Seph:Try all of the above
Using dictionaries (not wiki) define all three words for me.
1. Neo-conservative
2. Communist
3. Fascist.
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
liberty student:Minarchists are only radicals because they are Utopians.
Prove this statement, show me where Minarchists talk about utopia.
liberty student:Minarchists are just like marxists, its the same sort of idealistic day dreaming about the absurd as the possible.
Prove this statement, show how they are similar.
I keep seeing these ridiculous unsubstantiated statements.
Bank Run:Eh? I am yet to meet a minarchist who approves of dialectrical materialism. Or one who believes capitalism will destroy itself. Did I miss the Minarchist Manifesto?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; minarchists are little more than soft-communists.
Since you advocate the state, I assume you advocate some form of forceful exchange of money, from the individual, to the government.
Forceful exchange implies that the government and not the individual is the supreme owner of all land within its arbitrary jurisdiction. If you don't agree with its rules, it has the right to take away your property. A minarchy may have less rules, but the ability of the government to confiscate your property should you not abide by these rules is no less prevalent.
I submit that someone who has the authority to confiscate your property, should you refuse to patronize it, is, not you, the ultimate owner of the property. Anything you do on your property, you do not because you have the authority to do so, but because the government has made no law prohibiting it.
Total Communism simply has more rules sent down on high from the state, telling the individual what he is permitted to do with property. Under minarchy, the state is still the ultimate owner of all property, it's just a 'better' owner, because it allows the individuals to have more freedom, under its ultimate domain.
Poptech: Seph:Try all of the above Using dictionaries (not wiki) define all three words for me. 1. Neo-conservative 2. Communist 3. Fascist.
Can a thief be both deceitful and thuggish?
Poptech: liberty student:Minarchists are only radicals because they are Utopians. Prove this statement, show me where Minarchists talk about utopia.
Poptech, what do you think a utopia is?
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
wilderness:Poptech, what do you think a utopia is?
I only use dictionary definitions...
Utopia (defined) - "A place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions"
I am finding serious confusion here about the definition of words, something you can easily look up. If you can show me where Minarchists speak of perfection, please let me know.
"Government and state can never be perfect because they owe their raison d'etre to the imperfection of man and can attain their end, the elimination of man's innate impulse to violence, only by recourse to violence, the very thing they are called upon to prevent." - Ludwig von Mises
Seph: Poptech: Using dictionaries (not wiki) define all three words for me. 1. Neo-conservative 2. Communist 3. Fascist. Can a thief be both deceitful and thuggish?
Poptech: Using dictionaries (not wiki) define all three words for me. 1. Neo-conservative 2. Communist 3. Fascist.
Do you know how to use a dictionary?
Bank Run: Paul:The dictionary definition of autarchy It depends on which one you consult.
Paul:The dictionary definition of autarchy
It depends on which one you consult.
The dictionary! (OED, of course!)
Bank Run:I would say that calling it a variant of autocracy(absolute rule) and autarky(economic isolation) are definitions that don't follow the etymological nature of the word.
Well, you'd be wrong...it was used that way (absolute rule, not isolation, which is a different word) in classical Greek.
Bank Run:Dictionary definitions can change. Under Wiki three definitions are given.
The first two with the "absolute dictatorship" meaning, and the third misspelling autarky. You might at least have edited in Lefévre's definition and claimed four
Bank Run: Knight_of_BAAWA:No ruler/government, not "no rule"government which, by its nature, doesn't protect anyone except the biggest contributors an=without arkhe=ruler or ruled.
Knight_of_BAAWA:No ruler/government, not "no rule"government which, by its nature, doesn't protect anyone except the biggest contributors
an=without arkhe=ruler or ruled.
I assume you meant "rule", rather than "ruled"; but it doesn't mean "rule" in the sense used in English in "no rules".
Bank Run:This has been linked here in the past, but it is a short read that all should really consider. LeFevre : Autarchy Versus Anarchy
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."
Angurse:Yes, there is, its that wich follows from given premises. What follows from an extremely limited government, more or less?
Why does it have to change?
Angurse:Easily defeated? Check your premises, thats a really big "what if."Trusted men (who are being payed) being just one weak point I'll point out.
It worked for Saddam Hussein.
Angurse:You've changed the argument again. You will only get what you pay. The rest of the world would care what hes doing because hes trying to enforce laws making women property, etc... If he were use his military and dominate people then the world wouldn't be in an anarchistic state at all, so the state has easily been defeated.
He pays well. Why would the rest of the world care? So someone with a lot of money in an anarchistic state can easily destroy it. It appears this theory is flawed.
Angurse:Or else we'd be at the mercy of billionaire goldminer svenghalis. Please don't act so childish, stick to the topic.
Billionaires and owners of gold mines do not exist and would not exist in an anarchistic state?
Jon Irenicus:So would you or wouldn't you forbid the free association of individuals to arrange for their own affais sans a state? If so, you're the obstacle. If not, then this discussion is ultimately trivial. Seeing the State as the only way of providing defence, or whatever other service, is treating it like a god.
It is not up to me but society. If you are unable to convince enough people of your "ideal" system than your argument is flawed.
Jon Irenicus:Yet it is available to them and yet many of them use it to their advantage.
That does not change how politicians are elected, which is by more than just the Billionaire's vote.
Jon Irenicus:No, he doesn't - in fact his treatment of anarchy is shallow compared to the rest of his work, and is written in ignorance (unavoidably) of works that post-date it treating of the subject. You merely wish for confirmation of your impetuous attachment to mummy state.
Well it is nice to find out that Ludwig von Mises is considered "ignorant" at the Ludwig von Mises institute!
Le Master:Poptech, I linked to these before. You should really read them. A six-part exchange between RC Hoiles and Mises.
RC insults Mises and Mises clearly does not accept an anarchist position.
Poptech: It is not up to me but society. If you are unable to convince enough people of your "ideal" system than your argument is flawed.
That's ridiculous. So if I say this is a light bulb and it is a light bulb, but nobody will be convinced it's a light bulb - my argument is flawed. A=A
Poptech: Le Master:Poptech, I linked to these before. You should really read them. A six-part exchange between RC Hoiles and Mises. RC insults Mises and Mises clearly does not accept an anarchist position.
You are either being purposively dishonest or well, maybe not purposively. This topic is over. Mises was referring obviously not to anarchy that adheres to law (anarchy means no ruler, but that in no way means no law). Let's not throw out history while you've already thrown out logic so I guess your last stand will be irrationality.
Seph:minarchists are little more than soft-communists.
I wager there are more socialist-anarchists than socialist-minarchists. If there is a collective ownership over the means of production and a lack of private property, this sort of government cannot be a minimal one.
Seph are you trying to say Mises, Hayek, Ropke, Hazlitt, et al. are soft-communists?
@Paul this one? Or this? What about the following.
Individualism Rocks
Unless you believe fallacies make good arguments, no, not really.
Since when is that all that there is to the political process? The election part is as contrived and limited with regard to choice as can be as it is.
Mises was not nor did he ever claim to be infallible. And had you taken what I said in context I said he is inevitably ignorant of works that engaged the topic of anarchism in greater depth because they were not written then or because he had bigger problems to deal with (monetary theory, socialism &c.) than that at the time. That isn't quite the same as saying he is ignorant simpliciter...
To darkness I condemn you...
wilderness:That's ridiculous. So if I say this is a light bulb and it is a light bulb, but nobody will be convinced it's a light bulb - my argument is flawed.
Yes of course, if you are unable to convince enough people that a light bulb is a light bulb your argument is flawed. But this is something that can be done through scientific experimentation and demonstrated.
If you hold up a glass shaped like a light bulb and declare it so but no one believes you because you will not make it "light up"
wilderness:You are either being purposively dishonest or well, maybe not purposively. This topic is over. Mises was referring obviously not to anarchy that adheres to law (anarchy means no ruler, but that in no way means no law). Let's not throw out history while you've already thrown out logic so I guess your last stand will be irrationality.
I find no evidence that Mises even entertained an idea of "pro-law anarchism" in any remote sense. What has been extensively established is Mises refuted Anarchy and that exchange just further supports that. Nor have I seen evidence for him advocating for the establishment of law without government. Do you have any evidence of him supporting an idea of an Anarcho-Capitalist system?
Jon Irenicus:Unless you believe fallacies make good arguments, no, not really.
Then if the argument is not flawed how come you cannot convince enough people of an Anarcho-Capitalist system?
Jon Irenicus:Since when is that all that there is to the political process? The election part is as contrived and limited with regard to choice as can be as it is.
While the political process is far from perfect and never could be, you clearly have choices but people continue to only choose between two parties. After reading and dealing with various libertarians, it is very clear to me why this is so.
Poptech:Then if the argument is not flawed how come you cannot convince enough people of an Anarcho-Capitalist system?
Poptech: If you are unable to convince enough people of your "ideal" system than your argument is flawed.
Please explain.
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap