Snowflake:This pales in comparison to the amount of power he can extract by being the state.
So the Billionaire is a State or lives in a State?
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
liberty student:Indeed I can. I never claimed the opposite of what he proposed.
Then you are illogical because if the opposite does not protect all rights than your "solution" is no better.
liberty loser:For example, Giles, "Oranges taste good", Me "Prove they taste good", Poptart "You can't have it both ways, you are saying oranges taste bad"
It was not a subjective argument.
liberty student:Sure he did.
He just stated he did not qualify it as "all".
liberty student:But he implies it when he says individual rights are protected.
No you incorrectly assumed that. I read exactly what he said.
liberty student:We all know that the state only protects individual rights, by attacking individual rights. There is no absolute property rights with a state, and so the state cannot protect ANY rights.
That is not true and illogical.
liberty student:Which makes Giles claim, that the state protects rights, false.
Giles claims are perfectly valid.
liberty student:Thanks for playing
I declare myself winner.
Doesn't matter. The original argument was that billionaires would abuse their money. I guess I was assuming that the billionaire could control the state, since that's typically the way things go. My point is that the introduction of a monopoly cannot help things.
"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
Knight_of_BAAWA: Knight_of_BAAWA:And it's time for you to shape up. Right now GilesStratton:So when I say, I just ate aYou qualified it with the article "a". Is English not your first language, Giles?
Knight_of_BAAWA:And it's time for you to shape up. Right now
GilesStratton:So when I say, I just ate a
Is English not your first language, Giles?
OK, how about "I ate meat"? Did I eat all the meat that has ever existed?
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Snowflake:This doesn't seem to happen in real life. There are theoretical arguments why this is will not be the case, namely that politicians have more to gain by coalescing around the state and fighting off minority political groups.
Exactly, this is what occurs in the current system. Are you denying the possibility of a system of incentives with ensures, or at least allows, government to be deadlocked due to the conflicting plans of the various "arms" of government? If so, that's a bold and somewhat unwarranted claim.
Snowflake:But a dictatorship only has one true political actor....
That's not even close to being true.
Snowflake:Because understanding incentive structures allows you to predict what will happen? The alignment of interests between political and economic actors is exactly what we want to avoid, since economic actors will use the power of the state to advantage themselves in the market. See corporatism in America. What I think you mean to say is that I disregard the possibility that politicals will be friendly to free markets. If they were friendly to free markets they wouldn't tax them. If they don't tax them they are no longer a government. Again, this line of thought follows from the definitions of what we're talking about.
You seem to be denying the very possibility of any government every being productive. If you think that is the case, then I don't think we can go much further.
Nonetheless, you're missing my whole point. It is possible for a government to exist which cannot grow, or is at least unlikely to grow, because each of its actors or groups of actors have a conflict with one another.
Poptech:Then you are illogical because if the opposite does not protect all rights than your "solution" is no better.
Non sequitur. My system allows for rights to be protected. The state requires that rights be violated in order to exist. So
1) it has more "potential".
2) 5% is better than 0%, and 90% is better than 80%.
3) Still a non-sequitur. Please stay on topic.
Poptech:It was not a subjective argument.
Well it had to be, because he can't prove it objectively as I requested.
Poptech:That is not true and illogical.
Prove it.
Poptech:Giles claims are perfectly valid.
Again, neither he nor you can prove that. He knows that, which is why he downsized his argument, and is now playing your style of semantic games.
Poptech:I declare myself winner.
We have another guy like you. At least he knows what a libertarian is.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
GilesStratton:OK, how about "I ate meat"? Did I eat all the meat that has ever existed?
Why are you playing semantic games Giles?
1. You maintain the state protects rights.
2. You claim the state protects only some rights.
3. You withdraw any claims about the state protecting rights.
Pick a position and defend it.
LS, I went with two the whole time. Perhaps you've misread my post, but others seem to have no trouble understanding what I mean.
GilesStratton:Are you denying the possibility of a system of incentives with ensures, or at least allows, government to be deadlocked due to the conflicting plans of the various "arms" of government?
GilesStratton:If so, that's a bold and somewhat unwarranted claim.
Giving these actors a monopoly on use of force is what warrants this claim. You're imagining they can be made to play nice. Why would they choose this option when they can get away with playing mean? They won't and they don't.
GilesStratton: Snowflake:But a dictatorship only has one true political actor.... That's not even close to being true.
The dictator has a monopoly on coercive force. Therefore the dictator is government. Definitions definitions... No point arguing this anyway its peripheral.
GilesStratton:You seem to be denying the very possibility of any government every being productive. If you think that is the case, then I don't think we can go much further.
GilesStratton:Nonetheless, you're missing my whole point. It is possible for a government to exist which cannot grow, or is at least unlikely to grow, because each of its actors or groups of actors have a conflict with one another.
And your point is missing the whole point entirely: That any monopoly, government or not, no matter if it is a static one, is able to demonstrate that it could ever provide for security better than the market.
GilesStratton:LS, I went with two the whole time.
Did you? Then why did you challenge me on the polar opposite of one? Anyway, #2 it is.
Now, #2, the state protects some rights, seems incorrect to me, particularly within the context of enabling the division of labour (as per your claim).
The state violates property rights, yes or no? Feel free to equivocate here, but make it obvious please.
If yes, then it seems to me the state cannot enable the division of labour.
If no, then how do you explain fee simple title?
Snowflake, you're wasting your time with Giles. He's not a libertarian or a free marketer.
liberty student:Snowflake, you're wasting your time with Giles. He's not a libertarian or a free marketer.
liberty student:My system allows for rights to be protected.
You have not proven this.
liberty student: 1) it has more "potential". 2) 5% is better than 0%, and 90% is better than 80%.
All unproven and irrelevant to the use of the word "all" which you bolded. You are now changing the argument or do you agree that states can protect rights?
liberty student:Well it had to be, because he can't prove it objectively as I requested.
Neither can you.
Poptech: liberty student:My system allows for rights to be protected. You have not proven this.
in LS's system, its contingent whereas in yours its necessarily impossible.
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
Snowflake: liberty student:Snowflake, you're wasting your time with Giles. He's not a libertarian or a free marketer.That's where the fun is >:D
What I am trying to tell you is, he's not simply misunderstanding the libertarian position. He rejects it.
Same thing with Poptart. When you debate with them, you have to debate for the lurker/readers. You're not going to move people who can't explain their own positions but insist on opposing yours.
liberty student: Snowflake, you're wasting your time with Giles. He's not a libertarian or a free marketer.
Funny, I would have begged to differ with regards to the latter. But since you know my beliefs and preferences better than I do, I'll keep quiet now lest I misrepresent myself.
liberty student:Now, #2, the state protects some rights, seems incorrect to me, particularly within the context of enabling the division of labour (as per your claim).
How does the state not enforce property rights? If I get my house broken into, I can go down to the nearest police station and make a report. If I'm lucky the police will look into it and find whoever did it and consequently return my property. How is this not protecting property?
Would the free market have done it better? Perhaps, but that's not what we're disputing.
A priorism son. Please learn an Austrian method of argumentation!
Poptech:You are now changing the argument or do you agree that states can protect rights?
States can't protect any rights. All rights are property rights (if you read Kinsella, which I suspect you did not), and all law is arbitrary (if you read Hasnas, which I suspect you did not). Thus state legal monopolies, which require forced compliance (violating property rights) and forced financing (violating property rights) cannot protect rights, because every state claims fee simple title over ALL property!
Poptech: liberty student:Well it had to be, because he can't prove it objectively as I requested. Neither can you.
Again, you didn't understand the argument. I knew he was making a subjective statement, but claiming it to be an objective truth. That is why he couldn't prove it. Because objectively, the position fails.
You're trying to catch me in a performative contradiction, without understanding how to debate. It's an epic fail so far.
liberty student:Same thing with Poptart. When you debate with them, you have to debate for the lurker/readers. You're not going to move people who can't explain their own positions but insist on opposing yours.
liberty loser:What I am trying to tell you is, he's not simply misunderstanding the libertarian position. He rejects it.
He supports the actual definition of libertarian not your made up one.
I've explained my own positions over and over and agree with Ludwig von Mises.
GilesStratton:Funny, I would have begged to differ with regards to the latter. But since you know my beliefs and preferences better than I do, I'll keep quiet now lest I misrepresent myself.
Feel free to stake yourself out as a libertarian or free marketer Giles. Of course, within the next week, you will contradict whatever position you claim to hold, as I've been watching this drama play out for over a year now. But seriously, pick a clear and definite position. I insist.
GilesStratton:How does the state not enforce property rights? If I get my house broken into, I can go down to the nearest police station and make a report. If I'm lucky the police will look into it and find whoever did it and consequently return my property. How is this not protecting property?
They didn't stop you from being broken in to. And they are under no obligation to get restitution for you. So there is no property rights justice whatsoever under the state. Big deal, you made a report.
Also, the state owns everything, including you, ala fee simple. So the entire discussion is moot. You don't own any property, your parents don't own any property. At any moment, the state can take 100% of your property, and you have no recourse except...
bah bah bah baaaaaa! Yep, the state! You're a Hoppean, you know this.
GilesStratton:Would the free market have done it better? Perhaps, but that's not what we're disputing.
Why not? If you're a free marketer, how come you never want to discuss free markets?
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