Jack1769:Without manpower, all your investments are useless.
Without the investments, the manpower can starve before the product reaches the market....
Seems as if there is a symbiotic relationship...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
sicsempertyrannis: Brainpolice: Long was sort of being tongue in cheek, but basically the point is that there is no good reason why libertarianism can't or shouldn't be appealing to "the left", if conceptualized in a certain way. The left is going to have to get over their distaste for private property for that to ever be a success.
Brainpolice: Long was sort of being tongue in cheek, but basically the point is that there is no good reason why libertarianism can't or shouldn't be appealing to "the left", if conceptualized in a certain way.
Long was sort of being tongue in cheek, but basically the point is that there is no good reason why libertarianism can't or shouldn't be appealing to "the left", if conceptualized in a certain way.
The left is going to have to get over their distaste for private property for that to ever be a success.
No less than "the right" is going to have to get over their distate for personal liberty, their communitarianism, their paternalism, their boner for tradition and executive power, for that to ever be a success.
Anarchist Cain: So my comment about the economical class structure of tax-providers and tax consumers still stands.
So my comment about the economical class structure of tax-providers and tax consumers still stands.
Yes.
If justice sees its day, then a greater extent of liberty would be fulfilled and there would be no net tax consumers for there would be no government.
As noted: capitalism is not mercantilism.
wilderness: Yes. If justice sees its day, then a greater extent of liberty would be fulfilled and there would be no net tax consumers for there would be no government.
Now that wilderness agrees, the revolution can begin!
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Brainpolice: No less than "the right" is going to have to get over their distate for personal liberty, their communitarianism, their paternalism, their boner for tradition and executive power, for that to ever be a success.
I really can't stand the right/left worldview so I have to try and figure out what each person means by it since it, at times, tends to not have a strict definition unless somebody has studied these concepts (and still disagreement may occur), and applying such extreme mental dualistic simplicities tends to narrow individuals into exclusive categories, etc..., so, leading into the question so I can try and understand you correctly:
Do you not want justice and thus no law?
Some of what you say tastes, since we are enjoying this term currently, as if it's not anarchy you are talking about, but also tastes like you want no law... so clarity would help.
I will not be able to respond but in some unnumbered days I'll track your response down in this thread. good day
Anarchist Cain:You just admitted that there are net tax consumers.
Your point being?
Anarchist Cain: Also please explain how everyone is a tax consumer.
Everybody in the United States relies on government-buillt infrastructure for transportation, and that infrastructure is paid for by taxes. Hence, everyone is a tax consumers. There are many other services a large majority of Americans will consume in the course of their lives that are paid by taxes, law enforcment for an example, but infrastructure is the best example.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
wilderness:I really can't stand the right/left worldview so I have to try and figure out what each person means by it since it, at times, tends to not have a strict definition unless somebody has studied these concepts (and still disagreement may occur), and applying such extreme mental dualistic simplicities tends to narrow individuals into exclusive categories, etc..., so, leading into the question so I can try and understand you correctly:
Perhaps he could be stating something else but I think he means the ideological spectrum from Roderick Long's piece called 'Left and Right: Forty years later' Honestly, I love this lecture and can't link it enough. It is filled with such clarity.
http://mises.org/story/2099
Anarchist Cain: Perhaps he could be stating something else but I think he means the ideological spectrum from Roderick Long's piece called 'Left and Right: Forty years later' Honestly, I love this lecture and can't link it enough. It is filled with such clarity. http://mises.org/story/2099
I'll bookmark it for some future time. Thanks.
laminustacitus:Your point being?
Even if we concede your point that everyone is a tax-consumer, and you admitted that there are net tax consumers, then obviously there is a economical class structure established by the state which essentially will end with the abolition of the state. Really it seems like I am dealing with another semantics debate, like the ghost of Anarcho-Mercantilist has come skulking in here and threw a tizzy over word usage.
Anarchist Cain:Even if we concede your point that everyone is a tax-consumer, and you admitted that there are net tax consumers, then obviously there is a economical class structure established by the state which essentially will end with the abolition of the state.
A government-paid job is little different from a job in the private sector for many, if not most, government-employees. They are a social "Class" in a very loose, and purely descriptive use of the term for there do not unilaterally share the same interests, and they do not even necessarily have an interest in bolstering the power of the government - their job may be merely a source of income.
wilderness:I really can't stand the right/left worldview so I have to try and figure out what each person means by it since it, at times, tends to not have a strict definition unless somebody has studied these concepts (and still disagreement may occur), and applying such extreme mental dualistic simplicities tends to narrow individuals into exclusive categories, etc...
I do write ad nauseum about left/right extremism, and why this is a bad worldview, if you would like I can link you something...
Mind you this was written in the days that I was a minarchist and I am concluding it as we speak... as an An-Cap
laminustacitus:A government-paid job is little different from a job in the private sector for many,
its worlds apart, because one is productive, and the other is not.
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
nirgrahamUK: laminustacitus:A government-paid job is little different from a job in the private sector for many, its worlds apart, because one is productive, and the other is not.
You completely missed my point: I'm speaking of the manner by which employees view the jobs.
it is really stretching to call them jobs...
nirgrahamUK:it is really stretching to call them jobs...
No, no it isn't; its the basic use of the term.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:Your point being? Really it seems like I am dealing with another semantics debate, like the ghost of Anarcho-Mercantilist has come skulking in here and threw a tizzy over word usage.
Really it seems like I am dealing with another semantics debate, like the ghost of Anarcho-Mercantilist has come skulking in here and threw a tizzy over word usage.
This potential strawman is already tiring; semantical debates have been occurring well before AM began posting :\
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
laminustacitus:A government-paid job is little different from a job in the private sector for many, if not most, government-employees. They are a social "Class" in a very loose, and purely descriptive use of the term for there do not unilaterally share the same interests, and they do not even necessarily have an interest in bolstering the power of the government - their job may be merely a source of income.
Please, quit the apologist lines. There is a difference between the two and you have no way of knowing whether it is solely for income. It could be a number of subjective reasons but what is not subjective is that they bloster the reach of the state through service which they prefer to do since they retain that very profession.
Nitroadict:This potential strawman is already tiring; semantical debates have been occurring well before AM began posting :\
I wasn't creating a strawman, I was just being sardonic. AM will not be discussed again in this topic.
Anarchist Cain:AM will not be discussed again in this topic.
So it has been written, so it shall be done.
liberty student:So it has been written, so it shall be done.
You must go to the 'Proving Natural Rights' topic. You missed a good one. I think it is in the topic graveyard.
I will have to pass. I am already suffering from oughtism.
laminustacitus: nirgrahamUK: laminustacitus: .A government-paid job is little different from a job in the private sector for many, its worlds apart, because one is productive, and the other is not. You completely missed my point: I'm speaking of the manner by which employees view the jobs.
nirgrahamUK: laminustacitus: .A government-paid job is little different from a job in the private sector for many, its worlds apart, because one is productive, and the other is not.
laminustacitus: .A government-paid job is little different from a job in the private sector for many,
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."
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:A government-paid job is little different from a job in the private sector for many, if not most, government-employees. They are a social "Class" in a very loose, and purely descriptive use of the term for there do not unilaterally share the same interests, and they do not even necessarily have an interest in bolstering the power of the government - their job may be merely a source of income. Please, quit the apologist lines. There is a difference between the two and you have no way of knowing whether it is solely for income. It could be a number of subjective reasons but what is not subjective is that they bloster the reach of the state through service which they prefer to do since they retain that very profession.
The point of my statement is that state-employees do not have the unilateral class-interests necessary for a libertarian revolution of "parasites" v. "non-parasites" a la the proletariat revolution.
Juan: laminustacitus: nirgrahamUK: laminustacitus: .A government-paid job is little different from a job in the private sector for many, its worlds apart, because one is productive, and the other is not. You completely missed my point: I'm speaking of the manner by which employees view the jobs. Of course. So now it begins the moral-subjectivism-game. Since the parasites believe that they are the pillars or society it follows...what exactly ?
The moral-subjectivist game is an attempt at the sociological imagination, trying to figure out what motivates those individuals, and it thus follows that there is no unilateral class-interest between all governmnment-workers that strong differs between the interests of workers in the private sector.
laminustacitus:The point of my statement is that state-employees do not have the unilateral class-interests necessary for a libertarian revolution of "parasites" v. "non-parasites" a la the proletariat revolution.
They have a singular employer. It is not as if we are talking about employee's from a variety of professions.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:The point of my statement is that state-employees do not have the unilateral class-interests necessary for a libertarian revolution of "parasites" v. "non-parasites" a la the proletariat revolution. They have a singular employer. It is not as if we are talking about employee's from a variety of professions.
Its not that simple: government-employees are employed by differing departments of the government, and inter-departmental differences can be massive at times.
laminustacitus:Its not that simple: government-employees are employed by differing departments of the government, and inter-departmental differences can be massive at times.
This coming from the man who several pages ago was using Occam's razor.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:Its not that simple: government-employees are employed by differing departments of the government, and inter-departmental differences can be massive at times. This coming from the man who several pages ago was using Occam's razor.
A) Occam's razor cannot be used to oversimplify the evidence, only to ensure that the theory being utilized is the most economical with the evidence, and B) I never used Occam's razor, rather I was showing how Nigrahm was abusing Occam's razor. I suggest you actually counter me with something other than a false snide remark next time you respond.
laminustacitus:A) Occam's razor cannot be used to oversimplify the evidence, only to ensure that the theory being utilized is the most economical with the evidence, and B) I never used Occam's razor, rather I was showing how Nigrahm was abusing Occam's razor. I suggest you actually counter me with something other than a false snide remark next time you respond.
My mistake on Occam's razor. However, it still stands that governmental employees are employed by a singular institution. Hypothetically if I work for Yamaha instruments and a friend is employeed by Yamaha ATV's that does not mean we are employed by a different corporation. We are both employeed in Yamaha, just different sub-divisions of the same corporation.
Anarchist Cain:However, it still stands that governmental employees are employed by a singular institution.
Surely the government is an institution per se; nevertheless, it is a very complex animal, with many independent, side-by-side bureaucracies, and departments that definately do not share the same purpose, ergo interests, and might not even be completely friendly with one another. To complicate matters you have regional divisions between governments that may very well include differing ideologies between each other.
Resulting from this will be that the "class" of government-employees will be anything but homogenous, and that "class" will be nothing other than a descriptive category.
laminustacitus: Surely the government is an institution per se; nevertheless, it is a very complex animal, with many independent, side-by-side bureaucracies, and departments that definately do not share the same purpose, ergo interests, and might not even be completely friendly with one another. To complicate matters you have regional divisions between governments that may very well include differing ideologies between each other. Resulting from this will be that the "class" of government-employees will be anything but homogenous, and that "class" will be nothing other than a descriptive category.
Nonsense. When faced with their own abolition you seem to infer that they will not band together to save their source of income. Honestly, you are overcomplicating a simple truth in an effort to divert the main point of this topic: perhaps a mistake you made in this thread, or perhaps your unwillingness to establish economic class conflict due to the establishment of the state apparatus.
Anarchist Cain:When faced with their own abolition you seem to infer that they will not band together to save their source of income.
That is not necessarily an outcome of my point, and the belief that they will band together to save their source of income is ridiculous at best without any prior experience. Even worse, you cite no prior phenomena to support this thesis, rather you assume we can validate such an idea on an a priori basis.
Anarchist Cain:Honestly, you are overcomplicating a simple truth in an effort to divert the main point of this topic: perhaps a mistake you made in this thread
I'm showing how the entire premise of this thread is an oversimplification of a very complex reality made to fit into an ideologically-acceptable box that has the usual us v. them fairy tale implied.
Anarchist Cain:perhaps your unwillingness to establish economic class conflict due to the establishment of the state apparatus.
There are no "economic classes" per se, they are at best analytical tools to describe the a mean tendancy of a group of individuals to be used as each case-study necessitates. Individuals act out of their own interests, not those dictated to them by their economic status. In addition, the entire idea of "class conflict" throws to the wind methodological individualism for groups do not act, only individuals do.
laminustacitus:That is not necessarily an outcome of my point, and the belief that they will band together to save their source of income is ridiculous at best without any prior experience. Even worse, you cite no prior phenomena to support this thesis, rather you assume we can validate such an idea on an a priori basis.
A priori common sense. Would you just willingly give up your source of income simply because people [ strangers ] didn't like the way you did business?
laminustacitus:I'm showing how the entire premise of this thread is an oversimplification of a very complex reality made to fit into an ideologically-acceptable box that has the usual us v. them fairy tale implied.
No you are being purposely obtuse for some unknown reason that I have yet to discover.
laminustacitus:There are no "economic classes" per se, they are at best analytical tools to describe the a mean tendancy of a group of individuals to be used as each case-study necessitates. Individuals act out of their own interests, not those dictated to them by their economic status. In addition, the entire idea of "class conflict" throws to the wind methodological individualism for groups do not act, only individuals do.
Hypothesizing that governmental employees want to secure their livelihood is rational logical deduction. It is no more contradictory to state that government employees will band together to secure their jobs then it would be to say that home owners will band together to secure their neighborhood.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:That is not necessarily an outcome of my point, and the belief that they will band together to save their source of income is ridiculous at best without any prior experience. Even worse, you cite no prior phenomena to support this thesis, rather you assume we can validate such an idea on an a priori basis. A priori common sense.
A priori common sense.
A priori common-sense is nonexistent, common-sense is very much a posteriori.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:I'm showing how the entire premise of this thread is an oversimplification of a very complex reality made to fit into an ideologically-acceptable box that has the usual us v. them fairy tale implied. No you are being purposely obtuse for some unknown reason that I have yet to discover.
For academic quality.
Anarchist Cain:Hypothesizing that governmental employees want to secure their livelihood is rational logical deduction. It is no more contradictory to state that government employees will band together to secure their jobs then it would be to say that home owners will band together to secure their neighborhood.
Far too many variables for a "rational", logical deduction. There are too many interests that influence individuals' actions in such a scenario for any such deduction to be little more than a whimsical prediction.
laminustacitus:A priori common-sense is nonexistent, common-sense is very much a posteriori.
Really? So deducing that all bachelors are not married is not common sense? Of course making such a deduction is a priori.
laminustacitus:For academic quality.
So you claim.
laminustacitus:Far too many variables for a "rational", logical deduction. There are too many interests that influence individuals' actions in such a scenario for any such deduction to be little more than a whimsical prediction.
Nonsense. You know that I am correct in stating that individuals will protect their interests and the more individuals that can be persuaded to do such a thing the better the protection. Therefore when presented with the end of their income...perhaps something that have been doing for decades, you seem to think that they will just give it up and not fight and persuade others to fight with them.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:A priori common-sense is nonexistent, common-sense is very much a posteriori. Really? So deducing that all bachelors are not married is not common sense? Of course making such a deduction is a priori.
That is not common-sense: that is an analytic a priori judgment. Common-sense is empirical, and is also falliable, hence not a priori.
Anarchist Cain: You know that I am correct in stating that individuals will protect their interests and the more individuals that can be persuaded to do such a thing the better the protection. Therefore when presented with the end of their income...perhaps something that have been doing for decades, you seem to think that they will just give it up and not fight and persuade others to fight with them.
We do not know the situation they are faced with, and thus our predictions are, at best, shots in the dark; for instance: if the odds of them getting new jobs is higher than fighting for their old jobs sucessfully, then it follows that them not fighting for their jobs is a logical prediction.
laminustacitus:That is not common-sense: that is an analytic a priori judgment. Common-sense is empirical, and is also falliable, hence not a priori.
So you are claiming that a priori is infalliable?
laminustacitus:We do not know the situation they are faced with, and thus our predictions are, at best, shots in the dark; for instance: if the odds of them getting new jobs is higher than fighting for their old jobs sucessfully, then it follows that them not fighting for their jobs is a logical prediction.
Actually we know the situation: They are faced with the end of their income. An a priori prediction is that they fight to save it.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:That is not common-sense: that is an analytic a priori judgment. Common-sense is empirical, and is also falliable, hence not a priori. So you are claiming that a priori is infalliable?
The analytic a priori, and synthetic a priori judgments all lead to true statements, as long as there is not a fault in the person's reasoning.
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:We do not know the situation they are faced with, and thus our predictions are, at best, shots in the dark; for instance: if the odds of them getting new jobs is higher than fighting for their old jobs sucessfully, then it follows that them not fighting for their jobs is a logical prediction. Actually we know the situation: They are faced with the end of their income. An a priori prediction is that they fight to save it.
How dependable is their current source of income? What are their own ideological judgments of value? Will they be able to find new sources of income relatively quickly? Is it worthwhile fighting for their current source of income?
Those are all questions that we don't know about the situation, and because of that lack of information, we cannot make a worthwhile prediction as to the behavior of those individuals in question. In addition, revolutions don't happen overnight, and the entire situation changes as the revolution rippens; it is beyond our knowledge what that situation would be if there were to be a libertarian revolution of sorts.
laminustacitus:The analytic a priori, and synthetic a priori judgments all lead to true statements, as long as there is not a fault in the person's reasoning.
Therefore infallability in not dependent on a priorism itself but the individual utilizing it. Therefore a priori statements can in fact be based on common sense since a priorism is not equivolent to known truths based on sensory depravation
laminustacitus: How dependable is their current source of income? What are their own ideological judgments of value? Will they be able to find new sources of income relatively quickly? Is it worthwhile fighting for their current source of income? Those are all questions that we don't know about the situation, and because of that lack of information, we cannot make a worthwhile prediction as to the behavior of those individuals in question. In addition, revolutions don't happen overnight, and the entire situation changes as the revolution rippens; it is beyond our knowledge what that situation would be if there were to be a libertarian revolution of sorts.
Nonsense. We can make rational deductions based on human logic and action as to which is the more likely event to occur. If you are so quick to state we have know idea how an individual is to act in the social sphere, how could you ever make an economical prediction? Or do you believe that economics cannot grasp the future, only the past?
Anarchist Cain: laminustacitus:The analytic a priori, and synthetic a priori judgments all lead to true statements, as long as there is not a fault in the person's reasoning. Therefore infallability in not dependent on a priorism itself but the individual utilizing it.
Therefore infallability in not dependent on a priorism itself but the individual utilizing it.
No, an a priori statement, whether analytic, or synthetic, is true, otherwise it is not an a priori judgment, but an error.
Anarchist Cain:Therefore a priori statements can in fact be based on common sense since a priorism is not equivolent to known truths based on sensory depravation
You are not making sense here.
Anarchist Cain:Nonsense. We can make rational deductions based on human logic and action as to which is the more likely event to occur.
One needs to know the basics of the situation before one can make a prediction as to what are the most likely events to occur.
Anarchist Cain:If you are so quick to state we have know idea how an individual is to act in the social sphere, how could you ever make an economical prediction? Or do you believe that economics cannot grasp the future, only the past?
Economics does not exist to make predictions, and it cannot make predictions even close to the calibar of the physical sciences because there are far too many factors to account for, and all the information necessary to truly make such a prediction is decentralized throughout the entire economy - by the time you collect it, its relevance to the future has greatly diminished.