bloomj31,
First, government employees do not pay taxes. They are paid in taxes. You can not pay taxes when you are paid in taxes. To pay taxes, you actually have to produce something that is taxable. Let me give you an example so you can see how this dynamic works:
I am a farmer and I produce 100 ears of corn. I pay 20% of my yield in taxes. Let's say the government is unitary (one person in the government). He gets paid 20 ears of corn. But he "pays 20% in taxes", so he takes 4 ears of corn into his "government budget" and keeps 16 ears of corn for himself.
Question: how many ears of corn did the government employee produce?
Answer: 0. So he did not pay any taxes. Because he produced nothing. He simply allocated for himself less of what he stole from me and thereby "paid taxes" on his income.
Alright, the next part of your question was, how do "we" disincentivize the quest for power. But then you provided an example that would rely on the government policing itself. That's not going to happen. That's like asking "Why didn't the regulators do their jobs?" That's a fundamental misinterpretation of what the regulators' jobs actually are-- to restrain competition and look the other way when illegal things happen on their watch, because they're helping their buddy out. That's what government does.
So, then, the question remains, what can WE do? Not, what can the government do to itself?
bloomj31: Libertarian_for_Life: I take it that you are for limited government, a minarchist right? This is what I am observing I think... Well if that is the case, I believe spidey's plan is for establishing anarcho-capitalism, just pointing that out there. Yes, I am a minarchist, but I really want to see an anarcho-capitalist experiment done to see what happens. If it works I'll switch to being an anarcho-capitalist.
Libertarian_for_Life: I take it that you are for limited government, a minarchist right? This is what I am observing I think... Well if that is the case, I believe spidey's plan is for establishing anarcho-capitalism, just pointing that out there.
I take it that you are for limited government, a minarchist right? This is what I am observing I think...
Well if that is the case, I believe spidey's plan is for establishing anarcho-capitalism, just pointing that out there.
Yes, I am a minarchist, but I really want to see an anarcho-capitalist experiment done to see what happens. If it works I'll switch to being an anarcho-capitalist.
I believe it is a strategy that would work for either anarchy or small government. People could just tell the U.S. government that they were going to stop using FRNs and stop paying taxes until they got rid of the Fed. And once they got rid of the Fed, they could start paying again. They could do the same thing to get rid of public education, etc., etc.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: I believe it is a strategy that would work for either anarchy or small government. People could just tell the U.S. government that they were going to stop using FRNs and stop paying taxes until they got rid of the Fed. And once they got rid of the Fed, they could start paying again. They could do the same thing to get rid of public education, etc., etc.
Get rid of the fed and public education and then allow physical aggression to be initiated (pay taxes) again for what? Why would somebody ask somebody to come and steal their property and beat them up if necessary?
wilderness: Spideynw: I believe it is a strategy that would work for either anarchy or small government. People could just tell the U.S. government that they were going to stop using FRNs and stop paying taxes until they got rid of the Fed. And once they got rid of the Fed, they could start paying again. They could do the same thing to get rid of public education, etc., etc. Get rid of the fed and public education and then allow physical aggression to be initiated (pay taxes) again for what? Why would somebody ask somebody to come and steal their property and beat them up if necessary?
I have no idea. You would have to ask the small government advocates. But really, if people realized they have the power to make those kind of changes, I don't think it would stop until pretty much everything was gone.
Hmm.
You can read about a couple of minarchist countries in history that failed. Ever hear of the 'American Revolution' or the 'Taming of the Aristocracy in Britain'? Two perfect examples gone bad.
You observe, but you do not see.
Justin Laws: Hmm. You can read about a couple of minarchist countries in history that failed. Ever hear of the 'American Revolution' or the 'Taming of the Aristocracy in Britain'? Two perfect examples gone bad.
Ofcourse minarchism can fail. Anything can fail.
Well, it's certainly an interesting thought. As an aside, I actually went to public school and even though it sucked I liked it a lot better than the private schools I went to. I always liked Friedman's voucher idea. Give people more choices about which public school they're going to go to.
Spideynw: I have no idea. You would have to ask the small government advocates. But really, if people realized they have the power to make those kind of changes, I don't think it would stop until pretty much everything was gone.
You're assuming that everyone wants to make the same changes you do. Some people think taxes are good. I mean they even got Obama elected.
bloomj31:Therefore, it seems reasonable to assert that in order to... (fill in the blank) ...shouldn't... (fill in the blank) ???
J,
You seem to be a realistic guy. Please read this (its a quick read): http://savingcommunities.org/docs/browne.harry/ifyouwereking.html
Let me know what you think.
Matthew, I read your article, and I agree that from a philosophical perspective, it makes sense.
However, from a historical perspective, it seems that people are going to keep looking to government to solve problems.
Therefore, I think the people who should be in power are the ones who believe in limited government but also are aware that anarcho capitalism in its purest form isn't likely to happen anytime soon. So, I look to advance the limited government ideology, despite the fact that from a purely theoretical philosophical point of view, it may seem contradictory, inconsistent, naive, or impossible.
bloomj31:However, from a historical perspective, it seems that people are going to keep looking to government to solve problems.
From a historical perspective people are going to keep doing what they used to do until they stop. and take a new approach. maybe because they have new ideas.
The history of ideas is this principle. Ideas are powerful. They necessarily effect how men act.
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
bloomj31:I agree that from a philosophical perspective, it makes sense
Perhaps you missed the point of the article; What Harry Browne was saying was that from a "philosophical" perspective you can make government (including schemes to limit government) work, while in reality, the process of passing a law/rule requires compromise and political trading. Not to mention the fact that even if you somehow manage to ram your adgenda through the machine unmolested, you still aren't in charge of enforcement or interpretation, which means that even well intentioned ideas are doomed to fail.
This is the equivalent of justifying slaves back in their day. Making the argument that since slavery has always been we should find the best way to accommodate it rather then abolish it.
Man does progress in time. It has abolished slavery and various forms of mysticism among other things. It's hard to see in our narrow minds as we focus on the last 100 or 200 years. Though when looking at the big picture man's life changes over the coarse of century's. Giving into traditionalism is just accepting status quo and defending it for it's own sake. It does not bring anything positive or make an effort to improve problems.
Human Action Pg 191 'Traditionalism as an Ideology: Traditionalism tries to justify its tenets by citing the success they secured in the past. Whether this assertion conforms with the facts, is another question.
Traditionalism tries to justify its tenets by citing the success they secured in the past. Whether this assertion conforms with the facts, is another question.
Some argue this is a tenet of conservatism. Though the progressive movement are also traditionalists. They also simply repeat history and cite historical examples to justify their socialist cause. It's only because the media and economists peripheral viewpoints are narrow and their historical reference short lived. They conveniently forget the arguments of the past, and treat historical arguments as revolutionary new ones.
Also if you read Mises's explanation of the flaws of history as a science you will see that traditionalism is fundamentally flawed, as is the case with most mainstream ideologies as they are based from statistician's which are easily manipulated to defend a certain point of view.
Human Action Pg 191 'Traditionalism as an Ideology: Research could sometimes unmask errors in the historical statements of a traditional belief. However, this did not always explode the traditional doctrine. For the core of traditionalism is not real historical facts, but an opinion about them, however mistaken, and a will to believe things to which the authority of ancient origin is attributed.
Research could sometimes unmask errors in the historical statements of a traditional belief. However, this did not always explode the traditional doctrine. For the core of traditionalism is not real historical facts, but an opinion about them, however mistaken, and a will to believe things to which the authority of ancient origin is attributed.
Human Action P 51-52: As was mentioned above, it has been asserted that history can never be scientific because historical understanding depends on the historian’s subjective value judgments. Understanding, it is maintained, is only a euphemistic term for arbitrariness. The writings of historians are always one-sided and partial; they do not report the facts; they distort them. It is, of course, a fact that we have historical books written from various points of view. There are histories of the Reformation written from the Catholic point of view and others written from the Protestant point of view. There are “proletarian” histories and “bourgeois” histories, Tory historians and Whig historians; every nation, party, and linguistic group has its own historians and its own ideas about history.
As was mentioned above, it has been asserted that history can never be scientific because historical understanding depends on the historian’s subjective value judgments. Understanding, it is maintained, is only a euphemistic term for arbitrariness. The writings of historians are always one-sided and partial; they do not report the facts; they distort them.
It is, of course, a fact that we have historical books written from various points of view. There are histories of the Reformation written from the Catholic point of view and others written from the Protestant point of view. There are “proletarian” histories and “bourgeois” histories, Tory historians and Whig historians; every nation, party, and linguistic group has its own historians and its own ideas about history.
Later he further explains why history becomes a controversial science rather then a unanimously agreed science, like natural sciences.
Human Action P52: The historians disagree on such issues not in their capacity as historians, but in their application of the nonhistorical sciences to the subject matter of history. They disagree as agnostic doctors disagree in regard to the miracles of Lourdes with the members of the medical committee for the collection of evidence concerning these miracles. Only those who believe that facts write their own story into the tabula rasa of the human mind blame the historians for such differences of opinion. They fail to realize that history can never be studied without presuppositions, and that dissension with regard to the presuppositions, i.e., the whole content of the nonhistorical branches of knowledge, must determine the establishment of historical facts.
The historians disagree on such issues not in their capacity as historians, but in their application of the nonhistorical sciences to the subject matter of history. They disagree as agnostic doctors disagree in regard to the miracles of Lourdes with the members of the medical committee for the collection of evidence concerning these miracles. Only those who believe that facts write their own story into the tabula rasa of the human mind blame the historians for such differences of opinion. They fail to realize that history can never be studied without presuppositions, and that dissension with regard to the presuppositions, i.e., the whole content of the nonhistorical branches of knowledge, must determine the establishment of historical facts.
nirgrahamUK: From a historical perspective people are going to keep doing what they used to do until they stop. and take a new approach. maybe because they have new ideas. The history of ideas is this principle. Ideas are powerful. They necessarily effect how men act.
No argument there, but do you really think anarcho-capitalism has mass appeal?
"This is the equivalent of justifying slaves back in their day. Making the argument that since slavery has always been we should find the best way to accommodate it rather then abolish it.
Man does progress in time. It has abolished slavery and various forms of mysticism among other things. It's hard to see in our narrow minds as we focus on the last 100 or 200 years. Though when looking at the big picture man's life changes over the coarse of century's. Giving into traditionalism is just accepting status quo and defending it for it's own sake. It does not bring anything positive or make an effort to improve problems."
1. No, it isn't.
2. I've never said man doesn't progress but you're linking anarcho-capitalism with progress which is a clever word game. I'm not defending the status quo per se as much as I'm looking for practical solutions to real problems.
bloomj31: I'm looking for practical solutions to real problems.
I'm looking for practical solutions to real problems.
Can you define "practical"? Do you believe your definition to be subjective or objective? If subjective, do you understand that a debate about "practical" solutions is not a debate but rather a voicing of conflicting and unresolveable opinions?
calculatingsocialist: Can you define "practical"? Do you believe your definition to be subjective or objective? If subjective, do you understand that a debate about "practical" solutions is not a debate but rather a voicing of conflicting and unresolveable opinions?
I shall try my best to define what I mean by practical. When I say "practical" I mean an idea or policy that I believe could actually be sold to the American public. Not just the people on the margins, but a majority. Obviously, it's a subjective definition or usage of the word. So you might think of something different when you read the word "practical." That being said, these opinions can be resolved through elections. Which means that if the idea sells enough, the people who represent the ideas can be elected. I understand that people on this site are very cynical when it comes to the electoral process. I can't say I blame them. But this idea that somehow if the US falls apart as it is now that suddenly we'll see anarcho-capitalism emerge, despite the fact that very few people have even heard of it, seems to me to not be practical or realistic.
I'm willing to bet that if the US falls apart now, we'll just see something worse emerge.
filc: This is the equivalent of justifying slaves back in their day. Making the argument that since slavery has always been we should find the best way to accommodate it rather then abolish it.
It is an analogy to explore flaws in your point. I could reword your statement as a defense of slavery just as easily.
However, from a historical perspective, it seems that people are going to keep slavery to solve their labor problems.
I don't know if somehow I am misunderstanding or mistating your point in some way. I don't think I pulled it out of context. I was mearly trying to make a point that using history to defend yourself doesn't always hold much weight. Hope you see my point on that one! :) Thanks for the lively discussion also dude, your grade A. <3
bloomj31:I shall try my best to define what I mean by practical. When I say "practical" I mean an idea or policy that I believe could actually be sold to the American public. Not just the people on the margins, but a majority
Sometimes I contemplate that freedom is not a practical policy to be sold to the american public at all. Indeed most right leaning "freedom fighters" don't fight for freedom at all but some form of state fascism.
The reason for this can be understood in public choice theory's and human action. In addition to, participants of welfare are not irrational people. They are not evil or necessarily socialist. They are doing what is most economic for them to do. And due to things like rational ignorance and a limited understanding of their surrounding they are going to protect their economic security. As well as the general public supports the safety net, socialist and fascistic programs are always more "practically" sold to the masses. Perhaps it's a sign of our education, I don't know.
Thanks.
bloomj31: But this idea that somehow if the US falls apart as it is now that suddenly we'll see anarcho-capitalism emerge, despite the fact that very few people have even heard of it, seems to me to not be practical or realistic. I'm willing to bet that if the US falls apart now, we'll just see something worse emerge.
But this idea that somehow if the US falls apart as it is now that suddenly we'll see anarcho-capitalism emerge, despite the fact that very few people have even heard of it, seems to me to not be practical or realistic.
I am not sure who believes that we're going to get an-cap out of a US collapse. I'm not of that perspective. It could happen in select regions and areas of the country but for an-cap to emerge, an-cap ideology must precede it and that's very lacking in much of the country. I'd agree it's more likely "something worse" could emerge, or something marginally "better"/less interventionist. But liberty full-borne, probably not. That being said, a collapse would mean a collapse of many entitlement programs and the running into the wall of reality on their unsustainability, so that is a specific plus.
When I say "practical" I mean an idea or policy that I believe could actually be sold to the American public. Not just the people on the margins, but a majority. Obviously, it's a subjective definition or usage of the word. So you might think of something different when you read the word "practical." That being said, these opinions can be resolved through elections. Which means that if the idea sells enough, the people who represent the ideas can be elected.
Your definition seems to rely on the resolution of an election before the title "practical" can be conferred. In other words, you're committing the "I don't want to try it unless it's proven to be successful" fallacy... well, every idea hasn't been proven successful until it's been tried and therefore you'd never try any idea.
I don't mean by this to say every idea is worth trying. Simply I mean that you can not say you are looking for 'practical' ideas to try, when your definition of 'practical' relies on an idea already having been tried.
Does this make sense?
filc,
Freedom is not a "policy" but rather the absence of a policy.
Other than that, your analysis was correct.
calculatingsocialist:Freedom is not a "policy" but rather the absence of a policy.
Thats an interesting concept. I agree to
filc: It is an analogy to explore flaws in your point. I could reword your statement as a defense of slavery just as easily. However, from a historical perspective, it seems that people are going to keep slavery to solve their labor problems. I don't know if somehow I am misunderstanding or mistating your point in some way. I don't think I pulled it out of context. I was mearly trying to make a point that using history to defend yourself doesn't always hold much weight. Hope you see my point on that one! :) Thanks for the lively discussion also dude, your grade A. <3
Well, I'm not trying to defend slavery, nor am I really trying to defend the status quo or the current system of government per se. What I'm saying is that perhaps a crash can be avoided if limited government ideas get used in policymaking. I don't see any reason why an-cap ideas can't be incorporated into the discussion as well, I just find it very hard to have a reasonable discussion with people after they've decided I'm an anarchist (which they usually think of as being the equivalent to satanist or someone who wants chaos, which isn't true.) I'm not really saying history is going to defend me, I'm saying I'll bet anyone on this forum that we'll see people continue looking to government for solutions and people in government willing to try and please those people in return for votes. I know this is a tricky subject because anarchists are usually unwilling to compromise on key elements of their policy platform but I don't think we'll get it all at once. Limited government must come before no government, imo. I could be wrong though. And I've thoroughly enjoyed this conversation as well.
calculatingsocialist: filc, Freedom is not a "policy" but rather the absence of a policy. Other than that, your analysis was correct.
I personally see "freedom" as being as much a policy platform as socialism is. It's just that the means and ends are totally different.
calculatingsocialist: I am not sure who believes that we're going to get an-cap out of a US collapse. I'm not of that perspective. It could happen in select regions and areas of the country but for an-cap to emerge, an-cap ideology must precede it and that's very lacking in much of the country. I'd agree it's more likely "something worse" could emerge, or something marginally "better"/less interventionist. But liberty full-borne, probably not. That being said, a collapse would mean a collapse of many entitlement programs and the running into the wall of reality on their unsustainability, so that is a specific plus. Your definition seems to rely on the resolution of an election before the title "practical" can be conferred. In other words, you're committing the "I don't want to try it unless it's proven to be successful" fallacy... well, every idea hasn't been proven successful until it's been tried and therefore you'd never try any idea. I don't mean by this to say every idea is worth trying. Simply I mean that you can not say you are looking for 'practical' ideas to try, when your definition of 'practical' relies on an idea already having been tried. Does this make sense?
I dunno, in my mind, collapse of the US wouldn't be worth having entitlement programs ending or any of the rest of it because political upheaval and revolution is almost always very violent and nasty. I'd rather see the changes be made now to avoid ever having to deal with that eventuality.
In a democratic system, everything is about elections. So yes, the practicality of a platform can be measured by how many votes it can get. Perhaps an-cap could win elections, but I doubt it. Doesn't mean it's not worth a try though. And no, I don't want to try something unless it's been successful or unless I believe it could be successful and I personally don't think an-cap in its purest form would be successful. But I can't really say for sure because I've never seen it tried.
I think that I can say I'm looking for practical ideas because that's what I'm looking for. Something that can be sold to a majority of Americans and then implemented fairly quickly. Now, if that's an-cap, it's an-cap. But I think we need something as emotionally appealing as socialism, and an-cap just doesn't have that "you'll get everything for free" appeal. Neither does limited government though, so maybe either way, I'm screwed.
filc: Sometimes I contemplate that freedom is not a practical policy to be sold to the american public at all. Indeed most right leaning "freedom fighters" don't fight for freedom at all but some form of state fascism. The reason for this can be understood in public choice theory's and human action. In addition to, participants of welfare are not irrational people. They are not evil or necessarily socialist. They are doing what is most economic for them to do. And due to things like rational ignorance and a limited understanding of their surrounding they are going to protect their economic security. As well as the general public supports the safety net, socialist and fascistic programs are always more "practically" sold to the masses. Perhaps it's a sign of our education, I don't know.
I think you're right. Humans are rational and if someone is willing to offer them something for free, they'll often take it and not ask where it came from. Which is unfortunate, because, as you point out, that's the allure of socialism.
bloomj31:I don't see any reason why an-cap ideas can't be incorporated into the discussion as well, I just find it very hard to have a reasonable discussion with people after they've decided I'm an anarchist
We have to be able to discuss and share ideas. Ultimately the fundamental difference between an anarchist libertarian and a minarchist libertarian is how high they set the compulsory monopoly threshold. Everything else lines up. we benefit each other by engaging each other peacefully and teaming up against status quo statists alike.
The reason why market anarchists get frustrated is for the same reason libertarian's find conservatives as hypocrites. Ancaps for the same reasons will consider minarchist libertarian's as being inconsistent with themselves.
bloomj31:Well, I'm not trying to defend slavery, nor am I really trying to defend the status quo or the current system of government per se.
I never accused you of defending slavery my friend. I was pointing out your points fallacy using an analogy.
bloomj31: But I think we need something as emotionally appealing as socialism, and an-cap just doesn't have that "you'll get everything for free" appeal.
flic and bloomj31,
I will save myself some breath/keyboard energy and copy+paste from a previous disagreement I had with someone about the use of the word "policy"
CalculatingSocialist: "Policy" is something government makes. Do you ever hear about individuals with their own "foreign policies" or "trade policies" or "welfare policies"? Framing anarchy as a "policy suggestion" is conceding the democratist's/collectivist's premise-- it validates the notion that society should come together to decide what kind of a policy we'll all have on social structure. There's no legitimacy to this idea of the social discourse, there's no agreement and there's no consent, at least not from me. I don't wish to "suggest" to anyone that an "anarchist policy" be implemented. I wish for people to respect the fact that government is a violent technology and it's dangerous to society in general terms. It's anti-social. Once people understand that they can make of that knowledge what they wish.I'm not hoping to see "Anarchist Policy" added as a plank to some politician's campaign.Similarly, when I argue for free trade, I am in fact arguing for the abolition of all existing "trade policy". Free trade is what you get in the state of nature, before violent thugs calling themselves a government come in and start "regulating" the hell out of everything. It isn't a "policy" one can pursue. That connotes an action which is positive when in fact this is all about the negative.That's my point. Freedom is negative. It's the ABSENCE of all of this regulation and intervention, which has been positively pursued and added onto everything else.What's my preferred "monetary policy"? I don't have one. I don't think anyone should. Money shouldn't have a policy. The market can handle money on its own.
"Policy" is something government makes. Do you ever hear about individuals with their own "foreign policies" or "trade policies" or "welfare policies"? Framing anarchy as a "policy suggestion" is conceding the democratist's/collectivist's premise-- it validates the notion that society should come together to decide what kind of a policy we'll all have on social structure. There's no legitimacy to this idea of the social discourse, there's no agreement and there's no consent, at least not from me. I don't wish to "suggest" to anyone that an "anarchist policy" be implemented. I wish for people to respect the fact that government is a violent technology and it's dangerous to society in general terms. It's anti-social. Once people understand that they can make of that knowledge what they wish.I'm not hoping to see "Anarchist Policy" added as a plank to some politician's campaign.Similarly, when I argue for free trade, I am in fact arguing for the abolition of all existing "trade policy". Free trade is what you get in the state of nature, before violent thugs calling themselves a government come in and start "regulating" the hell out of everything. It isn't a "policy" one can pursue. That connotes an action which is positive when in fact this is all about the negative.That's my point. Freedom is negative. It's the ABSENCE of all of this regulation and intervention, which has been positively pursued and added onto everything else.What's my preferred "monetary policy"? I don't have one. I don't think anyone should. Money shouldn't have a policy. The market can handle money on its own.
Source: http://n-k-1.blogspot.com/2009/09/anarchy-is-logically-consistent.html#c7025826868255932857
"Policy" is strictly a political concept. Freedom is not a political concept. It's the state of nature. But, as a person who doesn't fully detest the political system, I suppose I can understand your usage and your view that a politician calling for the removal of regulation from some aspect of social interaction has a "freedom policy." But then I'd say he's a deregulationist or a non-interventionist on that issue. I wouldn't say he has a "freedom policy."
I think to the extent you buy into the political nomenclature, you buy into the idea that it's appropriate to have policies, including policies concerning freedom and in that sense the State is strengthened, not weakened. You commit the same offense in conceding that the Department of Defense is engaged in providing "national defense" or that airport TSA checkpoints are a "security" measure, or that govt welfarism could be construed as a "poverty reduction" mechanism (ignoring that in the zero-sum game of politics, someone was discreetly impoverished in order to satisfy the consumptive needs of someone else who is already in poverty).
After all, language is important ( http://thejungleiseverywhere.blogspot.com/2009/09/control-dialogue-control-minds.html )and if you control it you control minds ( http://thejungleiseverywhere.blogspot.com/2009/09/control-language-control-minds.html ).
What do you want?
Do you want freedom? Or something that will get votes?
If you want freedom, you need to expand your mind beyond winning votes, because you can't really "vote for freedom" but rather the opposite. If you want something that gets votes, you may want to try socialism and you may not want to discuss that around here since that isn't what these forums are about.
Not telling you to go away, just asking if you are even clear on what you want. You seem to want something impossible: something as principled and just as liberty, yet something as politically palatable as a "free lunch" at the voting booth. Ain't gonna happen, NSTAAFL.
Snowflake: Actually in a free market society, innovators and entrepreneurs make life better for everyone and all they have to do is keep working. If you think about it, the masses are free-riding on all the advances made in the free market. The common farmer sure as hell isn't responsible for all the tools/chemicals he uses today. This is better than providing things for free, since while the farmer has to pay for his equipment, he actually makes more money by doing this.Its also been noted that propositions such as raising the minimum wage and other things that are supposed to help workers suppose that the common man will be able to buy more stuff with their new wealth, but if you don't find a way to make society more productive, this will never happen and price levels will just rise. So socialism just says you have to redistribute stuff but doesn't give any way for us to continue making more stuff. Everyone can be equally poor, or unequally rich. Take your pick.
Actually in a free market society, innovators and entrepreneurs make life better for everyone and all they have to do is keep working. If you think about it, the masses are free-riding on all the advances made in the free market. The common farmer sure as hell isn't responsible for all the tools/chemicals he uses today. This is better than providing things for free, since while the farmer has to pay for his equipment, he actually makes more money by doing this.Its also been noted that propositions such as raising the minimum wage and other things that are supposed to help workers suppose that the common man will be able to buy more stuff with their new wealth, but if you don't find a way to make society more productive, this will never happen and price levels will just rise. So socialism just says you have to redistribute stuff but doesn't give any way for us to continue making more stuff. Everyone can be equally poor, or unequally rich. Take your pick.
First, let me say that I agree with you. Secondly, let me ask you: have you ever talked to anyone who was a socialist? If so, what was that like?
calculatingsocialist: What do you want? Do you want freedom? Or something that will get votes? If you want freedom, you need to expand your mind beyond winning votes, because you can't really "vote for freedom" but rather the opposite. If you want something that gets votes, you may want to try socialism and you may not want to discuss that around here since that isn't what these forums are about. Not telling you to go away, just asking if you are even clear on what you want. You seem to want something impossible: something as principled and just as liberty, yet something as politically palatable as a "free lunch" at the voting booth. Ain't gonna happen, NSTAAFL.
I just don't see "freedom policy" as an oxymoron and I don't think politics and freedom are mutually exclusive. And no, I obviously don't want socialism.
calculatingsocialist:If you want freedom, you need to expand your mind beyond winning votes, because you can't really "vote for freedom" but rather the opposite. If you want something that gets votes, you may want to try socialism and you may not want to discuss that around here since that isn't what these forums are about.
This is true in a way. Voting in freedom is somewhat oxymoronic is it not?
filc: We have to be able to discuss and share ideas. Ultimately the fundamental difference between an anarchist libertarian and a minarchist libertarian is how high they set the compulsory monopoly threshold. Everything else lines up. we benefit each other by engaging each other peacefully and teaming up against status quo statists alike.
I never said we shouldn't be able to talk, I like these discussions. I'm saying that people often stop listening once they've decided I'm an anarchist. And they're right, the line between anarchist and minarchist is rather thin. I mean have you ever talked to anyone who was a rabid Keynesian socialist statist type?
bloomj31: I just don't see "freedom policy" as an oxymoron and I don't think politics and freedom are mutually exclusive. And no, I obviously don't want socialism.
Could be because your principles aren't clear and you don't understand the nature of the State. The State is a tool of violence. It produces nothing on its own that it hasn't first taken from someone else by force. It does not create cooperation via convincing someone through superior reasoning. It creates cooperation through compulsion, ie, do as I say or you will be hurt/killed.
If you don't see how politics and freedom are mutually exclusive, you haven't paid any attention to the inexorable march of statism/interventionism/socialism against freedom as a result of the political system. Tell me, when was the last time the state was rolled back via popular vote or a charismatic politician with a winning freedom platform?
People don't get into politics to spread freedom. They get into politics to spread the wealth. RP, as consistent as he is on freedom in many ways, is also inconsistent in many others (taking a salary paid for by taxes, advocating for border regulation and control, advocating for medical welfare for US troops, etc.), so please don't cite him as a counter-example.
You are right now asking for the impossible. When you encounter a committed socialist who has no problem with using violence to achieve his ends, this does not mean you should give up on principles and start discussing concessionary violence/redistribution with him. Instead, you should just walk away. You can't reason with a person who has announced they are commited in principle to violence.
calculatingsocialist: Could be because your principles aren't clear and you don't understand the nature of the State. The State is a tool of violence. It produces nothing on its own that it hasn't first taken from someone else by force. It does not create cooperation via convincing someone through superior reasoning. It creates cooperation through compulsion, ie, do as I say or you will be hurt/killed. If you don't see how politics and freedom are mutually exclusive, you haven't paid any attention to the inexorable march of statism/interventionism/socialism against freedom as a result of the political system. Tell me, when was the last time the state was rolled back via popular vote or a charismatic politician with a winning freedom platform? People don't get into politics to spread freedom. They get into politics to spread the wealth. RP, as consistent as he is on freedom in many ways, is also inconsistent in many others (taking a salary paid for by taxes, advocating for border regulation and control, advocating for medical welfare for US troops, etc.), so please don't cite him as a counter-example. You are right now asking for the impossible. When you encounter a committed socialist who has no problem with using violence to achieve his ends, this does not mean you should give up on principles and start discussing concessionary violence/redistribution with him. Instead, you should just walk away. You can't reason with a person who has announced they are commited in principle to violence.
Alright, well, I don't take as hard a line about this stuff as you do. I have principles but I know that lots of people don't. What do I do with those people? I try to convince them. I don't walk away from a discussion just because they don't agree with libertarian principles.
IF you're right, and there is NO way to get a great deal of freedom under any form of political system, then I think socialism will win because socialism is so much easier to sell than freedom. Therefore, I hope you're wrong.
About the inevitability of politics in any human society see Gene Callahan's FEE lecture. Just listen to it.
bloomj31:Alright, well, I don't take as hard a line about this stuff as you do. I have principles but I know that lots of people don't. What do I do with those people? I try to convince them.
To summarize calculatingsocialists point. Voting is the practice of enacting compulsion on to others. SO it is oxymoronic to violently compel others into freedom.
Damnit, I give up with this. I just typed out a response and the system ate it up and spit out an error message and when I back-clicked it was gone with no chance to resubmit.
Quick summary of my more elaborate point I just typed up: you can not move into discussions of other things (such as "sound policy") with these people until you have first convinced them of libertarian principles. Do you agree or disagree?
Second point: I am right about politics, but don't despair. The good thing is that socialism is not a functional method of production but rather a method of consumption. It can't sustain itself because it doesn't produce anything. It will in the end consume itself.
filc: bloomj31:Alright, well, I don't take as hard a line about this stuff as you do. I have principles but I know that lots of people don't. What do I do with those people? I try to convince them. To summarize calculatingsocialists point. Voting is the practice of enacting compulsion on to others. SO it is oxymoronic to violently compel others into freedom.
If I may clarify my own point, here is what I am saying:
Most votes are for interventionists to put them into power to intervene OR, if they're popular referenda issues (such as a ballot measure in California), they are votes about implementing a policy or not implementing a policy, via a YES or NO vote. If you vote YES you are voting for compulsion. If you vote NO you're not actually voting for anything but rather that things remain as they are. A "NO" will not result in any change/positive action, it will result in no action. (The exception to this rule is a referenda item that will result in the repeal of an existing aspect of intervention. But even then you're simply returning to a freer, original state... you may vote FOR the positive change as far as removing regulation, but all that's really happening is the officials in charge simply stop aggressing in this way whereas in the past they did aggress.)
Now, as a practical matter, you will likely never be given a vote on whether or not the political class will allow you your freedom. But even if you could partake in such a vote, you wouldn't be "compelling" someone to be free. They'd just be free after the vote because the political class would stop using compulsion against them. You wouldn't be doing anything to them yourself. You can't do something to someone by not doing something to someone. THAT is oxymoronic.