Whenever I try to explain that the state isn't needed to a statist colleague, he just grins and chuckles, and I'm called a "silly radical" and such, like I'm an idiot. Are there any short and to-the-point methods of explaining the invisible hand theory without sounding like a crackpot to the keynesian masses?
laminustacitus: Daniel:Did I offend you? Why would you offend me? liberty student: laminustacitus:Maybe you should abandon the idea that it is such a self evident fact (or even a fact at all). Lam, do you need the state? To flourish in a material sense, I need the state to establish an institutional framework in which the market can function efficiently. Without the state, there is no good reason to believe why private defense providers would cooperate thus there is no method of knowing a priori whether an anarchist society would be able to provide the necessary institutions to cultivate the division of labor, and inter-temporal planning.
Daniel:Did I offend you?
Why would you offend me?
liberty student: laminustacitus:Maybe you should abandon the idea that it is such a self evident fact (or even a fact at all). Lam, do you need the state?
laminustacitus:Maybe you should abandon the idea that it is such a self evident fact (or even a fact at all).
Lam, do you need the state?
To flourish in a material sense, I need the state to establish an institutional framework in which the market can function efficiently. Without the state, there is no good reason to believe why private defense providers would cooperate thus there is no method of knowing a priori whether an anarchist society would be able to provide the necessary institutions to cultivate the division of labor, and inter-temporal planning.
Thank God the Wright brothers believed that they could build flying machines.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
There is no good reason to believe that the state could establish and maintain an institutional framework in which the market can function efficiently.
laminustacitus:Without the state, there is no good reason to believe why private defense providers would cooperate thus there is no method of knowing a priori whether an anarchist society would be able to provide the necessary institutions to cultivate the division of labor, and inter-temporal planning.
The state has done much to stymie the division of labor and inter-temporal planning. Your demand for a priori certainty of the efficacy of anarchism makes it seem like your stance is based on the "better the devil you know than the devil you don't" argument.
Daniel: There is no good reason to believe that the state could establish and maintain an institutional framework in which the market can function efficiently. Then you are oblivious to the world around you. Lilburne: laminustacitus:Without the state, there is no good reason to believe why private defense providers would cooperate thus there is no method of knowing a priori whether an anarchist society would be able to provide the necessary institutions to cultivate the division of labor, and inter-temporal planning. The state has done much to stymie the division of labor and inter-temporal planning. Certain actions have, but those have not been able to completely undo society in the long-run. Lilburne:our demand for a priori certainty of the efficacy of anarchism makes it seem like your stance is based on the "better the devil you know than the devil you don't" argument. Justice is, by its very nature, empirical - it cannot rest on a priori proofs, but rather must emerge from experience, and tradition. Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found. - Edmund Burke | Post Points: 35
Then you are oblivious to the world around you.
Lilburne: laminustacitus:Without the state, there is no good reason to believe why private defense providers would cooperate thus there is no method of knowing a priori whether an anarchist society would be able to provide the necessary institutions to cultivate the division of labor, and inter-temporal planning. The state has done much to stymie the division of labor and inter-temporal planning.
The state has done much to stymie the division of labor and inter-temporal planning.
Lilburne:our demand for a priori certainty of the efficacy of anarchism makes it seem like your stance is based on the "better the devil you know than the devil you don't" argument.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Lets not sugarcoat it.
You support putting a gun to the head of others and forcing them to give money to a cause you think is a good one.
laminustacitus: Daniel: There is no good reason to believe that the state could establish and maintain an institutional framework in which the market can function efficiently. Then you are oblivious to the world around you. Are you saying that the state has established and maintained an institutional framework in which the market has functioned efficiently? To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake." | Post Points: 5
Daniel: There is no good reason to believe that the state could establish and maintain an institutional framework in which the market can function efficiently. Then you are oblivious to the world around you.
Are you saying that the state has established and maintained an institutional framework in which the market has functioned efficiently?
laminustacitus:Certain actions have, but those have not been able to completely undo society in the long-run.
Now that's a ringing endorsement.
laminustacitus:Justice is, by its very nature, empirical
Justice? I thought you were just concerned with division of labour and inter-temporal planning.
laminustacitus:it cannot rest on a priori proofs
Then, why are you demanding an a priori proof for the efficacy of anarchism?
Snowflake: Conza88:The argument from efficiency is so useless. Why? The state is a complete failure in every way.
Conza88:The argument from efficiency is so useless.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux6.html
672 Minarchism, Libertarianism and Logic
"The state is not inefficient for everyone..."
@ OP
Don't go straight out saying you want to abolish the state. Never deny it, but don't let them bring it in as a "knockdown argument". It shouldn't be like this, but people don't respect us if they know of our anti-statism.
Argue against specific things. Point out how regulation isn't needed when it is relevant to what you are already talking about. Point out how the state messes so many things up. Point out the flaws in the reasoning of statists and Keynesians.
Then when they're a minarchist (i.e. ideal situation), they should be convertable to full freedom. That's how it worked on me, although noone was converting me, it was happening in my head, and through mises.org readership and posting here.
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
Conza88: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux6.html 672 Minarchism, Libertarianism and Logic "The state is not inefficient for everyone..."
I suppose I meant the state is bad for the common man/overall.