Political Theory

Re: Not voting out of principle = voter apathy = insanity

Anonymous Coward — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:03:43 GMT

Caley McKibbin:

I'm saying that his definition was the former and not the latter. Otherwise, minarchism is socialism.

Umm, yeah, minarchism is socialism...

Re: Not voting out of principle = voter apathy = insanity

Caley McKibbin — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:30:38 GMT

I'm saying that his definition was the former and not the latter. Otherwise, minarchism is socialism.

Re: Not voting out of principle = voter apathy = insanity

I. Ryan — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:41:16 GMT

Caley McKibbin:

What Mises meant by "mixed economy" seems to be sharing of responsibility in all business between enterpreneurs and the state. An alternative "mixed economy" could be some industries run by the state and others not, however unlikely.

Ludwig von Mises: "[T]here is no such thing as a mixed economy[.]"

Re: Not voting out of principle = voter apathy = insanity

Caley McKibbin — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 03:18:17 GMT

I. Ryan:

Do you believe that an economy can be a "mixed" economy (i.e., an economy that is partially socialistic and partially capitalistic)? The above quote seems to imply that you do because certain facets of the economy can be prviately owned while other facets of the economy can be publicly owned.

What Mises meant by "mixed economy" seems to be sharing of responsibility in all business between enterpreneurs and the state. An alternative "mixed economy" could be some industries run by the state and others not, however unlikely.

Re: Not voting out of principle = voter apathy = insanity

hayekianxyz — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 15:31:46 GMT

Tell your professor that in the 2008 US election there was a 1 in 60 million chance of your vote counting, then ask him what the rational choice was. Failing that, just point him in the direction of Caplan's work.

Re: Not voting out of principle = voter apathy = insanity

Kakugo — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:14:25 GMT

Please send your professor to have a little talk with me. I am probably as old as he is, maybe older, so he cannot sell me all the usual "young people do not care". He also cannot sell me the usual "uninformed" since I can still show my party cards as a proof I was actively engaged in politics. I haven't voted in years and I probably won't ever gain since there are zero chances the situation will change in my lifetime. It will only get worse.

Not voting at least gives me the comfort of being just part of the robbed and not a robber myself. There's nothing that I can do except "not" doing my part.

You are being given a taste of what State-sponsored education is: indoctrination. Nothing more, nothing less. Your fellow students will become, say, journalists, writers, CEOs of powerful companies. They'll die thinking voting for the "right" person will change the world and won't ever question democracy or redistribution. They'll just ask the system to become "fairer". This kind of pathetic dissent is what the system is geared up to produce.

Oh and next time he'll talk about people dying for freedom, democracy or whatever ask him if he would send his sons to the trenches to fight Kaiser Wilhelm or to Afghanistan to hunt down the Talibans. The answer will be undoubtely the same "yes". Here I suggest a visit to the nearest military hospital or to the military cemeteries dotting Europe.

Re: Not voting out of principle = voter apathy = insanity

Caley McKibbin — Sat, 22 Aug 2009 05:03:42 GMT

A harder criticism of the third way is that its a lie. The people who advocate it are communists. Does anyone really believe that they would stop communizing at some arbitrary point?

----

If you really want to embarass a teacher in a political class, just give a little math lesson in front of the class. The probability of your marginal vote having an effect on the outcome of an election is equal to the probability of the election being a tie or 1 vote difference. Ask him how often he plays the lottery.

Re: Not voting out of principle = voter apathy = insanity

liberty student — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:12:57 GMT

Spideynw:

I think the point LS is making is that every government always lays claim to everything, regardless of how much they allow the serfs to "own". Even supposed "socialist" countries still allow quite a bit of private ownership of things. The USSR government even allowed farmers to own something like 10% of their crops or something. So like he said, there is government or there is the market, there is no third option.

Precisely. The mixed economy is a fiction in the sense that any genuine capitalism is involved.

Re: Not voting out of principle = voter apathy = insanity

Spideynw — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:26:12 GMT

I think the point LS is making is that every government always lays claim to everything, regardless of how much they allow the serfs to "own". Even supposed "socialist" countries still allow quite a bit of private ownership of things. The USSR government even allowed farmers to own something like 10% of their crops or something. So like he said, there is government or there is the market, there is no third option. Or said differently, either we are free or we are slaves.

Re: Not voting out of principle = voter apathy = insanity

liberty student — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:06:12 GMT

I. Ryan:
Do you believe that an economy can be a "mixed" economy

I believe it can, but it is socialism.

Re: Not voting out of principle = voter apathy = insanity

liberty student — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:02:58 GMT

Rooster:
Gotcha. Proceed with the lexicographical revolution.

Thanks for your permission.

Re: Not voting out of principle = voter apathy = insanity

twistedbydsign99 — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:31:26 GMT

fsk:
I thought that the War of 1812 was fought because the Federal government failed to renew the First Central Bank charter in 1811?

It was.

Re: Not voting out of principle = voter apathy = insanity

I. Ryan — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:26:51 GMT

liberty student:

Private and public ownership of the means of production. Is it radical? Absolutely. I am a radical, from the latin radic, meaning root.

Do you believe that an economy can be a "mixed" economy (i.e., an economy that is partially socialistic and partially capitalistic)? The above quote seems to imply that you do because certain facets of the economy can be prviately owned while other facets of the economy can be publicly owned.

Re: Not voting out of principle = voter apathy = insanity

Rooster — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:14:56 GMT

liberty student:

Rooster:
Otherwise, you can do quite a radical restructuring of Austrian history by using your own definition.

An obsessive devotion to the established forms leads to a life that is numbed by narrow expectations and expected experiences.

Gotcha. Proceed with the lexicographical revolution.

Re: Not voting out of principle = voter apathy = insanity

liberty student — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:11:57 GMT

Rooster:
That's fine, but you're still not using the word socialism correctly, and you're also creating your own radical definition of capitalism.

Private and public ownership of the means of production. Is it radical? Absolutely. I am a radical, from the latin radic, meaning root.

Rooster:
Otherwise, you can do quite a radical restructuring of Austrian history by using your own definition.

An obsessive devotion to the established forms leads to a life that is numbed by narrow expectations and expected experiences.