Rooster:My point was that these are not useful labels when used in this way.
Rhetoric is a high time preference and informal method of communication. Don't confuse it with something it is not. No one is implying that the terms crank and parasite, statist and socialist be applied as scientific definitions.
liberty student:Right, I get it now. Exactly. Some will argue we cannot know, but that is nonsense. We don't have to prove negatives to make a strong argument.
No, the point is that if you wish to assert something, namely that state employees are parasites, the burden of proof is on you. Furthermore, as a result of one of the most substantial points of Austrian economics you can't meet this burden of proof. At most, you can speculate, little more than that.
Hoppe's argument is far too simplistic. I'd rather listen to Gordon Tullock than Hans Hoppe when it comes to this. The fact of the matter is that the state causes all sorts of redistribution with its interventions, so it may well be that various lobbyists are merely getting back income that they would have otherwise earned. Of course, it's impossible to know.
liberty student: Rooster:My point was that these are not useful labels when used in this way. Rhetoric is a high time preference and informal method of communication. Don't confuse it with something it is not. No one is implying that the terms crank and parasite, statist and socialist be applied as scientific definitions.
To the contrary, many have spent long periods of time defending their definitions offered in this post.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Rooster: I can see this is going nowhere. If you want to make up your own definitions, then go ahead. You can defy the masses!
I can see this is going nowhere. If you want to make up your own definitions, then go ahead. You can defy the masses!
I quoted other literature giving a definition. You keep going on with your own definition, which the only definition I've seen you give is illogical: Socialism is the government performing, but not government controlling, so, therefore according to you the government isn't doing what the government is doing. I quoted you. You can clarify, your choice obviously. I really didn't think this would turn into such a big deal.
Rooster: We were talking about definitions, it's not like I am hiding in semantics and popular opinion. As I said use whatever definitions you want, just as long as you concede that Mises should now be referred to as a statist, socialist, crank, and parasite. My point was that these are not useful labels when used in this way.
We were talking about definitions, it's not like I am hiding in semantics and popular opinion. As I said use whatever definitions you want, just as long as you concede that Mises should now be referred to as a statist, socialist, crank, and parasite. My point was that these are not useful labels when used in this way.
What does that have to even do with my defining socialism, in other words, what does this have to do with what we were discussing? We as in you and I.
GilesStratton:No, the point is that if you wish to assert something, namely that state employees are parasites, the burden of proof is on you.
And I have established it. It's not that difficult really. If someone gets all or most of his income from the state, he necessarily has to be a state parasite. If his non-state income tax returns are smaller than his tax receipts, he is a parasite.
Water is wet. And so are you.
liberty student:And I have established it. It's not that difficult really. If someone gets all or most of his income from the state, he necessarily has to be a state parasite. If his non-state income tax returns are smaller than his tax receipts, he is a parasite.
I think Hazlitt and Bastiat both wrote about the fallacy of such arguments. Fact is, you're not looking at the unseen, and you never will be able to be precise about the unseen.
wilderness: Rooster: I can see this is going nowhere. If you want to make up your own definitions, then go ahead. You can defy the masses! I quoted other literature giving a definition. You keep going on with your own definition, which the only definition I've seen you give is illogical: Socialism is the government performing, but not government controlling, so, therefore according to you the government isn't doing what the government is doing. I quoted you. You can clarify, your choice obviously. I really didn't think this would turn into such a big deal.
Yes, if this is what you call quoting. Gimme a break
And look at the confusion you stated above in this post. You stated "...socialism is not commonly used to refer to... performed by government, but... government control..."
You rather amusingly left out when I said that performing a particular function, such as defense, is not commonly referred to as socialism. If you want to argue that you don't like how the masses are defining things, and you prefer to call Mises a socialist, then go ahead.
GilesStratton:I think Hazlitt and Bastiat both wrote about the fallacy of such arguments. Fact is, you're not looking at the unseen, and you never will be able to be precise about the unseen.
Hmm. What are you saying exactly? I don't know what this has to do with the seen and unseen.
Rooster: You rather amusingly left out when I said that performing a particular function, such as defense, is not commonly referred to as socialism. If you want to argue that you don't like how the masses are defining things, and you prefer to call Mises a socialist, then go ahead.
1) I never got into this: "Mises is a socialist or not" debate. So I'm not talking about that.
2) How the masses define things is a joke argument that I'm not going to entertain.
3) Socialism is government expansion. The government expands into defense all the time and has for centuries in certain parts of the world. If you don't want to think on your own and would rely on what the masses tell you, then this discussion can't go much further until you first contact the masses and let me know the answer.
Eric:Hmm. What are you saying exactly? I don't know what this has to do with the seen and unseen.
Because Libert Student is focusing on the seen. Namely that various state employees receive money from the state, this is at the expense of the unseen. The unseen being the money that the state employee cannot receive because of state monopolization of whatever branch of government they work for.
wilderness: Rooster: You rather amusingly left out when I said that performing a particular function, such as defense, is not commonly referred to as socialism. If you want to argue that you don't like how the masses are defining things, and you prefer to call Mises a socialist, then go ahead. 1) I never got into this: "Mises is a socialist or not" debate. So I'm not talking about that. 2) How the masses define things is a joke argument that I'm not going to entertain. 3) Socialism is government expansion. The government expands into defense all the time and has for centuries in certain parts of the world. If you don't want to think on your own and would rely on what the masses tell you, then this discussion can't go much further until you first contact the masses and let me know the answer.
OK, better throw out the dictionary and create everything from first principles. Be back later.
GilesStratton:Because Libert Student is focusing on the seen. Namely that various state employees receive money from the state, this is at the expense of the unseen. The unseen being the money that the state employee cannot receive because of state monopolization of whatever branch of government they work for.
I see what your saying now. However, it seems like we could still call them parasites because they are still net tax consumers. What they could have earned in the free market seems irrelevant to me. All that matters is whether or not they are net tax consumers. Not what they could be earning in some hypothetical scenario.
However, I don't know if we should simply say "net tax consumer = parasite." Because then we would have to start calling children and babies parasites. They are net tax consumers...aren't they?
Eric: However, I don't know if we should simply say "net tax consumer = parasite." Because then we would have to start calling children and babies parasites. They are net tax consumers...aren't they?
Not in their payments received for labor.
Eric:However, it seems like we could still call them parasites because they are still net tax consumers. What they could have earned in the free market seems irrelevant to me. All that matters is whether or not they are net tax consumers. Not what they could be earning in some hypothetical scenario.
Indeed, while the broken window may not create more prosperity, it does not change the fact that the repairman is in fact a glazier.
Eric:However, I don't know if we should simply say "net tax consumer = parasite." Because then we would have to start calling children and babies parasites. They are net tax consumers...aren't they?
They are not. You have to evaluate them within the context of a family, incorporating their parents as the only legitimate economic actors into the equation. For all intents and purposes, the so-called parasitism of the children is completely voluntary, which is not the same as the market actor vs. state relationship.
Eric: However, it seems like we could still call them parasites because they are still net tax consumers.
Yes, you could do so. But I don't see the value in calling them "parasites", unless you wish to use pejoratives to describe those who have suffered a net loss as a result of the state. But that option doesn't seem very fair to me, nor does it fit with the rest of so called "Austrian" class analysis.
GilesStratton:Yes, you could do so. But I don't see the value in calling them "parasites", unless you wish to use pejoratives to describe those who have suffered a net loss as a result of the state. But that option doesn't seem very fair to me, nor does it fit with the rest of so called "Austrian" class analysis.
What makes you say they suffer a net loss as a result of the state? I am not really familiar with "Austrian class analysis". I think "class analysis" is a pretty boring topic for the most part.
Eric: I am not really familiar with "Austrian class analysis".
Austrian class analysis basically holds that the net tax consumers (parasites) feed on the net tax producers (hosts). That any delineation based on race, breeding, aggregate wealth, social status, isn't valid (ala marxian class analysis popular with left libertarians and mutualists) as an actual accounting of who feeds on who involuntarily in a society.
In an Austrian class analysis, the poor can be parasites (net consumers) and not just the rich. Because a poor man, who is a thief, is clealy a larger villain to libertarians than a rich man who conducts his business voluntarily and honestly.
Eric:What makes you say they suffer a net loss as a result of the state?
I was pointing out that it's possible for one to be a net tax consumer whilst suffering net losses as a result of state intervention in the economy. That's all.
GilesStratton:I was pointing out that it's possible for one to be a net tax consumer whilst suffering net losses as a result of state intervention in the economy. That's all.
Oh. Well yes, that is certainly possible.
Eric: GilesStratton:I was pointing out that it's possible for one to be a net tax consumer whilst suffering net losses as a result of state intervention in the economy. That's all. Oh. Well yes, that is certainly possible.
But does calling such people parasites make much sense?
liberty student: Austrian class analysis basically holds that the net tax consumers (parasites) feed on the net tax producers (hosts). That any delineation based on race, breeding, aggregate wealth, social status, isn't valid (ala marxian class analysis popular with left libertarians and mutualists) as an actual accounting of who feeds on who involuntarily in a society. In an Austrian class analysis, the poor can be parasites (net consumers) and not just the rich. Because a poor man, who is a thief, is clealy a larger villain to libertarians than a rich man who conducts his business voluntarily and honestly.
I'm just wondering, does Austrian class analysis attempt to explain how we can tell who is and who is not a net tax consumer? In some cases it may be easy to tell (politicians). But in others, it could be near impossible.
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."
This is false.
liberty student: GilesStratton:I was pointing out that it's possible for one to be a net tax consumer whilst suffering net losses as a result of state intervention in the economy. That's all. This is false.
Care to prove it?
GilesStratton:But does calling such people parasites make much sense?
Well I am probably not the best person to ask. But if they live parasitically off other people, then why not? Personally, I ususally just call politicians parasites as an insult. Maybe I wouldn't say all net tax consumers are "parasites". For example, I wouldn't want to call an unemployed handicapped man a parasite because he pays no taxes. Even though he only reason he cannot find a job is due to minimum wage laws.
Eric: GilesStratton:But does calling such people parasites make much sense? Well I am probably not the best person to ask. But if they live parasitically off other people, then why not? Personally, I ususally just call politicians parasites as an insult. Maybe I wouldn't say all net tax consumers are "parasites". For example, I wouldn't want to call an unemployed handicapped man a parasite because he pays no taxes. Even though he only reason he cannot find a job is due to minimum wage laws.
Right, but in which case you're not claiming any sort of scientific grounds for your use of the word "parasite" as Hoppe and his followers on these boards do. Rather, you're just using it loosely as a pejorative. I have no issue with this. But as you said, any attempt to provide scientific backing for the use of the word leads to situations in which the proponent must go ahead, bite the bullet and call handicapped people harmed by minimum wage "parasites".
GilesStratton: Right, but in which case you're not claiming any sort of scientific grounds for your use of the word "parasite" as Hoppe and his followers on these boards do. Rather, you're just using it loosely as a pejorative. I have no issue with this. But as you said, any attempt to provide scientific backing for the use of the word leads to situations in which the proponent must go ahead, bite the bullet and call handicapped people harmed by minimum wage "parasites".
Unless choices were available. If a handicapped person is given the choice to be supplied with expenses by a person(s) who will voluntarily give them such supplies and the handicapped person refused to choose voluntary hand outs and willingly wanted to take involuntary hand outs (remain a net tax consumer), then yes the handicapped person is a parasite.
So the question has been asked Giles: Do you choose to be a parasite?
wilderness:Unless choices were available. If a handicapped person is given the choice to be supplied with expenses by a person(s) who will voluntarily give them such supplies and the handicapped person refused to choose voluntary hand outs and willingly wanted to take involuntary hand outs (remain a net tax consumer), then yes the handicapped person is a parasite.
But Austrians consistently point out that government crowds out private charity and other institutions that would provide charity. In which case, the point still stands. You can't just cherrypick like that you know?
wilderness:So the question has been asked Giles: Do you choose to be a parasite?
My apologies, but I'm going to have to decline the opportunity to answer a loaded question.
GilesStratton: bite the bullet and call handicapped people harmed by minimum wage "parasites".
maybe its not their fault that they are parasites, maybe they have no options but to be parasitic to maintain some quality of life, but the question of fault or blame is another debate....
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
GilesStratton: wilderness:Unless choices were available. If a handicapped person is given the choice to be supplied with expenses by a person(s) who will voluntarily give them such supplies and the handicapped person refused to choose voluntary hand outs and willingly wanted to take involuntary hand outs (remain a net tax consumer), then yes the handicapped person is a parasite. But Austrians consistently point out that government crowds out private charity and other institutions that would provide charity. In which case, the point still stands. You can't just cherrypick like that you know?
The government does crowd out voluntary, free market institutions. I was pointing out if the handicapped person had a choice, meaning, if the choice came to his or her lap will he or she pick between one or the other - choice.
GilesStratton: wilderness:So the question has been asked Giles: Do you choose to be a parasite? My apologies, but I'm going to have to decline the opportunity to answer a loaded question.
I'll put it this way. To choose and be a parasite when all the same tools to work or be educated came to light in the free market, civil society which would you choose? It's a hypothetical question cause not all of what can be accessed in a government institution is available in a free market, civil society, but if it were what would you choose? If the tools slowly came within in your reach, one by one, in which the ability for a free market route to finally attain what you are looking for, realistically speaking, which would you choose?
Knight_of_BAAWA: GilesStratton:No, the point is that if you wish to assert something, namely that state employees are parasites, the burden of proof is on you.If you assert something which has been proven over and over, asking for more proof is simply a stalling tactic of the intellectually dishonest.
I don't want to sound like an idiot, but has It been proven that state employees are parasites? And if not, does it even have to be? Does someone have to prove that a blue car is blue? It seems to me that the status of state employees as parasites is a self-evident truth.
Read my Nolan Chart column "Me & My Big Mouth"