People here occasionally ask what the fastest/most effective comeback for something is. I believe these are excellent because people don't want to hear/read an essay, and mainstream already have them. "They took our jobs"/"what about the pooor"? So I think we should make a compilation. Post your own, or comment/critique others. I'll start with some of mine.
***********
MSM: Whaaa? You're an anarchist? That's chaos. Ancap: The state is an institution which is judge in its own case. As a law-monopolist, it is itself totally lawless and unaccountable. I am an anarchist because I believe so firmly in the rule of law.
MSM: Herpa derp jobs and unemployment herpa derp Ancap: When you say "job", you really mean "risk free use of another man's capital". You should ask why more capital isn't being created, and why existing capital isn't rented out more frequently. MSM: The government can do X Ancap: And serial killers CAN stop killing. Stop pretending like the state will automatically do what you want it to do, and consider what states are LIKELY to do. Hint, they actually gain power if we are successfully attacked by terrorists.
I'll post more as I think of them.
MSM: Whaaa? You're an anarchist? That's chaos. Ancap: I mean anarchist in the other definition. It's the absence of state force, not chaos.
MSM: That's going to cause unemployment / That's going to create jobs Ancap: Unemployment is caused by regulation banning employment. Everybody would be employed if wages were allowed to adjust. MSM: The government can do X Ancap: The actual consequence of government doing that has always been a decline in X. MSM: What about the poor? Ancap: They are going to be better off because of improved productivity. MSM: They want to cut taxes on the rich. Ancap: Good. Taxes on the rich make the poor worse off by delaying progress. MSM: You are just a greedy shill for the rich, I am noble and selfless. Ancap: Is it really that selfless to advocate destructive policies that hurt millions for your own self-congratulation?
Whats the answer to the threat of a security firm turning into a mob threating vandalism of property if "protection" isn't paid for?
Promoting Liberty at the expense of Tyranny.
www.e-renegade.com
Mike:Whats the answer to the threat of a security firm turning into a mob threating vandalism of property if "protection" isn't paid for?
Isn't the question here essentially "What's to stop men from evil?" Nothing really. But then isn't it true that the only argument against the state is that the state might come back?(In the form of a security firm wanting protection money).
auctionguy10: Mike:Whats the answer to the threat of a security firm turning into a mob threating vandalism of property if "protection" isn't paid for? Isn't the question here essentially "What's to stop men from evil?" Nothing really. But then isn't it true that the only argument against the state is that the state might come back?(In the form of a security firm wanting protection money).
Crime doesn't pay... most criminals outside the state are poor, indicating that without public financing, theft is uneconomic.
Collective action problem of the mob - under anarchy, bad law because a public good while good law becomes a private good
If you can predict it, you can prevent it.
For most things now I just link government's actions to only being feasible through force.
MSM: "bla bla government could/should do X" Ancap: "Government can only do X through force / the money it spends on X is extorted from the population. Sounds very uncivilized and barbaric to me"
Works for pretty much any topic and once you establish that point all the other points just topple down.
Nahh cus you get the socialists who are ballsy enough to just say they advocate forcing people to do stuff for the greater good.
Hmm... Free market countries will always score lower on economic metrics because freer immigration and capital mobility decreases per capita productivity in the country, even though it improves it on an international level. Example - allowing 1bn people who live on less than a dollar a day to immigrate would drastically cut american wages, but that would be an ultra free market policy and be better for those people.
Example - allowing 1bn people who live on less than a dollar a day to immigrate would drastically cut american wages, but that would be an ultra free market policy and be better for those people.
It should be true, therefore it is true?
Tho I agree with your thoughts on migration (except for the wage part). I don't think that's a very good 1 liner.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Sieben,
What other option do we have?
"There is simply no other choice than this: either to abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way." -Mises
You can't hurry up good times by waiting for them.
Sieben: Nahh cus you get the socialists who are ballsy enough to just say they advocate forcing people to do stuff for the greater good.
Isn't it a good thing to find that out early anyways? If someone has that viewpoint then any debate you have about anything will end up in a never ending argument and neither side will budge. And all because you two disagree on this single issue, if you can establish this difference in morality early on then you can save yourself a lot of headache and just agree to disagree and move on to the next person.
EIK:It should be true, therefore it is true?
EIK:Tho I agree with your thoughts on migration (except for the wage part).
EIK: I don't think that's a very good 1 liner.
mahall:"There is simply no other choice than this: either to abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way." -Mises
Being a person is not illegal.
What about the wage part? That wages in America would fall? Look per capita they probably would in the short term, if only because you're taking a bunch of totally unskilled people and re-calculating metrics with them. Of course productivity per capita will fall. Of course literacy and health quality will fall... State socies look at stuff by country, which is a totally arbitrary sample space. This is an implicit demonstration of that.
Of course wages would fall. Ownership sure isn't going to take any cuts if they don't have to. Where we disagree is on whether or not that's a good thing.
freeradicals: Isn't it a good thing to find that out early anyways? If someone has that viewpoint then any debate you have about anything will end up in a never ending argument and neither side will budge. And all because you two disagree on this single issue, if you can establish this difference in morality early on then you can save yourself a lot of headache and just agree to disagree and move on to the next person.
MSM: Herpa derp jobs and unemployment herpa derp Ancap: When you say "job", you really mean "risk free use of another man's capital". You should ask why more capital isn't being created, and why existing capital isn't rented out more frequently.
I also have to take issue with this, if I may. It seems strange to say the low paid worker that would lose his house, and probably break up his family, lose his easy access to food, have to hope he can find another job, etc.... is using the man who will maybe have to not buy a new BMW this year's capital "risk free."
EDIT: oh yeah, and many times he is taking very large personal risks just by doing the job like; coal miners, or ice road truckers, etc.
Personally though? Its not enough. Even if they lose on morality, I want them to lose on every single point they use to support socialism. No matter how much they lose on 99% of issues, they will hang on to every last iota to justify the welfare state. I will hunt them down untill there is nothing left.
Would you shoot a welfare satist for it? (I know, aggression and all that. it's just a joke... jeez)
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:I also have to take issue with this, if I may. It seems strange to say the low paid worker that would lose his house, and probably break up his family, lose his easy access to food, have to hope he can find another job, etc.... is using the man who will maybe have to not buy a new BMW this year's capital "risk free."
EIK:EDIT: oh yeah, and many times he is taking very large personal risks just by doing the job like; coal miners, or ice road truckers, etc.
The word "use" is like, to do stuff with, not to "exploit".
I am using it in that context.
And risk free is with respect to rate of return. Not absolute quality of life
I understand that. But someone who has thought about the issue will tear through that "risk free" notion in seconds. It's vague, and appealing... like syances (is that spelled right? Ghost talking?). But the substance is lacking. The lowly worker arguably has far more at risk than ownership.
Remember if ethics doesn't work, make a utilitarian argument, and vice versa. Bust out some Rothbard, or bust out some Friedman. Because your going to get someone complaining about either or.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Most of these "snap" responses are multiple sentences long. The fact of the matter is that we do not have any snap responses, because we go against conventional wisdom. Only those arguing for the conventional wisdom can ever have snap responses which the general public understand.
Political Atheists Blog
EIK:I understand that. But someone who has thought about the issue will tear through that "risk free" notion in seconds. It's vague, and appealing... like syances (is that spelled right? Ghost talking?). But the substance is lacking. The lowly worker arguably has far more at risk than ownership.
I KNOW that this definition of employment is wrong. That's the point. That people aren't really looking for "jobs", they're looking to use someone else's capital with a gauranteed stream of income. Obviously any sane person would concede that sustenance farmers are "employed", as are people who play the stock market on their own (maybe poorly). It demonstrates that there aren't a lack of jobs, there are a lack of jobs conforming to the whitebread American model. That's fine, but if the mainstream is really concerned with that subset of jobs, you have to start asking specific questions about capital rent and risk preferences.
Krazy Kaju:Most of these "snap" responses are multiple sentences long. The fact of the matter is that we do not have any snap responses, because we go against conventional wisdom. Only those arguing for the conventional wisdom can ever have snap responses which the general public understand.
"They took our jobs!"
"But made us richer anyway by lowering our prices!"
Why anarchy fails
Your disdain for the poor will not win you many arguments.
Here's a one liner that basically goes with what you're saying;
"Job? You mean a lazy free loader exploiting ownership?"
Sieben: You don't convince people this way.
You don't convince people this way.
Sieben: Personally though? Its not enough. Even if they lose on morality, I want them to lose on every single point they use to support socialism. No matter how much they lose on 99% of issues, they will hang on to every last iota to justify the welfare state. I will hunt them down untill there is nothing left.
Well maybe I have just not been a good messenger. I have gotten in numerous debates with my father's friend, who used to be pretty much a full-fledged marxist, but since backed off a little bit and is now just very left-democrat. At least we agreed on privatizing education and foreign policy (non-intervention). However, for some reason every other topic becomes an argument and ultimately rooted in the same thing, he believes coercion is justified, necessary and not immoral, while I disagree. So it became clear that our disagreements in our debates about various policies and such stemmed from this single top-level idea. I know his arguments are contradictory, especially if he believes in privatizing education, and I've tried to point it out but it hasn't work, I think another problem also is that he has known me since I was a baby and is 30+ years older than me and would never admit he is wrong to a "kid"
EIK:"Job? You mean a lazy free loader exploiting ownership?"
He can do the work himself. I mean, then he could really, justifiably, call himself a "self-made man."
Seriously, are you so far gone you really believe that?
Well most people can be sustenance farmers. It isn't glamorous but if we're just talking about "employment" its true.
They could be, it's true. Unfortunately, only theoretically. You're not farming at all in an apt. And you're not farming subsistence on 1/2 an acre.
MSM: Whaaa? You're an anarchist? That's chaos. Chaos like when you appoint people to run a country and they destroy the currency, or chaos like the internet, which is largely unregulated?
MSM: That's going to cause unemployment / That's going to create jobs How? (This answer is probably the best for the first three statements.) MSM: The government can do X Can't think of a single example that proves it. MSM: What about the poor? I don't know. How are they doing now? MSM: They want to cut taxes on the rich. Define rich. Also, are you claiming that rich people never spend money on things that can benefit others? Because I'm pretty sure they give more to charities in a year than you even make in ten. (Great to say to middle-class workers!) MSM: You are just a greedy shill for the rich, I am noble and selfless. Can I have five thousand dollars for my operation? I can't afford it. Yeah. That's what I thought. Selfless indeed. Ass.
EIK:They could be, it's true. Unfortunately, only theoretically. You're not farming at all in an apt. And you're not farming subsistence on 1/2 an acre.
MSM: You are just a greedy shill for the rich, I am noble and selfless. Can I have five thousand dollars for my operation? I can't afford it. Yeah. That's what I thought. Selfless indeed. Ass.
Interestingly enough, everybody's favorite lefty Michael Moore paid $10k to one of his biggest critics when the critic was going to have to shut his site down because his wife needed an operation.
Whether or not he did it so he could put it in a movie and pat himself on the back publicly is irrelevant (but probly true lol). He still did it.
^Yeah out of all the people who needed money for an operation, MM just happened to pick one of his strongest critics.
Sounds to me like his critics know how to make a good investment. But remember...Michael Moore is one of the greedy, capitalist fat-cats, who can throw money around like that. Those are the kind of people that the asking these questions are supposed to hate vehemently. Ergo, the person my response applies to will likely not have that kind of cash to throw around, and certainly wouldn't do so selflessly Is it selfless to hand over five grand to win an argument? If it comes down to it, is it selfless to toss 10k at a one's critics, or is it merely thinking of the future?
But the notion is pointless. The fact of the matter is that the "noble and selfless" are only such insofar as they are willing to take from others to pay for the medical expenses of those they feel sympathy for.
Even if Mr. Moore's intentions were "clean," his willingness to donate money to another person for whatever reason does not give him the slightest bit of authority to take mine, or anyone else's.
To: Anarchy=Chaos.
"Yeah, because the only thing stopping me from shooting you in the face and taking your wallet is fear of punishment."
To: Government Jobs
"How much will each job pay? How much will be appropriated, per job?"
To: Government Competence re: X
"So you're saying that you can't think of any way to do X other than pointing guns at the heads of innocents? Why should your incompetence be a rationalization for pointing guns at innocents?"
To: The Poor
"People kept slaves for thousands of years... and profited. Fact is, the productivity of an enslaved person is usually better than subsistence. Anybody who can't make enough to survive in a free society... well... he'd better be a sympathetic figure."
To: Cut taxes on rich
"Oh my God! They're letting people keep what they earn! Unless you have some evidence it was earned by criminal activity, shut up."
To: Ad Hominem
"Bah. Goddamn goon."
Opportunity cost of the mob members. Crime doesn't pay... most criminals outside the state are poor, indicating that without public financing, theft is uneconomic. Collective action problem of the mob - under anarchy, bad law because a public good while good law becomes a private good If you can predict it, you can prevent it.
xarthaz:The strongest group robbers protecting their "herd" from being overmilked by the little robbers.
MSM: Restaurants need to be more regulated and should have to display nutrition information (e.g. calories, fat, carbs, etc) about their meals.
Ancap: Should you then every time you have a dinner party or cook for your family? Otherwise, how are they going to know if what you're serving them is healthy?
This may be followed with:
MSM: But, but... They can just go make their own dinner/No one's forcing them to eat my food/
Ancap: ...
Libertyandlife: Remember if ethics doesn't work, make a utilitarian argument, and vice versa. Bust out some Rothbard, or bust out some Friedman. Because your going to get someone complaining about either or.
To quote myself, "If all one cares about is winning arguments by any means necessary, and not about the truth of the position, or clarity regarding why you yourself want the social order to be a certain way, then I suppose it's not a "versus scenario". If one adopts such a sophistic approach, there aren't any versus scenarios with regard to arguments. You could take this approach as far as you want to go. "Libertarianism, because of human utility! You don't understand economics? Okay, libertarianism because the state violates natural rights! You're religious? Okay, libertarianism, because the state violates God-given rights! You're into logic? Okay, libertarianism because to advocate anything else would be a performative contradiction! You're into evolution? Okay, libertarianism because it furthers the species! You're into aliens? Okay, libertarianism because Xenu demands it!"
To me this approach is not only distasteful, but it is ultimately counterproductive, because it discredits us in the eyes of others. I think this eclectic approach to argumentation betrays a tendency to fetishize libertarianism, and the latter causes non-libertarians to dismiss us as a monomaniacal sect who has nothing to say to those who aren't already "liberty lovers" at a gut level."