It's very simple. If the vast majority of people (and thus economic power) do not care about property rights, there won't be any. If they do, then there will be. To claim things like, the group with the most money will make the rules and become in effect a state, requires that the public accept this situation. If they refuse to pay taxes, and indeed hire others to defend or directly defend themselves from such appropriations, no such group can take hold.
In the most extreme situation, the public could abandon the money that the would-be state has accumulated wealth in.
Capitalism is production for the masses. No market resembling a free market has ever produced a monopoly in any sector.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
Poptech:The problem I keep seeing is people's false belief in some imaginary universal moral code, none exists.
We agree that morality is subjective, but you are wrong to perpetuate this strawman that there is a universal belief, in a universal moral code.
Challenges to you on morality issued by me, haven't been "why don't you agree with everyone else", but rather, "why do you believe X, and why do you support Y, and don't you think that claiming to be Z, while believing X and supporting Y is contradictory"?
The issue I have, is if I oppose aggression, and someone disagrees with me, I'd like to know why they feel aggression is justified or warranted.
Two ways to spot someone being dishonest in debate.
1. The use of adjectives. "imaginary". It presumes that the universal moral code is false, without having proven it. In this case I agree with you, but if someone disagrees, you will have to do more than claim "imaginary" in a formal debate. Other adjectives used this way, include crazy, stupid, dumb, ridiculous etc.
2. The absence of yes or no answers, and the extreme use of qualifiers or red herrings. If one cannot define their own position clearly, then how can they expect anyone to take that position seriously in debate? Either you know where you stand, or you do not. If you do not, then perhaps argumentation should follow some introspection.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student:but you are wrong to perpetuate this strawman that there is a universal belief, in a universal moral code.
No, I meant that some people believe there is a universal belief in a universal moral code. I do not believe in any such universal belief but rather some people believe there is one. They think everyone has the same subjective morality as themselves. If this was true thieves, murders and rapists would not exist.
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
Alright so thus far, I've only showed him Long's "10 Objections" article. He replied with:
Him: Rockwell fails at #4
Me: Lew didn't write it.
Him: "If you have a choice between two protection agencies, and one solves its disputes through violence most of the time, and the other one solves its disputes through arbitration most of the time – now, you might think, "I want the one that solves its disputes through violence – that’s sounds really cool!" But then you look at your monthly premiums. And you think, well, how committed are you to this Viking mentality? Now..." - Long
All it takes is one customer to say "I want to win, no matter the cost", and everyone else is fucked. So what if it's more expensive? I'm a Rich Asshole. I'm willing to pay. Money is no substitute for justice. I suppose I could go through the various refutations and write a response. There are good points in there, but at the end of the day, anarchy is an extreme position. Extremes are always harder to defend than middle of the road.
Note: I've told him to come over here and debate. Not sure if he will.
A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin. - H.L. Mencken
you could quip that "middle of the roadism" leads to socialism
besides, even putting aside the issue of defining whats extreme and whats not, its simply not true that the extreme is always harder to defend.
is a belief that real accurate knowledge is preferred over ignorance and error more 'extreme' than the belief that a good mix of knowledge and ignorance is the preferred standard? i think you find it harder to defend the position that an 'even split' between knowledge and ignorance is to be preferred over a discerning attitude that prefers knowledge over ignorance...
come to think of it, I don't know if his argument was so troubling that it even merits a response...
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
LS:The issue I have, is if I oppose aggression, and someone disagrees with me, I'd like to know why they feel aggression is justified or warranted.
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."
read this. http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/3/0/1/pages153011/p153011-1.php (I do not have the honor of first finding this great work. It was posted by another and i was in the middle of reading it)Basically there is no point in the anarchist vs government debate, because as the literature claims, we never really leave a state of anarchy.
Entering into a contract with the state may resolve the anarchy between 2 individuals, but the individual-->state relationship is always anarchic. This is worse for individuals because typically the state is the most powerful entity around and you have no chance of dissuading it with counter-threats of violence or by buying yourself security, since the state can just confiscate everyone's wealth till it has what it wants.
In your friend's word, the rich asshole who wants everyone to die AT LEAST has a finite amount of money and lacks the assumed legitimacy of the state. As such, it is easier to rebel against oppressive forces coming out of the marketplace rather than oppressive forces coming out of the state.
If this rich asshat had government, he'd be like hitler or stalin or whatever. This is much worse.
All your friend is pointing out is that assholes make life difficult. This is not an argument directed against anarchy.
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
If i may quote extensively from that piece:It is the very monopolistic nature of the state that enables it to grow beyond any constitutional limitations placed upon it and eventually to transform into Leviathan. 67
To point out just a few of the problems: The barrier to free entry of competition deprives the state of market incentives to minimize waste, cut costs, and improve the quality of its goods and services. The fact that the state gets its revenue via coercion rather than through sales means that the state is unable to rationally plan and calculate. Without profit-and-loss accounting the state is severely hampered in its ability to know what goods and services to produce, how much to produce, and where they should be distributed; it is unable to determine the most cost-effective way to use the resources at its disposal and has every incentive to just throw more money at a problem. For example, not everyone needs the same kind or amount of security.
Moreover, the state has far more incentive than private individuals and organizations to engage in conflict and war, because as a compulsory territorial monopolist it is able to externalize the costs of war (and lesser conflicts) onto its own subjects. Among the means by which it does this are: taxation, inflation, deficit spending, confiscation, price controls, conscription, and the like. As Albert Jay Nock has observed: “‘The State claims and exercises the monopoly of crime’ in a given territorial area. ‘It forbids private murder, but itself organizes murder on a colossal scale. It punishes private theft, but itself lays unscrupulous hands on anything it wants, whether the property of citizen or alien.’”
Juan:You 'subjectively' believe that 'aggression' is not justified
That's correct. I have selected non-aggression deliberately.
Juan:I think you should consistently apply your new(tm) and amazing(tm) 'subjectivist' amoral philosophy
It's not new or amoral. I am happy you find it amazing.
Juan:and stop making any argument in favor of an arbitrary preference such as 'libertarianism'
Why? It is the arbitrary preference I have chosen. I chose it, because I like it. I usually make arguments in favour of things I like.
LS "Why? It is the arbitrary preference I have chosen. I chose it, because I like it. I usually make arguments in favour of things I like."Oh snap. Good defense.I don't like to take a moral stance in economics debates, since austrians can usually win on all values.
Though I can't help but wonder how you would defend your values if you had chosen them arbitrarily, especially if your opponent has done the same with a different set of values. Will you agree to disagree?
It is the arbitrary preference I have chosen. I chose it, because I like it. I usually make arguments in favour of things I like.
I chose it, because I like it.
I usually make arguments in favour of things I like
Juan:Yeah, chosen == arbitrary preference - you are kinda...redundant ?
You would know!
Juan:Ah yes. Amazing insight ?
Thanks, but I'm just a regular guy.
Juan:You like X - that's it. Arguments don't enter the picture.
Well, I don't argue with myself. Also, I give myself room to grow with understanding. You can't argue with someone who has a gun and is willing to use it. I argue with people who claim they like X, but they act for Y. But if they don't really don't like X, then there is little I can do to make X their choice.
I argue with people who claim they like X, but they act for Y.
Snowflake:Though I can't help but wonder how you would defend your values if you had chosen them arbitrarily, especially if your opponent has done the same with a different set of values. Will you agree to disagree?
Arbitrary is not the word I would like to use. It's implies that I make my moral decisions lightly, or casually.
I come to my morality subjectively. By my own rational analysis.
If my "opponent" has a different set of values, then I can either explain my position and its merits, or I can agree to disagree.
Juan:Do you argue with non-'libertarians' in favor of 'libertarianism' ? On what grounds ?
Not much anymore. My goals have changed.
Juan:Do you like vanilla ice cream ? Do you argue for vanilla ice cream ?
I don't eat much ice cream. I've been trying to remove refined sugars from my diet.
Juan:Who gives a damn about what you 'like' or don't like ?
I dunno hombre. You keep asking all the questions.
Juan:So what ? It's none of your business.
Whether morality is objective or subjective, that doesn't change.
Juan:By the way, if they act for Y that seems to be strong evidence they like Y, not X...
Excellent analysis.
Juan: It implies your decisions are groundless - mere whim. Face it.
How do you reconcile this with praxeology?
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