General

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

meambobbo — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 15:25:11 GMT

I guess thieves should offer their victim fortune cookies. Then no one would consider them thieves and hunt them down and lock them up.

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Jon Irenicus — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 05:33:49 GMT

Basically it is.

Because society is a person with needs the satiation of which it can weigh up against the opportunity costs they'd cause it to endure...

steal from other people, and that I have to pay taxes.

As for this... the former is violated if you are for welfare, the latter is a figment of the mind. You only "have" to pay taxes to avoid repercussions of not doing so. Else he should advance a moral argument justifying this "have to".

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Sieben — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 04:36:59 GMT

Heh your friend is funny Joe

First off, I don't have to pay taxes, I can decide to live off the grid, like our newly jobless toilet cleaner, harvesting wild berries and trapping bunnies

Alternatives do not mean its not stealing... thief says: Your wallet or your life or move to canada!

When I'm 'stolen' from, I don't expect anything in return. Thus, the context is completely different

You could just be wrong about the context :) I mean the whole reason you expect something and then sort of get it is so the state can continue looking legitimate. Your perceptions do not change the fundementals...

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Joe — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 04:22:44 GMT

scineram:

this one was too funny:

Statist: you won't make me agree that taxes are theft

Me: well, then what are they?

Statist: It's society investing in all the things it needs to continue to function.

Basically it is.

after pushing further:

First off, I don't have to pay taxes, I can decide to live off the grid, like our newly jobless toilet cleaner, harvesting wild berries and trapping bunnies. But I know that I'll probably have a more comfortable life if I adhere to the rules of the society in which I live in, rules like I cannot murder, steal from other people, and that I have to pay taxes. In return I expect certain things. I expect to have good roads, schools, law and order, etc. I expect protection and assistance in the event of natural disasters, wars, even losing a job. If I'm failed in these respects I can kick up a fuss and, especially in a democracy, I can facilitate change.

When I'm 'stolen' from, I don't expect anything in return. Thus, the context is completely different. Its like saying that 'sad' and 'suicidal' mean the same thing, because in some ways the two words are similar. That's where nuance becomes so important. But you know these arguments very well Joe, its not like I'm telling you anything new. The argument really boils down to whether or not you believe in Mises' idea that war could be put out of business in an anarchic world.

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

scineram — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 03:19:04 GMT

this one was too funny:

Statist: you won't make me agree that taxes are theft

Me: well, then what are they?

Statist: It's society investing in all the things it needs to continue to function.

Basically it is.

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Joe — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 03:01:46 GMT

Do you know if Dr. Block has seen the poster? I wonder what he thinks/would think about it.

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

otto — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 02:58:44 GMT

A common argument used by statists that I encounter, is about the the 'historical creation of the state'. By their definitin, the state, that great achievment, was created a long, long time ago by some very wise men and it is perfect in definiton and intention. They give this moment of statebirth mythical proportions and sometimes link it with an intervention of some higher power. Since I guess they find history very dull, they never link it with earliest known form of state-monopoly and only cherry-pick from the good ole days, namely the state(empire) in its mightiest, strongest and most destructive (for them most useful). I think most of you from North America don't have that problem since USA and Canada are known as immigrant countries with a detailed histography and you don't have this extra dimension that reaches into the unknown past and tries to strenghten the arguments for the existence of the state. It is pathetic and it makes me sick.

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

liberty student — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 01:15:56 GMT

Joe:

'

I made that graphic. :) Seems like forever ago.

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Joe — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 01:13:30 GMT

"But if thought can corrupt language, language can also corrupt thought" - Orwell

Theft is a word with very bad very specific connotations. If you don't think taxes have the same connotations as theft (which I don't), than you don't call it theft. Its really pretty simple. You pay taxes, you vote for officials, you expect services. Hopefully you work your way to comfort in a harsh world.

If I were to say a little bit of theft is necessary, then I would be yielding to your highly charged use of the language. Many of the 'state apologists' you talk to may feel comfortable ceding a major point in favor of others that seem more important and easy to make, but that is because they don't realize how important a role language plays in the construction of ideas. I do, and therefore to me 'taxes' means one thing and 'theft' means another.

anyone else see the irony in him quoting Orwell at the beginning.

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Sieben — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:51:14 GMT

Also, if socialist nations are so compassionate, how come they have closed borders and (many have) racial homogenous populations :P

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

auctionguy10 — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:17:04 GMT

"4/1/2010 10:20:25 PM Kelly Carl You go live a day in a sweat shop in Africa
4/1/2010 10:20:27 PM Kelly Carl GET BACK TO ME ON THAT.

4/1/2010 10:21:10 PM Kelly Carl I would love to take you to new york and have you meet some of the homeless.
4/1/2010 10:21:55 PM Kelly Carl You've never seen suffering. "

Seems like the problem is that you're letting her completely own the emotional side of the argument, and you do come off as a bit callous by saying things like "Americans are the only ones who complain about wages".

What you needed to do was get on HER Back for being the one who doesn't care about people. Ask her what do you think the people who work in a sweatshop would tell her if she told them all she's coming there to close down their factory? No one said working in a sweatshop was fun- but ask HER what the alternative is for those people FIRST before you give her the answer. You're letting her say whatever she wants and get off scotch free without defending herself, yet she forces you to defend your positions. The solution isn't to close down the sweatshops or to raise the minimum wage so that people are fired but to invest in the poor country, support more free-market activity so that more factories can open and the owners can compete for the workers by providing better conditions.

I mean really, she tells you that YOU have no idea, but what idea does SHE have? What credentials does she have for any of her points? I don't think she's been to India or Bangladesh because if she did, she'd know that a lot of kids that worked at the sweatshops there WERE child-prostitutes before the factories opened. You gotta call her out on her bullshit. Emotional arguments can't be won by the meek.

If you don't have the emotional upper-hand you will always lose. You need to grab that first. Free-market supporters always have the upper-hand morally but rarely if ever leverage it and prefer to go into logical diatribes which is useless unless the other person is trying to make an economic argument.

Being a new yorker, I find her comment about coming here to see how the homeless live laughable especially because its thanks to the CITY OF New York that more homeless are on the streets. The NYPD constantly harasses homeless, arresting panhandlers, and forcing places like churches to kick homeless into the streets http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/11/21/2008-11-21_churches_forced_to_boot_homeless.html . Even running campaigns discouraging people from giving homeless any change.

Reading the other arguments you had with her- it sounds to me like she's only watched movies with people who do cocaine or heroin because they don't "make you violent" especially if compared to Alcohol. Especially if she lives in New York, she should know that making those things illegal DOES NOTHING to prevent people from using it. Nothing at all. Anyone can go figure out where to get cocaine in less than an hour in New York if they wanted to. Plus, it being more expensive, the poor that get addicted to it will rob people so they can afford it. If its cheaper, obviously less people are going to be robbed. You don't solve these addictions by locking people up. If her complaint is that these drugs produce violent behavior, then with that logic alcohol should obviously be illegal since its the #1 drug causing violent activity. You don't get arrested for walking down the street drunk, but you do once you commit a crime. If it was up to her, everyone in the city would be locked up because they "might" commit a violent crime.

And if she's living in New York(sounds to me like she lives in the nice areas of NY), then she'd know that street crime over drugs is absolutely terrible- we don't need more people dying in these streets. Drug gangs would significantly lose their power if they couldn't sell drugs anymore- as they'd have to resort to means of making money that are much easier to catch and stop, i.e. auto-theft, extortion. Stopping a black market on drugs IS IMPOSSIBLE and will be to the end of time. Who's been helped or saved by drugs being illegal? Especially with things like craigslist even the least street-smart person can get any drug they want, any time of the day they want, delivered to their door if they want, RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW even with it being illegal.

lol I hope my post came off emotional enough as to show you what I mean. She makes blind assertions all the time, so you can too. From her point of view you only came to your conclusions based off of a video. So that communicates that you don't "Truly" believe in your positions, and that somehow you think you're smarter than her just because you saw the video(not saying that's really how you feel, but thats why she states that she can't even talk to you about your points of view. Its almost like if you saw another video that supported Communism you'd believe in that too) so she'll reject your arguments right away without even trying to prove them false. The more emotion you can attribute to your belief (while maintaining civility and open communication), the more power it will wield in persuasion. You need to put more emotion into it, not less. I hope everything I said makes some kinda sense.

Edit: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2010/07/07/2010-07-07_brooklyn_cops_bust_craigslist_pill_ring_that_shipped_1_million_of_adderall_vicod.html People like that will make sure every drug in demand is supplied.

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Jon Irenicus — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 21:29:21 GMT

"People that write articles for mises, always denote some superficial effect of the Federal Reserve on interest rates... but that isn't what caused this crash. The lack of equity, and loss of social stigmatism to default, is.
The world went from 20% down payments w/closing costs and absolute fear of default... to no money down w/ seller covering closing costs and default is the result of the lender trying to defraud you."

Confusing consequences with causes.

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Joe — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 06:22:40 GMT

this one was too funny:

Statist: you won't make me agree that taxes are theft

Me: well, then what are they?

Statist: It's society investing in all the things it needs to continue to function.

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

the5thresistance — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:31:05 GMT

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/28/infrastructure.report.card/index.html

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/08/infrastructure_numbers.html

if only government can provide anything better than the market

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

AnonLLF — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 00:59:05 GMT

Matthew M.:

The common theme among arguments I observe is the (fallacious) assumption that, because I do not want the government providing a service, I do not want the service provided at all.

Bastiat even quotes that as an argument that was used against him. Ha.That slop 'argument' is old!

General

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

"4/1/2010 10:20:25 PM Kelly Carl You go live a day in a sweat shop in Africa 4/1/2010 10:20:27 PM Kelly Carl GET BACK TO ME ON THAT.

4/1/2010 10:21:10 PM Kelly Carl I would love to take you to new york and have you meet some of the homeless. 4/1/2010 10:21:55 PM Kelly Carl You've never seen suffering. "

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

Re: Destroying Your Statist Arguments

"4/1/2010 10:20:25 PM Kelly Carl You go live a day in a sweat shop in Africa
4/1/2010 10:20:27 PM Kelly Carl GET BACK TO ME ON THAT.

4/1/2010 10:21:10 PM Kelly Carl I would love to take you to new york and have you meet some of the homeless.
4/1/2010 10:21:55 PM Kelly Carl You've never seen suffering. "