since there is no such subjective morality under which that could be true? are you refuting yourself?
Of course we live in a world of subjective moralities which is why Mises stated what he did. Of course someone could "believe" everyone could be angels and saints but myself and Mises would call that naive.
The failure of fundamentalists is idealism.
By the way lam, if you don't agree that the NAP is a great system then you are reducing the social cooperation of these forums and I will be forced to jail you for an unspecified period of time until you agree to cooperation with the will of the forum.
i like this Mises quote
Planning for Freedom
Im trying to see if i can double think and pretend that public provision of law and defence does not involve government action ......
liberty student:Indeed, what he quoted from Lew did, because your quote from Mises, was from long before Rothbard created the term ancap. So the only anarchists that are not ancap, are in fact socialists (syndicalists, communists, mutualists etc).
Not by the definition of anarchism.
liberty student:Stay on topic.
I am but you keep interjecting appeals to authority (you) into my discussions.
Poptech:Really? Private property is not mentioned in the definition of the word.anarchy (defined) - "doctrine rejecting government: an ideology that rejects the need for a system of government in society and proposes its abolition" It is purely anti-government. You have failed to prove Mises wished to abolish government.
you are just showing your ignorance of history and the climate surrounding Mises and what could goad him into writing this piece or that piece to set those crazy people on the wrong path straight. the crazies were socialist anarchists that simply called themselves anarchists.
i hazard that your standards of proof in this discussion are ridiculous and absurd. i provide evidence, and you fall back on word counting.
Laughing Man:if you don't agree that the NAP is a great system then you are reducing the social cooperation of these forums and I will be forced to jail you for an unspecified period of time until you agree to cooperation with the will of the forum.
Are you sure you are not talking about me?
nirgrahamUK: you are just showing your ignorance of history and the climate surrounding Mises and what could goad him into writing this piece or that piece to set those crazy people on the wrong path straight. the crazies were socialist anarchists that simply called themselves anarchists. i hazard that your standards of proof in this discussion are ridiculous and absurd. i provide evidence, and you fall back on word counting.
You are making a claim you cannot support and then declare me "ignorant" for not believing your unsupported claim. Where does Mises show his use of the word anarchy only applied to socialist anarchists?
My standards of proof are actual proof not your reinterpretations based on your ideology.
Poptech:Are you sure you are not talking about me?
Laughing Man:By the way lam
Are you Iam?
Poptech:Of course someone could "believe" everyone could be angels and saints but myself and Mises would call that naive.
so what if you call it naive? even if you call it naive you still admit the unimpeachable truth of it given your context of unjustifiable and ungrounded subjective morality. hence your quote is absurd. lets see if you can rewrite the quote in a way that doesnt make ludicrous appeals to objective moral standards ok?
'It would be practicable only in a world of people who are .......' <---(no moral words allowed)
Poptech:The failure of fundamentalists is idealism.
Poptech:Where does Mises show his use of the word anarchy only applied to socialist anarchists?
I've already answered this.
Poptech:You are making a claim you cannot support
I have already supported it, as has Wilderness earlier this evening.
Poptech:and then declare me "ignorant" for not believing your unsupported claim.
While high time preference can be indicative of a low IQ, you are in fact being dishonest, by skipping the arguments you cannot evade.
Poptech:My standards of proof are actual proof not your reinterpretations based on your ideology.
Try using reason here. While you still have the opportunity to do so.
nirgrahamUK:hence your quote is absurd
Not at all, the only requirement is to have a rough understanding of Judeo/Christian morality. It does not make it any less subjective. You do not have to hold those beliefs to understand it.
liberty student:I've already answered this.
No you have not. Nothing you presented supports how Mises defined anarchism.
liberty student:While high time preference can be indicative of a low IQ, you are in fact being dishonest, by skipping the arguments you cannot evade.
Now you are lying, my arguments are constantly evaded and due to your ideological beliefs you don't challenge it when it happens.
liberty student:Try using reason here. While you still have the opportunity to do so.
"Reason" appears to be only your opinion and when I don't accept your "opinion" I am threatened over and over or lied about.