GS:Because being a successful entrepreneur in regard the buisness of maintaining towns will no doubt be profitable.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Of course there is. You're attempting to make a scientific assertion of sorts. If there's nothing objective about it then there's no point at all in making it.
I suggest you inform Mises of this. Or otherwise read The Epistemological Problems of Economics.
What all this boils down to is an attempt to justify conservatism on scientific grounds. That's why ridiculous and positivistic assertions such as 'teenagers are rebelious becuase of their age' are made. It also explains the psychobabble hoppe comes up with when discussing the alleged motivations of 'left-libertarians' to oppose closed borders.
I suggest you discuss this with someone who cares. You would not know what Hoppe does or does not come up with because you just rely on second-hand sources and brief articles. So please don't presume yourself in a position to lecture me on this. I bore of it.
Now it's social darwinism ?
This is related to social darwinism, how?
In your mind.
In actual fact.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Brainpolice:I never said that. The straw men here are your own.
You did. You said my words in regard to the poor were likely to turn them off libertarianism. Which is meaningless unless you plan on deceiving them.
Brainpolice:In the process of "merely stating that it is a better system than democracy", he has belittled its problems and dangers. He paints a rosy picture of it.
No, he doesn't. Perhaps you didn't read it carefully enough.
Brainpolice:You can repeatedly tell me to read Hoppe (which I've already done) until you are blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that private property does not inherently equal or require cultural conservatism.
No and yet in the long term there will be conservative outcomes.
Brainpolice:This is nothing but a reflection of your personal preferances and culture and has nothing to do with libertarianism in general
Apparently you're not listening.
Brainpolice:You're writting off half the libertarian movement.
Then so be it.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Brainpolice: there is no "natural elite" in the sense of a "natural elite" of people fit to be rulers.
No shit. Fortunately based on this misunderstanding (or perhaps you're just being purposefully stupid?) you go on to attack a strawman. As usual. Nobody has ever said that natural elites would be rulers. Merely that they would resolve the less formal disputes between members of the community.
Brainpolice:I'm talking specifically about political authority. Noone is a "natural elite" in this sense, because noone has a legitimate claim to political authority (at least in the statist sense of the term).
Strawman.
Brainpolice:Not really - I'm just applying your very same line of argument to other things, and now you're hypocritically backpeddling when the things in question might be things you personally like. The fact of the matter is that through the bulk of history, the state has relied heavily on religion for its legitimacy. It's only in the past few hundred years that this has changed significantly.
Nonsense, I'm not backpeddling. I'm saying that whereas egalitarianism is a distinctly statist religion isn't. It's merely been coopted by the state.
Brainpolice:Nationalism is used in democracies all the time; each democracy is partially dependant on its own sense of nationalism. And nationalism and racism can be and have been used to justify states. Nationalism is one of the most fundamental ideologies that states can manipulate, by appealing to people's sense of loyalty to regions. You're simply wrong.
Democratic states do not thrive on racism. Democratic states are inherently egalitarian, which is not compatible with racism. Nationalism, perhaps I'll give you that one. But so what?
Brainpolice:I was showing that the idea of natural elites easily can be used as an argument for the legitimacy of statism, by claiming those in the state to BE the "natural elite". This isn't irrelevant. Obviously you define the "natural elite" as being outside of the state, but that doesn't mean that the concept of a "natural elite" can't be and hasn't in fact been used to justify the power of states and those in patronage with them.
So what? Like I said private property has been used to justify slavery, freedom has been used to justify was a prosperity taxes. This said, the state doesn't use the concept of natural elites because the state historically suppresses them, even monarchical states.
Brainpolice:Are you just going to brush off my point about conflict entirely? Are you denying that politics relies on identity-conflict? I don't see what there is to disagree about!
Yes, the state does rely on conflict. Such as the conflict created by egalitarianism, forced integration would an example of this.
Brainpolice:I'm sorry, you've conflated two related yet not necessarily directly correlated concepts: redistribution and democracy. Redistribution is a particular type of state policy that exists in one form or another in ALL states. All states are redisitributive by their very nature. Secondly, democracy does not in actual fact lead to egalitarian distribution - all you have to do is look around yourself to see that.
I don't suppose you could do me the favour of highlighting a democratic state that hasn't engaged in redistribution?
A private ruler must respect property rights simply because his wealth depends on clearly defined laws explaining what is, and isn't legitimate property and how people should act in regards to this. The same doesn't apply for democracy because they don't own their wealth. They're merely temporary caretakers.
Whether or not democracy does or doesn't lead to egalitarian distribution doesn't mean anything. The fact is the justification and implications of democracy, is equality.
Brainpolice:We've already been over this. I don't know how many times I have to repeat the same clarifications to you, because your generalizations are incorrect. Egalitariansm is not statist by definition (one can be an egalitarian anti-statist), and the state is not egalitarian, such a claim is blatantly absurd. The state does not represent equality, it is a power heirarchy! A political heirarchy is not egalitarian in nature, no matter how much it panders to egalitarian sentiments to justify itself. All states are predicated on economic and power inequality, and they do not make things in society more equal.
One can be an egalitarian anti statist, so what? States abolish private property,and the right to exclusion. Without the right to exclude much of the natural inequality amongst men disappears, not to mention the public property, the egalitarian nonsense spewed the state and its apologists and the pandering to mediocrity.
I'll repeat, private property and the right to exclusion emphaises the natural inequalities within society. Abolishing this, like the state does, is therefore egalitarian.
Brainpolice:Once again, this classist elitism is indefensible and ridiculous. It does not necessarily follow from the fact that someone is poor that they are poor because they are less intelligent or capable, and it does not necessarily follow from the fact that someone is rich that they are more intelligent and capable. Some people are born into poverty, some people are born into wealth. Some people are negatively effected by environmental conditions, some people are positively effected by legal privileges. And correlation does not equal causation. To completely overlook the effect of the political system and intergenerational issues, and just act like whatever the status quo happens to be is purely based on merit, is naive. Your class analysis is no better than Marx's; you've just reversed his class roles.
Why is it indefensible? Because you keep posting strawmen? I've never ever said the poor are all less intelligent nor that the rich are all smarter. I actually explicitely said otherwise.
Stop attacking a strawman. I said as a general rule. And for you to deny that assumes there are no differences between men, which is just silly.
Brainpolice:The "stupid rich" are constantly being bailed out by the government with billions of dollars (from the poor and middle classes) whenever they fail. The poor, in comparison, can declare bankrupcy or go on a welfare system that amounts to chump change and stagnation.
They're by no means stupid. And no, not all the rich are bailed out, many lose millions and many poor make millions. You're just being evavise and posting red herrings.
Brainpolice:You have your facts wrong. The vast majority of the poor are not on welfar
Yes they are. Not to mention public healthcare and other such schemes.
Brainpolice:There's no way for you to know the specific mental processes of people in this way.
You're just being silly now. Admit it, the poor aren't the heroes you'd love them to be. There's a damn good reason that most libertarians comes from middle and upper class backgrounds.
Most poor have no problems accepting welfare. For the reasons I explained. Stop being so childish and accept that you're wrong.
Brainpolice:I disagree. No government rests on consent. Only asquiescance.
Which amounts to consent. Either admit that you were lying about agreeing with La Boetie like you've been saying all along or that you're changing your position now it's convenient. Else, stop being pedantic.
Brainpolice:No need to backpeddle, since you clearly have not understood what I'm saying yet, despite the fact that it has been explained in depth.
Or, you're wrong.
Brainpolice:I don't favor "equality" like a communist does, I've repeatedly made the point that I'm not talking about absolute equality, I'm talking about mutual aid for those on the lower rung. You're misrepresenting me again.
Before you said egalitarianism meant good outcomes? You're not to keen on sticking to one meaning of words are you? Stop the intellectual dishonesty. There's nothing egalitarian about giving voluntary aid to the poor.
Brainpolice:I think that Rothbard's views on children were incorrect.
And yet earlier you appealed to his authority on this? Be consistant.
Brainpolice:I'm sorry, this is just you speaking from your own cultural bias to deny the rights of a group of people you don't like. Your claim that such people are incapable of rational argumentation (mostly due to cultural walls to the extent that this is true) is ridiculous. Furthermore, the idea that one must have a conception of property rights to have any rights at all is ridiculous. One could argue that the natives in America had no concept of property rights and use this to justify just taking all of their land. The problem is that in actual fact they do have property that they actively occupied and labored upon. The criteria for just appropriation of property doesn't go out the window just because a certain culture has its own customs that you don't like. Sharing your culture is not a prerequisite to having rights.
Why is it ridiculous? These people simply aren't capable of rational argumentation, whether this is biological or cultural makes no differences. The fact is they often cannot be brought within the divsion of labour and without any concept of property rights it's impossible that they own anything. Moreover they have no legitimate claim to any of this territory and as such it's f ree to be homesteaded.
As for the native Americans even if they did have the concept of property rights they had no proof in regards to who owned what and as such the land was free to be homesteaded.
Brainpolice:Then they DO have some rights! You can't have it both ways.
I never said they don't.
Brainpolice:What age is this where rational argumentation becomes possible? There is no such age.
Indeed, hence all the twins that debate whilst still inside the womb.
Juan: GS:Because being a successful entrepreneur in regard the buisness of maintaining towns will no doubt be profitable. Oh my. Can't you see that monarchy is obsolete ? As was discussed elsewhere the idea that people would choose to live under private 'voluntary' tyranny is ridiculous.
You're right. We need the government to protect out alternative lifestyles!
You would not know what Hoppe does or does not come up with because you just rely on second-hand sources and brief articles.
So please don't presume yourself in a position to lecture me on this.
There is no inherent differance between egalitarianism and religion in this regaurd. Once again, egalitarianism is not inherently statist. Both egalitarianism and religion can theoretically be both state-independant and statist in nature.
It by no means follows from that fact that a ruler is individual or "private" that they will respect private property rights. This entire notion of monarchy being benign is predicated on the monarch being a libertarian. Furthermore, the laws on what is just property in a monarchy are NOT clearly defined in conjunction with libertarian property theory, and the monarch's claim to ownership is unjust under libertarian property theory.
Anarchism opposes rulers - both "private" and "public".
One can be an egalitarian anti statist, so what? States abolish private property,and the right to exclusion.
I think you're highly confused about the nature of the state. No state abolishes private property, not even communist ones. States claim and steal private property and then decide to exclude and redistribute it. The state claims the right to exclusion itself, and inherently is exclusive.
Without the right to exclude much of the natural inequality amongst men disappears, not to mention the public property, the egalitarian nonsense spewed the state and its apologists and the pandering to mediocrity.
Once again, you seem to be functioning under the delusion that states actually make things more equal. They don't.
How many times do I have to point out to you that the very existance of a state is based on inequality - the institution is a heirarchical oligarchy. We are not "equal" to the state and the state does not make us "equal" to eachother.
Oh yes - they are eternalizing the cost of their inability to properly allocate resources onto everyone in society.
Such things are hardly poor-specific.
You're just being silly now. Admit it, the poor aren't the heroes you'd love them to be. There's a damn good reason that most libertarians comes from middle and upper class backgrounds. Most poor have no problems accepting welfare. For the reasons I explained. Stop being so childish and accept that you're wrong.
You're being ridiculously rhetorical. I never claimed that the poor are "heroes".
Most rich have no problems acceptive welfare, and they recieve most of it.
No, it isn't the same thing as consent. If a mugger puts a gun to my head and I asquiesce by giving him my wallet, does this mean that theft is "voluntary"? No. And I don't disagree with La Boetie, I disagree with your conservative interpretation of La Boetie.
That's exactly what it is: voluntary egalitarianism. You're hung up on the stigma of a word.
I appealed to his authority at least insofar as equal negative rights for adults is concerned. FANL and TEOL very clearly work out a way of universalizing the concept of individual rights. Rothbard even refers to it as a "universal ethic".
Why is it ridiculous? These people simply aren't capable of rational argumentation, whether this is biological or cultural makes no differences.
The claim that they are not capable of rational argumentation is highly dubious because the fact of the matter is that linguistic barriers exist. That doesn't mean they are incapable of rational thought and argumentation. The implication of what you're saying reduces to denying that certain people have any rights because of linguistic barriers and cultural differances. That is a conservative position, not a libertarian one.
The fact is they often cannot be brought within the divsion of labour and without any concept of property rights it's impossible that they own anything.
I'm sorry, this is nonsensical. They don't need to have a particular concept of property to occupy and use property in actual fact. The fact that someone isn't well-versed in Lockean or Rothbardian property rights theory does not nullifying their property rights! Furthermore, the claim that such societies have zero concept of property rights is dubious to begin with - at a minimum, they have a concept of possession, and areas that they commonly used. You can't just disregaurd their possession and common use of various property wholesale and proclaim it "homesteadable" as if it's abandoned or completely baren. This is just a conservative rationale for colonialism and cultural exploitation. Clearly the reality of ownership in such situations is a mixed bag.
Moreover they have no legitimate claim to any of this territory and as such it's f ree to be homesteaded.
NOONE has a legitimate claim to the entire territory as such irrespective of labor and use. In the case of America, for example, some portions were legitimtely owned by natives, some portions were not, some portions were completely barren and free to be homesteaded. Some colonials legitimately homesteaded land, some stole land. The establishment of America was a mixed bag between land theft and homesteading. By no means can you use libertarian property theory to justify the exproportiation of land that the natives actually occupied and used.
GS:These people simply aren't capable of rational argumentation, whether this is biological or cultural makes no differences.
Brainpolice:the state does not make us "equal" to eachother.
In Sweden, and other welfare states, the redistribution of wealth is a primary task of government. One could say that the welfare state is a State with the specific purpose to redistribute wealth in society, with the purpose of making people more equal. With equal in this context I don’t mean the universality of rights, but rather material equality - that is forcefully created by the State
GilesStratton:In any case I really don't think the word anarchism correctly captures the essence of extreme classic liberalism. Furthermore I don't want to have to associate with a bunch of lefitst thugs, they can have their word.
I call myself a liberal. I see no point in adopting another term for my views. It's the only term I like.
I've read that and also "Theory and History". I don't see how your naming a book refutes what I said. Not to mention that vaguely invoking Mises proves nothing, you know.
It proves that you do not know how praxeology proceeds. It does not need to assume objectively provable ends; only that agents hold them. It will then provide an analysis fo the means to achieve them. So it has nothing to do with naming a book but to do with the fact that you're oblivious to what Mises lays out in it.
Don't be silly. I don't need to waste useful time reading everything a person writes to be able to know what he thinks. For instance hoppe argues here (in a 'scholarly' article for the JLS) that "Theoretically bankrupt, the left-libertarian open border stance can be understood only psychologically." and then the psychobabble begins
Which is on equal footing to your constant ascription of motives to individuals, e.g. insisting they're conservative, or racist, or whatever else the king of anarchism finds to his distaste. Hence, I will begin caring when you put an end to your silly little antics.
Lecture you on what ? It's you the one who are lecturing me on how to read an author.
Do put an end to your gratuitous whining.
In that the measure of success of a society(you say) is how old it is -- how able to survive it is.
Yes. I, on the other hand, was assuming it is an end of any given number of agents desiring market anarchism not to have it implode on them within a brief period of time. Is this social darwinism too?
Juan:Correct me if I'm wrong : I think that the idea of the abolition of the state - that is, introducing competition in the business of security production, was proposed by de Molinari in 1849 : http://praxeology.net/GM-PS.htmAnd de Molinari was a liberal - or a 'classical' liberal...So that's what we are - liberals - in the original sense of the word.
You are totally right! The so-called "anarcho-capitalist" view is just liberalism.
It proves that you do not know how praxeology proceeds. It does not need to assume objectively provable ends;
Hoppe is not saying all enclaves based on private property will be culturally conservative; just the most successful ones.
Which is on equal footing to your constant ascription of motives to individuals, e.g. insisting they're conservative, or racist, or whatever else the king of anarchism finds to his distaste.
I, on the other hand, was assuming it is an end of any given number of agents desiring market anarchism not to have it implode on them within a brief period of time.
C.H. Hellstrom:You are totally right! The so-called "anarcho-capitalist" view is just liberalism.
Juan: C.H. Hellstrom:You are totally right! The so-called "anarcho-capitalist" view is just liberalism. I'm glad you agree =] -- Too bad the word liberalism was stolen by anglo-american social democrats. But, historically, anarcho-capitalism is just radical liberalism....
Lets take it back!
I call myself a market anarchist amongst those who know what the hell it means. Amongst those who do not, I don't bother with labels - I just explain my positions.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
Brainpolice:There is no inherent differance between egalitarianism and religion in this regaurd. Once again, egalitarianism is not inherently statist. Both egalitarianism and religion can theoretically be both state-independant and statist in nature.
You're incorrect. In both senses. Christianity is inherently anti - state. As for egalitarianism, it is the result of the abolition of private property, which occurs and can only occur as a result of the state. In the context of the state, we become citizens as opposed to individuals.
Brainpolice:t by no means follows from that fact that a ruler is individual or "private" that they will respect private property rights. This entire notion of monarchy being benign is predicated on the monarch being a libertarian. Furthermore, the laws on what is just property in a monarchy are NOT clearly defined in conjunction with libertarian property theory, and the monarch's claim to ownership is unjust under libertarian property theory.
Yes, the monarchs claim is. So what? That's not the issue in question. The fact is the monarchs property still rests on some understanding of property rights. If they're not clearly defined or if they're altogether disregarded his own property is suffer. As opposed to a public government who doesn't own the government and has to pander to different sections of the population in order to gain a majority support. This includes disregarding the property rights of the minorty - the rich.
And it does not in the least bit depend on the monarch being a libertarian. It has to do with self interest, the monarch can pass his property on and owns it himself, the corollary being that he can sell it on the market and that it has a price. The implications of this is that not only does he have an interest in keeping the property value high, but more importantly, he knows whether or not his actions has harmed his property value. As we all agree intervention in the economy reduces overall wealth, he will tend to refrain from this.
There are more issues, but as you've allegedly read Hoppe you know these. No matter how much you try to ignore them.
Brainpolice:Anarchism opposes rulers - both "private" and "public".
Exactly why Hoppe condemns monarchs.
Brainpolice:I think you're highly confused about the nature of the state. No state abolishes private property, not even communist ones. States claim and steal private property and then decide to exclude and redistribute it. The state claims the right to exclusion itself, and inherently is exclusive.
Yes, all states abolish private property. What do you think property tax and income tax means?
Brainpolice:Once again, you seem to be functioning under the delusion that states actually make things more equal. They don't.
You're attacking a strawman. But anyway, they do. Some people do get every rich as a result of the state and in that regard, yes, they make wealth more unevenly distributed. And yet the general population all become more mediocre and more alike. As a result of the inability to exclude and the destruction of private property.
Brainpolice:Oh yes - they are eternalizing the cost of their inability to properly allocate resources onto everyone in society.
You're aware of the Austrian Theory of the Buisness Cycle, I take it? Well one of it's most satisfying aspects is this: it correctly explains why otherwise brilliant entreprenuers make huge errors and allocate resources wrongly. Same applies to these rich that get hand outs. They may, or may not, be very intelligent and yet their inability to allocate resources does not reflect this. The institutional arrangements are to blame, not the people that are trapped inside them.
Brainpolice:Such things are hardly poor-specific.
Who benefits most from socialized medicine, defense etc? Those that would otherwise be able to afford it or those that wouldn't? Those that use private healthcare anyway or those that rely on the state? Stop the ad hoc bullshit.
The poor receive welfare, in many forms. If you're denying this you're just denying reality. Only more openly that you usually do.
Brainpolice:Most rich have no problems acceptive welfare, and they recieve most of it.
And? If the poor are whats the difference? The problem is that nobody whines at the plight of the rich. There was widespread opposition to the bailouts. Granted, it was ignored but the bailout was by no means popular. On the other hand mention to the average person that you intend to abolish unemployment welfare or better yet socialised medicine. They'll call you a monster.
Brainpolice:No, it isn't the same thing as consent. If a mugger puts a gun to my head and I asquiesce by giving him my wallet, does this mean that theft is "voluntary"? No. And I don't disagree with La Boetie, I disagree with your conservative interpretation of La Boetie.
What's the problem with the conservative intepretation? Mises, Hoppe and Rothbard are three conservatives and they've all gained from his insights (although I think Mises cited Hume saying more or less the same thing). False analogy in any case. Once again though, if you're denying that most people support the government you'd be an idiot. Sorry to break it to you, anarchists are still the minority. If you disagree with this then tell me why the state hasn't crumbled under it's own weight.
And for all practical purposes complacency regarding the state might as well be consent.
Brainpolice:That's exactly what it is: voluntary egalitarianism. You're hung up on the stigma of a word.
How on earth is a situation in which one party is clearly in a position of authority or superiority egalitarian? You're twisting words. Double plus ungood.
Brainpolice:I appealed to his authority at least insofar as equal negative rights for adults is concerned. FANL and TEOL very clearly work out a way of universalizing the concept of individual rights. Rothbard even refers to it as a "universal ethic".
Either they're universal, with certain conditions. Or they're not universal because they don't grant rights to animals. Unless you think dogs are capable of rational argumentation and can be brought within the division of labour? Wouldn't suprise me.
Brainpolice:The claim that they are not capable of rational argumentation is highly dubious because the fact of the matter is that linguistic barriers exist. That doesn't mean they are incapable of rational thought and argumentation. The implication of what you're saying reduces to denying that certain people have any rights because of linguistic barriers and cultural differances. That is a conservative position, not a libertarian one.
They're not capable of it amongst themselves, there's no linguistic barriers there. But I c ould just as easily say we don't know that dogs are not capable of it. After all, there is a language barrier.
Brainpolice: The fact that someone isn't well-versed in Lockean or Rothbardian property rights theory does not nullifying their property rights!
And yet if they have no idea of the concept of property they cannot possess it. Once again, like animals.
Brainpolice:urthermore, the claim that such societies have zero concept of property rights is dubious to begin with - at a minimum, they have a concept of possession, and areas that they commonly used.
Some Indian tribes did have a concept of property rights. That doesn't mean all primitives did.
Brainpolice:You can't just disregaurd their possession and common use of various property wholesale and proclaim it "homesteadable" as if it's abandoned or completely baren.
If it doesn't belong to anybody and nobody can prove their ownership, it's up for grabs.
The truth of the matter is this: there are people who cannot be brought within the division of labour and peaceful exchange. As such, they must be removed from society. If they continue to violate property rights, they must be dealt with. Stop defending people whose existance is not compatible with property rights, just because they have dark skin. Stop letting your white guilt get in the way of your reason.
GilesStratton:The truth of the matter is this: there are people who cannot be brought within the division of labour and peaceful exchange. As such, they must be removed from society. If they continue to violate property rights, they must be dealt with. Stop defending people whose existance is not compatible with property rights, just because they have dark skin.
Juan:The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Oh god. Inequality, how horrible.
(It's natural, by the way)
He's not criticizing the concept of inequality. He's criticizing racism. People are individuals. Race is a collectivist concept that should mean absolutely nothing to a libertarian.
MacFall:Race is a collectivist concept that should mean absolutely nothing to a libertarian.
Yes, and to say all blacks are stupid, simply as a result of belonging to a particular race is one thing. It's a completely different thing to say that biological factors can explain certain traits amongst individuals. The former is collectivist, the latter is realistic. It's also completely rational to say that people generally distrust and dislike those different from them.
So you're talking about an objective standard for success. Not only that, but a continuous standard which lets you rank 'enclaves'(...) as 'more' or 'less' successful.
Not really. My point was praxeologists do not need to assume objective standards for success; they can simply go by what most people would prefer.
Don't tell me that individual actions are successful from the point of view of achieving or not individual ends because that's not what's being discussed.
Yeah...
I could claim that anarcho-communist 'enclaves' will be successful from the point of view of anarcho commies, and so on.
If their aims are for them not to result in destitution and poverty, no, not really.
Besides, you and Stranger tried to provide (different...) objective ways for measuring 'success', so now attempting to turn the issue into a subjective one contradicts your previous attempt at providing an objective measure of success.
I recall Stranger providing his definition. I do not recall providing one myself. Nor do I recall being committed to whatever Stranger says. So...
Not at all. If X is constantly exposing conservatives views I can safely call X a conservative. I'm not getting into why X is a conservative. There's no psychobabble in my labeling people as conservatives when in fact that's what they are.
No, I'm referring more to your allusions of being closet-monarchists etc etc.
Some people here believe that race X is superior to race Y so according to the dictionary they are racist. I'm soooo sorry that your political correctness is offended by my calling a spade a spade.
No, you can call them racists until you go blue in the face. Personally, I do not care. From the minute they do not wish to involve the state their preferences become neutral to me, hence irrelevant. If you think it is sufficient to discard their arguments, though, you're in error.
And the way to do that is 'social conservatism' ? Here you go again assuming what you supposedly want to prove ?
If I simply stated that it is, that would be assuming what I want to prove. But I didn't. So it isn't. I was clarifying something for the sake of GS and BP, when you simply jumped in. Now, I am done with this.
Jon Irenicus:I recall Stranger providing his definition. I do not recall providing one myself. Nor do I recall being committed to whatever Stranger says. So...
In any case, it's not really a contradiction is it? When Stranger claims that wealth is a measure of their success doesn't that merely mean that a large number of people rank a particular end highly on their value scales? In this case, the end is a culturally conservative community.
Well more accurately it'd be the means. Or rather a means. I think Hoppe is a bit too slanted to the conservative end of the spectrum, but the death of the welfare state will definitely necessitate the revival of civil society in its multitudinous forms, which may include the church, family, and on the non-conservative side mutual aid societies such as "friendlies" &c. I would not be personally inclined to inhabit the more conservative societies, though; I simply think a lot of people will opt for them, and that they will secure their ends. However, I would go for the more capitalist forms, as opposed to merely market anarchist.
GilesStratton: Jon Irenicus:I recall Stranger providing his definition. I do not recall providing one myself. Nor do I recall being committed to whatever Stranger says. So... In any case, it's not really a contradiction is it? When Stranger claims that wealth is a measure of their success doesn't that merely mean that a large number of people rank a particular end highly on their value scales? In this case, the end is a culturally conservative community.
Hoppe's argument is even more specific than that: cultural conservatism directly promotes the production and accumulation of wealth through lower time preference, better education and better morality. It's not so much that the market demands culturally conservative communities, but that culturally conservative communities will come to take up a larger and larger part of the market.
So even if only 10% of the population is conservative, that 10% will come to own most of the land.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Yep, that's a good way of putting it.
Stranger:So even if only 10% of the population is conservative, that 10% will come to own most of the land.
Sounds like the other 90% may want to follow some of the 10%'s examples.
Stranger:Hoppe's argument is even more specific than that: cultural conservatism directly promotes the production and accumulation of wealth through lower time preference, better education and better morality.
Juan: Stranger:Hoppe's argument is even more specific than that: cultural conservatism directly promotes the production and accumulation of wealth through lower time preference, better education and better morality. Right. Look at the Amish. Quite wealthy captains of industry, are they not ?
They are in fact extremely wealthy, despite limiting themselves to less productive technologies.
Juan:Of course. Extremely wealthy. Silicon valley is an Amish 'enclave', no ?
I'm not sure what your point with this is.
Jon Irenicus:I recall Stranger providing his definition. I do not recall providing one myself.
If the goal is longevity of the society in question, one has a hypothetical measure to work with.
...you can call them racists until you go blue in the face. Personally, I do not care.
If you think it is sufficient to discard their arguments, though, you're in error.
Stranger:I'm not sure what your point with this is.
Juan: Stranger:I'm not sure what your point with this is. That social conservatism doesn't necessarily lead to wealth perhaps ?
How do you expect to counter the economics of conservatism with historical coincidences when whole books have written by Austrian economists on why this is meaningless?
Stranger: Juan: Stranger:I'm not sure what your point with this is. That social conservatism doesn't necessarily lead to wealth perhaps ? How do you expect to counter the economics of conservatism with historical coincidences when whole books have written by Austrian economists on why this is meaningless?
What's the heck is social conservatism?
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
Juan:You mean, you can assert any nonsense you want, declare that it is 'a-priori' true, and forget about reality ?
I can certainly ignore your meaningless anecdotes since they provide no evidence or knowledge of anything.
Stranger:What we favor is multiarcho-capitalism
Wow, that rolls right off the tongue... only 9 syllables!
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke