liberty student:They don't work.
That is your opinion but they clearly exist and have shown to support some of the largest economies.
liberty student:Back to semantics.
Clarification is important.
liberty student:Back to adjectives.
As opposed to what? Shock words like "violence, murderers and criminal gangs" intended to influence those who cannot see through the ploy?
So only you can state things how you "feel"?
liberty student:So no, it doesn't depend on the form of government
Of course it depends on the form of government, otherwise all outcomes would be identical and they are clearly not.
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
liberty student:Like the government.
Nope
Once again, how is this ANY different than the manner in which states interact? Ever read up on the bombing of Dresden, or the Firebombing of Tokyo, or for that matter, the Rape of Nanking. States are capable of atrocities that make Mob hits look like child's play. Mobsters drew up contracts just as states do, and mobs collected protection money, just as states do.
As Roderick Long pointed out, states can socialize costs, PMC's would only have this option of they had gained massive power in the first place via wealth. This would certainly be possible, but very difficult without a "gun in the room" to capture, or without IP laws, patents etc. that allow for royalties to increase funds.
Poptech:That is your opinion
I thought it was also your opinion? Do you think Obama is following the Constitution? Did Clinton? Bush? Is America following the Constitution?
Poptech:they clearly exist and have shown to support some of the largest economies.
I didn't claim governments don't exist. But constitutional republics don't function as constitutional republics, they function as democracies. Again, Hoppe has written a brilliant book about this. Democracy The God That Failed.
Poptech:Clarification is important.
You're engaging in avoidance, and a zero sum debate where you win, even if it relies on the flimsiest of technical points. That's fine, but with the exception of a couple people here, the debate is usually much more mature than that. Debate doesn't have to be zero sum, but that requires honesty from both parties.
Poptech: As opposed to what? Shock words like "violence, murderers and criminal gangs" intended to influence those who cannot see through the ploy? So only you can state things how you "feel"?
Violence, murderers and criminal gangs are not adjectives. Your use of adjectives is to assume away a point, without having made it.
Poptech:Of course it depends on the form of government, otherwise all outcomes would be identical and they are clearly not.
Non-sequitur. We're not debating the marginal differences between a Congress and a Parliament. We're debating the incentives of governments to grow. The incentive, which is common to all governments, is monopoly.
I'm sure you can agree with this statement. All governments are monopoly, regardless of their form.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Poptech: liberty student:Like the government. Nope
Why not?
liberty student:You're engaging in avoidance, and a zero sum debate where you win, even if it relies on the flimsiest of technical points. That's fine, but with the exception of a couple people here, the debate is usually much more mature than that. Debate doesn't have to be zero sum, but that requires honesty from both parties.
I am not avoiding anything, I just have no interest in the tangential points you bring up to change the subject. You engage in wrong or misleading statements and then complain when I point them out. You definition of "mature" is you make whatever statements you want and no one can criticize them no matter how wrong or misleading they are. Which is nonsense. Crying semantics for being WRONG, is a misuse of the word
liberty student:Violence, murderers and criminal gangs are not adjectives. Your use of adjectives is to assume away a point, without having made it.
I never said they were but you are using the adjective argument to attempt to persuade me not to use them all the while engaging in the same sort of emotional word play with nouns. I use adjectives for clarification of the meaning of the words I choose.
liberty student:We're debating the incentives of governments to grow.
In regards to growth, I do not believe this statement to be true...
" A priori, we know what the outcome of monopoly states will be."
Poptech:I am not avoiding anything
You have avoided at least a dozen arguments from me. Would you like me to list them for you, so you can address them here and now?
Poptech: liberty student:We're debating the incentives of governments to grow. In regards to growth, I do not believe this statement to be true... " A priori, we know what the outcome of monopoly states will be."
Why?
Hey Blue, is this from that guy Ultimate Mind who I am debating on the dream forums? Did you see how he went from being a liberty pounding constitutional to a 'we need government because people are metaphorical animals who can't deal with full liberty' It is quite astonishing.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Laughing Man:It is quite astonishing.
Not really. That was my point to Juan. Many people hold positions of double think. I debate to get them to own up to it, and pick a side. If they decide that might makes right, then there isn't much you can do about that. Does anyone really believe if they could get 15 minutes with Obama or Pelosi, they could convince them to adopt a more libertarian agenda?
Sounds to me like buddy was never a Constitutionalist. He doesn't really support liberty. Like some of the Ron Paulies, they only support liberty with a government, not without. Stockholm syndrome.
Cortex: Not true, murders have generally one of the highest detection rates. The Czech police, for example, has had murder detection rate of 85-95 percent for decades and I think the number is similar in many other states.
Not true, murders have generally one of the highest detection rates. The Czech police, for example, has had murder detection rate of 85-95 percent for decades and I think the number is similar in many other states.
Sorry I forgot about the Czechs and many other states...I guess I my real point was that even Leviathan states are not safeguards against murder.
"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
Nobody said absolute safeguards, only better than the alternative.
Better how? It is completely subjective.
And I would argue, it is not better, because the rule of law is a myth, just like the state is a myth when it comes to the protection of liberty.
scineram:Nobody said absolute safeguards, only better than the alternative.
Thanks. Thanks for the fully developed idea which you have scrupulously constructed from first principles. What a clear position boy-howdy. If you think the alternative to the status quo is mass killing and looting, then maybe you are right.
If you gave thought to how a poly-centric legal system is superior theoretically and historically to a monopolistic legal system, or considered that security and order are in-demand commodities that entrepreneurs can and do produce at ever lower costs much more efficiently than the state, then you are wrong.If you are a libertarian, utilitarianism is superseded by the NAP, you are wrong.
liberty student:And I would argue, it is not better, because the rule of law is a myth, just like the state is a myth when it comes to the protection of liberty.
Though I can't help but think that in his example of inflexible laws being "bad" if that isn't rule of law, albeit an undesirable one. So there could be a rule of law if the laws were always interpreted and applied in the same way (The author rightly makes the point that laws are written in language, and there is no language that is not interpretable, hence the requirement for a static interpretation).
liberty student:just like the state is a myth when it comes to the protection of liberty.
That's just not true, throughout history states have protected the rights of individuals and allowed peaceful cooperation under the division of labour. Now, can stateless societies do this just as well, or even, better? It's quite possible, but it certainly isn't true a priori and it remains to be seen.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Poptech: The myth of the anarcho-capitalist society is that people will obey Rothbard's "ethics".
The myth of the anarcho-capitalist society is that people will obey Rothbard's "ethics".
Is that a myth you started? As most anarcho-capitalists understand polycentrism and subjectivism.
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
GilesStratton: throughout history states have protected the rights of individuals
GilesStratton: allowed peaceful cooperation under the division of labour
By definition state prohibits competition with itself, including competition that would occur through a free and voluntary association of individuals.
GilesStratton:ow, can stateless societies do this just as well, or even, better? It's quite possible, but it certainly isn't true a priori.
Monopolies have a self interest to rule in their own favor. Competing entities have self interest to serve the consumer. The only way the state could provide better service than the free market is if everyone ignored these their own self interest. If you do not think this is a priori (it follows from praxeology) it is as certain as an inductive argument can get.
No, Universal Mind and the guy I'm talking about are two different people. And yes, I've seen his transition. The people on that forum are ridiculous. Sometimes I don't even know how to address them.
Also, for the people in this thread here's some clarification: My friend's basic argument is that Rothbard failed to account for rich people just using their money as weapons. I don't know if that was clear in my first post.
A cynic is a man who, when he smells flowers, looks around for a coffin. - H.L. Mencken
LS:I need to know if you like vanilla ice cream.
Seriously, I am wondering if you believe my decisions are all made as whims, or just some of my decisions like morality. Could you answer that please?
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."
GilesStratton:Now, can stateless societies do this just as well, or even, better? It's quite possible, but it certainly isn't true a priori and it remains to be seen.
The Law Merchant arose as a market-based solution to inadequacies in the official "law" handed down by monarchs, and prevailed for centuries, if I'm not mistaken...
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
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