Edmund, stop with the insults.
No one needs a licence to own a car.
scineram:No one needs a licence to own a car.
Most people don't need a license to drive a car. But then, most people don't read the motor vehicles act before applying for a license.
One big herd, libertarians and all, moving to the sound of a marching band.
Again that is false. No one needs a licence to own a car, everyone needs to drive on state roads, the same would be with private roads.
scineram:Again that is false. No one needs a licence to own a car, everyone needs to drive on state roads, the same would be with private roads.
scineram, you're a bright cat. Rather than argue by assertion,let's try to find common ground. Do you understand the legal distinction between a driver and a traveler?
When you move from your home to your friend's home, operating a car, are you driving or traveling?
filc:Do you think these hyper intelligent few think they are working in our best interest? Or do you think they are overtly aware that they are taking advantage of us?
The latter. Everyone works in their own best interest as best understood by them.
Both? What does that have to do with ownership?
scineram:Both? What does that have to do with ownership?
I think we're talking past each other. Are licenses to operate a car necessary by law, yes or no?
Do you understand the legal distinction between a driver and a traveler, yes or no?
Officially, "you" are owned by the state as evidenced by your birth certificate. By "you" I mean your citizen identity. Any time you "register" something you are essentially passing ownership.
A licence is not necessary, only on government roads.
What is the difference between driver and traveler?
All I can say is, bizarre.
Edmund Carlyle: Officially, "you" are owned by the state as evidenced by your birth certificate. By "you" I mean your citizen identity. Any time you "register" something you are essentially passing ownership. All I can say is, bizarre.
But it is true, and most people are completely ignorant about it.
I'ts not true. It's hyperbole and projection.
scineram:A licence is not necessary, only on government roads.
A license is not necessary on government roads if you are traveling
scineram:What is the difference between driver and traveler?
A driver is someone operating a conveyance on roads for commercial purposes. A traveler is exercising his common law right of movement. A driver must be licensed (by law), a traveler requires no license.
Oh adventures in state land...
Edmund Carlyle:I'ts not true. It's hyperbole and projection.
Why is it not true? I ask because I struggle with assertions posing as arguments.
Sieben:Oh adventures in state land...
With or without a state, jurisprudence still has value.
Thoughts:
Stefan Molyneux exemplifies everything bad about libertarianism. There's poor psychology, factual inaccuracies, arbitrary definitions, nutty conspiracism and often a poor theoretical basis.
The general public do not know they are owned, or that they voluntarily demand servitude.
2. it may well be untrue that states arose to serve us, it doesn't mean that there isn't some normative justification for their existence in terms of welfare maximisation or something along those lines.
Unconsciously people know the state are thieves. They say it publicly. But they stop to the wishful thinking lies the state throws them, because they don't want to confront that hard fact and think about it. They prefer the cute view that the state is a necessary evil to protect and organize them. It's reassuring and nicer. If you were in a prison cell and were offered drugs to make it seem like a beach and not a dark empty room, you may take it.
3-7 You are resting your argumentation on a risky axiom, that we know a lot about ancient history and that the statistical constructions that had been proposed are relatively close to the truth. That's a very far reaching conclusion. For example, Kasparov made an essay destroying that statistical population calculations and proposed that humanity history, both written and prehistorical is much shorter and that would change all the assumptions we take on population growth.
The article is very interesting and not that long I recommend it; http://revisedhistory.org/view-garry-kasparov.htm
8. Intellectuals aren't all that well paid in all parts of the world.
They have the best pay ever. Stability, secure jobs, comfortable, few hours and freedom of research, only working from home could beat it!
10. That depends on you view of history, if as I and many others proposed (new-chronology movement) history is shorter then it would be just almost linear evolution from the middle ages to now. That is, capital and knowledge (which could be considered capital) is the key, human (more humans and in other useful geography), discoveries, husbandry, farming, animal as strength, wheel, and with time division of labor that clearly depends on communication, that is roads and decent seafaring like the renascence, that allowed the division of labor, which itself its the explosion, posts, finances, better roads and better travel and we still there, instead of stationmasters and horses we moved to the telegraph, cables, and better use for cables (internet). I would risk to try the variables of the equation as human numbers, interconnection (as division of labor), knowledge and previous capital (as capital) and freedom (as institutions and beliefs that define the maximum benefit possibly achieved with all that before).
11. It is based on the necessity you have to ask for permission, and on imposed orders on you, Still you can argue the semantics details.
12. No, patriotism is based on the real modern states, like france, germany, before that patriotism was much lower. Patriotism is the base of states, it is the recipient that holds it, like a cup holding water inside.
13. Because their control is limited, we are their property but a property that can not legitimately be owned because it already has an owner, that's why there are problems. If they were to somehow telepathically control raised skeletons as work force or create robots there would be no problem. They don't own our bodies, they have power of suggestion to place ideas on our mind backed by the fear of retribution. If they demand all of us wake tomorrow at five in the morning to see Obama walk his dog his order would be disobeyed. They have to give us enough pseudo-arguments to used them as shield to betray our inner freedom-loving conscience. No one wants to go 6000 miles away to die in a desert and they know it, but they are afraid of the government retribution so they will accept a excuse (like fighting terrorism or revenge for 911) to comply and avoid the inner fight in their minds.
14. Think Soviet Russia, those who own property were far more efficient, it's close to telling them they would own their property and then take part of away, maybe through lying, statistics, psychology. If it has been proven that letting a worker keep part of his labor makes him efficient, I would risk to suggest that the same effects would be achieved by making him believe he is keeping the fruits of his labor by deceit. Test it with a friend who is about to start a business, joke with him and say "ready to break you back to work for the federal government and start giving them half your hard earned income?" I bet he will get angry or depressed and his will to start the business will have lower, he doesn't want to think about that, so he doesn't.
EIT, can you redirect your critique to instead focus on the video, and its message, rather than a general attack on Molyneux. I'm having a hard time following you.
Best comparison to date. But I’m a fan of his.
I like it as far as he does identify a likely explanation for why people in societies with lower productivity (e.g. tribal societies) have greater personal freedom even though they have less material means than those who live in societies with greater productivity and should, in theory, have greater freedom because they have more material prosperity at their disposal with which to achieve their ends.
However, the one thing I dislike about the state:farm comparison is that it is implicitly aggrandizing of the state. The government is just a bunch of thugs, nothing more, nothing less. Characterizing the distinction between the masses and their overlords as similar to the distinction between cattle and the ranchers is overstating the case in a way that can contribute to a sense of powerlessness that ultimately plays into the hands of the state. All such metaphors are useful for dissecting the anatomy of the state in metaphorical language that is easier to digest for those still trapped in the statist system. But the dangerous flip-side is that these metaphors can also strike fear into our hearts. Machiavelli said it is best for the Prince's interests that he be loved by his people - but he must often settle for being feared and not hated. If the government are our ranchers, maybe we can't hate them for that since it's always been that way. But if I'm a cow and they're a rancher then, yeah, I should be scared of them.
Clayton -
He has lots of experience to draw from. /sarcasm He has no clue about the subject.
There's poor psychology, factual inaccuracies, arbitrary definitions, nutty conspiracism and often a poor theoretical basis.
When was the last time you made a post with facts? I'd like to see this. I have a very good long term memory. I see the pattern in your posts from the time you arrived. I can't think of any non-banned member in the history of this forum that has a worse proportion of posts that do nothing but smear.
Amongst other things, no way a "grand theory of history" can be stated at all, much less so simply; the Whigs were wrong, the Marxists were wrong, Molyneux is wrong.
Also, "philosophy and reason are the opposite of ideology and will set you free", what?
Clayton -Well, perhaps such comparisons are not entirely misplaced. Just ask yourself: if we only knew that, say, 0.8% of the population will be ‘ranchers’ and the rest ‘cattle’, and we went around just randomly selecting that 0.8%, would that state survive?
I believe it has everything to do with who is ruling, hence the distinction between rulers and ruled is not entirely unjustified.
William:Molyneux is wrong.
If Molyneux is wrong, it is not by much.
Economist In Training:Stefan Molyneux is both completely nuts and seriously obnoxious.
Economist In Training:Stefan Molyneux doesn't understand the distinction between normative and positive statements. As a positive matter, it may well be untrue that states arose to serve us, it doesn't mean that there isn't some normative justification for their existence in terms of welfare maximisation or something along those lines.
Economist In Training:As a positive matter, he implies that states only existed after the neolithic revolution since there could be no excess production. The latter statement is ambiguous and somewhat ridiculous and as a matter of fact some form of governance did exist prior to the neolithic revolution.
Economist In Training:Intellectuals aren't all that well paid in all parts of the world. In fact, it's only in the US that intellectuals are really paid well. (And artists and priests well paid? You've got to be kidding me).
Economist In Training:Doesn't his argument prove too much? If liberties were gained from the industrial revolution only because it lead to greater living standards for the "farmers" why wouldn't we have more liberties today. At the very least, there are various regulations that seem to slow down economic growth without benefiting the "farmers"
Economist In Training:Scientific advances explain the vast majority of growth throughout history, with saving rates playing their part. Once again, Molyneux should do his homework.
Economist In Training:Since when do the general population think they're owned?
Economist In Training:If liberties are solely a function of profitability for governments, and governments everywhere wish to maximise profits, why don't all governments employ the same "livestock managment techniques"? Namely those that maximise their profits.
Economist In Training:"A serf is most productive when he believes he is free". Is there any evidence to support this assertion?
Economist In Training: Stefan Molyneux exemplifies everything bad about libertarianism. There's poor psychology, factual inaccuracies, arbitrary definitions, nutty conspiracism and often a poor theoretical basis.
Haters gonna hate?
filc, I actually typed my post up whilst watching the video, I watched once over in its entirety then another time with pauses to write up the points I made as they came to my mind, if you'd like you can tell me what you want me to clarify and I'll go over the video once more to make things clear.
I wouldn't need long-term memory to comfortably say the same about you. More seriously though, if you believe that than ignore my posts, to be quite honest, I think it'd be a welfare improvement. As a matter of fact, I lead a relatively busy life that doesn't allow me to spend hours on an internet discussion board, so sometimes I think I'll have to bail on discussion that hinge on generally accepted or difficult to interpret facts.
player, I really don't want to be offensive here, you look like you put a lot of thought into your posts and you seem well intentioned and generally patient, but I can't help but see your view of history as really, really cranky and that's not an argument I want to get into right now, so I'll try to answer the points you make that don't get into any of the conspiracy stuff (and note to readers, when possible I'll lump my answers to Sieben and Player together).
player:Unconsciously people know the state are thieves. They say it publicly. But they stop to the wishful thinking lies the state throws them, because they don't want to confront that hard fact and think about it. They prefer the cute view that the state is a necessary evil to protect and organize them. It's reassuring and nicer. If you were in a prison cell and were offered drugs to make it seem like a beach and not a dark empty room, you may take it.
I don't want to get into a discussion of whether or not this is true, I don't think it is but this kind of stuff is just too messy to even bother with. I'd just like to point out that all of the above could well be true, but this doesn't rule out the possibility that some form of government is welfare maximising. This is the point I was making, SM's argument goes somewhere along the lines of "people believe the government improves our lives, as a historical fact government agents have always been self interested/ evil/ sadistic "farmers", therefore the government serve some sort of good". All I was saying is that the conclusion doesn't follow, the government could very well be loaded with lots of "bad" people, but you still need to prove that it isn't good for us in spite of this.
sieben:Stefan is probably addressing people who are in support of the status quo for historical reasons. You have to show context.
Possibly, but that's not how I read his argument. Perhaps it's just me, but when people talk of government "serving" us, I tend to interpret that as being somewhere along the lines of "government is welfare maximising" or more simply "government makes our lives better" as opposed to any ideals of government employees literally being our servants (which I don't think anybody actually believes).
player:They have the best pay ever. Stability, secure jobs, comfortable, few hours and freedom of research, only working from home could beat it!
sieben: If the state supports you, you are well payed because the base case without a state is unemployment. And of course he means court-intellectuals...
Intellectuals in a few fields are very well paid in the US, my father is PhD economist and worked for a while in academia, so I'd like to think I know a little about this. As regards the few hours and freedom of research, both of those are somewhat untrue (and to the extent they are true, it comes at the expense of other perks such as pay and prestige). Most economists find themselves working in some area that they've had "recommended" to them by their advisor or in areas that are currently in fashion, and moreover, if they want to get anywhere they have to use various standard tools and techniques. As regards the few hours, granted, the spend relatively little time teaching (although, time spent teaching is inversely related to rank of school) but there's also advising, meetings, office hours and all that. Finally, there's research, which even at lower ranked places ends up taking up a lot of time and can be pretty stressful.
Granted, they do have (relatively) secure jobs, but even this isn't entirely true. The faculty can do a lot to make your life difficult even if you have tenure, and tenure isn't at all easy to get (in America it can require high publishing standards and in Europe there's a lot of bureaucratic bullshit). Ultimately, the justification most academics give for their line of employment is the fact that they enjoy research, which makes a lot of sense and cuts directly against SM's original point.
Sieben, even if make the incredulous assumption that no form of academia would exist without the state and discount the admittedly irrelevant private colleges, there's still a lot of employment for all sorts of academics. For economists there are private firms, consultancy work and financial sector work and I don't think I need to point out possible private sector employment for engineers, physicists, mathematicians, statisticians, doctors, lawyers and the like, although maybe the same case can't be made for students of gender studies.
player: It is based on the necessity you have to ask for permission, and on imposed orders on you, Still you can argue the semantics details.
See, as far as I can SM says we have various freedoms because we're granted them by our "overlords", I think it's most closer to the truth to say that we don't have certain freedoms because they haven't been taken from us. At this point, the question becomes is there any justification for further freedoms to be "taken" (I don't like this language) or for other freedoms to be granted. In other words, I just don't see the justification for thinking in terms of governments as overlords, at least not in the developed world.
sieben:Probably because of political, non-market forces.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but from what I've gleaned from your posting you seem to view government as far loss overarching than that of SM. In the sense that you view the outcome of government policy as the result of various compromises and trade offs between different interests. If I'm right about your thinking then your post makes sense, and it's actually something I'd agree with. But my impression from the video I watched and others by SM is that he views government as being far more monolithic than it actually is, in which case I think my question still poses problems for his argument.
player: Because their control is limited, we are their property but a property that can not legitimately be owned because it already has an owner, that's why there are problems. If they were to somehow telepathically control raised skeletons as work force or create robots there would be no problem. They don't own our bodies, they have power of suggestion to place ideas on our mind backed by the fear of retribution. If they demand all of us wake tomorrow at five in the morning to see Obama walk his dog his order would be disobeyed. They have to give us enough pseudo-arguments to used them as shield to betray our inner freedom-loving conscience. No one wants to go 6000 miles away to die in a desert and they know it, but they are afraid of the government retribution so they will accept a excuse (like fighting terrorism or revenge for 911) to comply and avoid the inner fight in their minds.
Right, but this already suffices for my point. Namely, government policy employees (which?) maximise given certain constraints, one of which is public opinion and preferences. Once one grants that government employees and beneficiaries are self interested as opposed to malevolent one begins to say that policy is the result of various interests, not some overarching plan by some small elite.
player:Think Soviet Russia, those who own property were far more efficient, it's close to telling them they would own their property and then take part of away, maybe through lying, statistics, psychology. If it has been proven that letting a worker keep part of his labor makes him efficient, I would risk to suggest that the same effects would be achieved by making him believe he is keeping the fruits of his labor by deceit. Test it with a friend who is about to start a business, joke with him and say "ready to break you back to work for the federal government and start giving them half your hard earned income?" I bet he will get angry or depressed and his will to start the business will have lower, he doesn't want to think about that, so he doesn't.
sieben:I guess you could compare the productivity of slaves to hired farm hands.
I wouldn't be surprised if the argument was true to an extent, namely, demoralization leads to lower productivity. But, I don't feel comfortable with his armchair psychology and I don't think it's the main factor. I feel far more comfortable putting it in terms of economics, namely, under certain regimes the incentives and institutions aren't in place to assure productivity.
sieben:I thought he did agree that science is a necessary but insufficient condition for economic growth
I don't remember seeing it, but granted, I may have been a little pedantic there.
sieben:When they agree that government has a right to steal, kidnap, and murder them.
Well, in that case, isn't it voluntary?
sieben:Because some governments are democracies, whos leaders cannot plan long term.
If some sort of monolithic elite does exist, which both Hoppe (as far as I'm aware, could be wrong) and SM purport, then this argument has a lot less force than you or Hoppe think it does.
sieben:What's wrong with his psychology? His factual innacuracies are more factual omissions; but of course, no one can include all the facts. I don't know why you think his definitions are arbitrary. AFAIK, his conspiracism on 9-11 is relatively sound, even if it does not match my own opinion.
His psychology has very little scientific basis, it's Freudian bullshit for the most and his own armchair musings for the rest. If he wants to bring some sort of scientific basis to any of this, I'd be glad to see it. As for his definitions? Libertarianism and philosophy as the opposite of ideology, really?
EIT:I actually typed my post up whilst watching the video, I watched once over in its entirety then another time with pauses to write up the points I made as they came to my mind, if you'd like you can tell me what you want me to clarify and I'll go over the video once more to make things clear.
Your posts were aimed at Molyneux specifically, not about his video. Do I need to quote you?
EDIT
I will any ways for the humor of it.
EIT:Stefan Molyneux is both completely nuts and seriously obnoxious.
What does that have to do with the video and its message?
Some were, most weren't. Like I said, if you want clarification, by all means quote me.
EIT:Some were, most weren't. Like I said, if you want clarification, by all means quote me.
I'd have to ask you to re-write your whole critique. Something smaller and more concise to a point we can actually discuss. Focus on the video, not on Molyneux.
Economist, I am under crazy time constraints, and I have decided to prioritize my school work. What little time I have for forums has to be rationed for serving keynesians on my other forum. They're trying to compare Norway to the USA, when 30% of the Norwegian government revenue is from oil. Seriously wtf. So you don't get a full reply. My basic point is that Stefan is highly rhetorical and theatrical. To me, it is mostly entertaining, and beneath it I think he does a good job at articulating the bare essential economic and political theory of greater thinkers. With respect to special interests, illuminati etc, I do think that there are many entrenched interests that shape and influence policy. I seriously doubt that the pharmaceutical industry has much to do with the military industrial complex, but financial conglomerates make it possible for these interests to become strung together. For me, its enough to say that special interests have hijacked it. The "monolithic" model of special interests is appropriate insofar as they are all united against the common man.
With regards to intellectuals, yes I do agree that many intellectuals would have a place on a free market. I do think there would be significantly fewer economists who make a living preaching statist apology... maybe there would be a lot of economists doing econometrics and modeling for companies, I don't know. But the former is the kind of intellectual SM is talking about.
More seriously though, if you believe that than ignore my posts, to be quite honest, I think it'd be a welfare improvement.
I agree. Everyone should ignore your posts.
To add to this, mixing (bad) ad hoc psychology (particularly "therapeutic" kinds) with any of the social sciences, particularly in such an informal manner ought to throw out a bajillion and a half red flags. Even more dubious than that is to be using such an approach (psychology/therapeutic) on a "philosophy" site where the majority of the audience is under the age of 25 And Molyneux is WITHOUT PEER REVIEW is absolutely irresponsible and grotesque. This only complicates itself when the man has to continually be an apologist for his own intentions.
Look if you need to go make a Molyneux bashing thread to expose his fallacies I understand. But I don't see how his science, or any science in general, has anything to do with the metaphor presented in the video.
If I'm right about your thinking then your post makes sense, and it's actually something I'd agree with. But my impression from the video I watched and others by SM is that he views government as being far more monolithic than it actually is, in which case I think my question still poses problems for his argument.
Yes, one can look at all government as farms, or whatever. The problem is, one can not sate that sociologically speaking. It can not be done, there is perhaps as low as 0 evidence that before the 17/18th century any case could be made that any culture in civilization had this line of thinking. In so much as the facts are known to us, it is outside of much of histories custom or culture to use or think in such terms. It is not a sociological or historical statement, it is a modern day aesthetic.
William, would you be so kind as to post specific cases showing what you say?
William:Yes, on can look at all government as farms, or whatever. The problem is, one can not sate that sociologically speaking. It can not be done, there is perhaps as low as 0 evidence that before the 17/18th century any case could be made that any culture in civilization had this line of thinking. It is outside of much of histories custom or culture to use or think in such terms. It is not a sociological or historical statement, it is a modern day aesthetic.
Sociology cannot be verified empirically William.
And I can not look or speak for anybody's psychology in history that isn't clearly stated, nor could I make sociological assumptions based off such an analysis