liberty student: Brainpolice:I have refuted this premise on this message board ad nauseum. The premise is ridiculous because the very nature of the state means that we are not equal to it, it is predicated on a certain group of human beings having special rights above others and being able to get away with doing that which the common individual cannot, and hence there is an inherent divide between ruler and subject. Actually, you're just doing what you usually do. You change the argument to suit your response. The issue isn't the people being equal with the state, it's that the state institution seeks to remove differences between individuals, by laundering morality, property and responsibility through a collective "we the people" filter it controls.
Brainpolice:I have refuted this premise on this message board ad nauseum. The premise is ridiculous because the very nature of the state means that we are not equal to it, it is predicated on a certain group of human beings having special rights above others and being able to get away with doing that which the common individual cannot, and hence there is an inherent divide between ruler and subject.
Actually, you're just doing what you usually do. You change the argument to suit your response.
The issue isn't the people being equal with the state, it's that the state institution seeks to remove differences between individuals, by laundering morality, property and responsibility through a collective "we the people" filter it controls.
The state does not seek to literally equalize the economic structure of the society. The reality of the state is itself a deviation from flatness in the society, and the state's function is primarily to intensify where the power is concentrated in different areas. The effect is never actual flatness, it's always privilege to one group at the expense of other groups. I reject pure flatness as an impossibility anyways, and as undesirable to boot. But I also reject the extreme heirarchy and privilege that is represented by the state, and I think that the removal of the state inherently implies more pluralism and less heirarchy.
My point is, BP's position in many posts here, is that hierarchy is state. He makes little or no allowance for voluntary hierarchical ordering. Juan also parrots this (see up thread).
You have yet to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of my position. That is not my position, it's a three word slogan. My position is that the state itself quite obviously is a heirarchy, and hence if you oppose the state you are proposing the removal of that particular heirarchy. By default, this implies less heirarchy in that particuar area. My left-libertarian position has consistantly been primarily that the state enables there to be more concentration of power and is itself a concentration of power. Your repeated attempts at strawmanning me as a marxist are highly disingenous.
As democracy trends toward outright socialism and then collapse and chaos, non-state institutions will emerge to offer services formerly monopolized by government, eventually supplanting democratic government in their spheres of influence. Over time, these will evolve into hereditary structures.
At which point, intergenerationally, they become states. Feudalism, AT BEST, is the pretext for the formation of states all over again, and it makes no sense for a libertarian to side with the new state. Feudalism, more realistically, is already predicated on a state forming and protecting the landlord's title, and functions as a province of a state. Quite simply, you are simply using libertarianism as a rationale for the imposition of what you actually value, I.E. feudalism rather than liberty. At best, all your position entails is setting back the historical progression of forms of government by a millenia or so, it doesn't actually abolish the government or establish a genuinely free society. Even assuming the absurdity of a "free society" with fuedal land arrangements, it won't remain a "free society" for long. But more than likely a "free society" with fuedal land arrangements isn't realy a free society to begin with - it's an archiac and backwards society.
LS: J: LS: So, I assume that the people who pay you claim an authority over the direction and quality of your labour? No, they ask me to do X and I voluntarily do X. You didn't answer the question. Please try again.
J: LS: So, I assume that the people who pay you claim an authority over the direction and quality of your labour? No, they ask me to do X and I voluntarily do X.
LS: So, I assume that the people who pay you claim an authority over the direction and quality of your labour?
Well surely someone is an authority on how you will execute the work, what the work will be? Or do people hire you to just do whatever you want?
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."
Byzantine: The modern Western states like the USA and Great Britain will collapse from internal dissent, corruption and fiscal overreach. Nation-states, in the traditional sense such as the various kingdoms on the Saudi peninsula, the Dutch, the Finns, etc., will gain relevance but find themselves having to compete for capital and make low time-preference decisions regarding its deployment.
The modern Western states like the USA and Great Britain will collapse from internal dissent, corruption and fiscal overreach. Nation-states, in the traditional sense such as the various kingdoms on the Saudi peninsula, the Dutch, the Finns, etc., will gain relevance but find themselves having to compete for capital and make low time-preference decisions regarding its deployment.
Libertarianism consists in the non-aggression principle, i.e. a commitment to liberty. No more, no less. Unless feudalism concerns itself with justly homesteaded resources, it is merely another illegitimate form of statism, perhaps less vicious than other forms of statism, but statism nonetheless.
To darkness I condemn you...
Juan:No amount of newspeak/word twisting is going to change the fact that cooperation and hierarchy are different things.
But you know that is wrong. By your own admission, you do work voluntarily, but someone else directs what the work will be.
Cooperation and voluntaryism doesn't mean the absence of leadership. People can voluntarily choose to follow someone else, as you do when you work for a client or customer. You consider it in your best interest, to follow their direction, to satisfy a goal they have set, in order to achieve your end, which is to get paid.
Sometimes your rabid anti-theism, and anti-conservatism lands you in trouble, because you forget that anarchy doesn't fit one model only, and that your world without coercion is impossible to maintain indefinitely.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Brainpolice:Your repeated attempts at strawmanning me as a marxist are highly disingenous.
I don't have to strawman you. I went through your YouTube catalog. You're just another anti-capitalist.
liberty student: Brainpolice:Your repeated attempts at strawmanning me as a marxist are highly disingenous. I don't have to strawman you. I went through your YouTube catalog. You're just another anti-capitalist.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
The state is a disease and Liberty is the both the victim and the only means to a lasting cure.
ThorsMitersaw: liberty student: Brainpolice:Your repeated attempts at strawmanning me as a marxist are highly disingenous. I don't have to strawman you. I went through your YouTube catalog. You're just another anti-capitalist. You have no idea what you are talking about.
^Very convincing argument.^
liberty student:You're just another anti-capitalist.
Woah! Another strawman. Surprising.
liberty student: No one here has spoken about striking anyone down. On the contrary, those who must be propped up, be they christian or atheist, muslim or jew, buddhist or hindu, straight, bi or gay, white, black, brown, red or yellow will have to swim and thrive on their own merit in the marketplace. And if you believe there are no differences in genetics, or sex, or age or creed/code, then you are a fool. Some will be disadvantaged, and the state will not be there to protect them coercively. Thus, some, might even perish due to the fact that they were distortions in nature or under the state in the first place.
No one here has spoken about striking anyone down. On the contrary, those who must be propped up, be they christian or atheist, muslim or jew, buddhist or hindu, straight, bi or gay, white, black, brown, red or yellow will have to swim and thrive on their own merit in the marketplace. And if you believe there are no differences in genetics, or sex, or age or creed/code, then you are a fool. Some will be disadvantaged, and the state will not be there to protect them coercively. Thus, some, might even perish due to the fact that they were distortions in nature or under the state in the first place.
And what race, gender or religion would be disadvantaged in a free society? which race do you think that will perish due to its inherent inferiority and inability to provide for themselves? would it be blacks, latinos or indians?That makes anarchy sound like an eugenicist's fantasy.
Jon Irenicus:Unless feudalism concerns itself with justly homesteaded resources,
That's where my distinction lies.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Brainpolice:At which point, intergenerationally, they become states. Feudalism, AT BEST, is the pretext for the formation of states all over again, and it makes no sense for a libertarian to side with the new state. Feudalism, more realistically, is already predicated on a state forming and protecting the landlord's title, and functions as a province of a state. Quite simply, you are simply using libertarianism as a rationale for the imposition of what you actually value, I.E. feudalism rather than liberty. At best, all your position entails is setting back the historical progression of forms of government by a millenia or so, it doesn't actually abolish the government or establish a genuinely free society. Even assuming the absurdity of a "free society" with fuedal land arrangements, it won't remain a "free society" for long. But more than likely a "free society" with fuedal land arrangements isn't realy a free society to begin with - it's an archiac and backwards society.
Whenver I hear you speaking I get the impression that you hate the state for the same reason you were annoyed at your parents when they sent you to bed too early, it's a shame that all those activies you like are contingent on the state
Brainpolice:The state does not seek to literally equalize the economic structure of the society. The reality of the state is itself a deviation from flatness in the society, and the state's function is primarily to intensify where the power is concentrated in different areas. The effect is never actual flatness, it's always privilege to one group at the expense of other groups. I reject pure flatness as an impossibility anyways, and as undesirable to boot. But I also reject the extreme heirarchy and privilege that is represented by the state, and I think that the removal of the state inherently implies more pluralism and less heirarchy.
Private property means inequality. The state abolishes private property. I'll leave to see where this is going.
Brainpolice: Please reference some of these specific rationales. That's the bulk of what I do on this board. I make philosophical arguments for and against concepts, and some of you just poo-poo it.
Please reference some of these specific rationales.
That's the bulk of what I do on this board. I make philosophical arguments for and against concepts, and some of you just poo-poo it.
Because we're talking economics. But thank you for admitting your intellectual dishonesty.
Marko:What is your nation-state in "the traditional sense"? How do you fit in the Finns with the Arabian Peninsula kingdoms?
The classical meaning of a nation is a nationality, an ethnic group. The traditional nation-states are places like France, Sweden, the Arab kingdoms, Finland, etc. The US is a radical experiment in nationhood: a propositional nation, although de facto, it was an Anglo/Celt nation-state prior to 1965.
When the propositional nations collapse, and they will, traditional nations will gain relevance quicker than you can say blood is thicker than water. The good news for all us folks who weren't born into a particularly insular nationality is that the Dutch (largest port in Europe) and the Finns (smart and hardworking) and the Arab sheiks (oil) will have to compete for capital and exercise low time-preference along with everybody else if they want to stay relevant.
Understand, this is a simplistic rendering of a complicated and lengthy scenario.
Juan:Also, the fact that conservatism is not libertarianism needs no further explanation. Just as true is the fact that cultural conservatism is NOT cultural libertarianism.
Wonderful, instead of reading the arguments in favour of this position you dismiss them as self evidently wrong.
Juan:Conservatives are childish.
High time preference is indicative of leftist "culture" (or, more accurately, lack of), did you know children tend to have high time preference (and gays.)
Brainpolice: "Inequality, conservatism, feudalism, elitism. Better known as libertarianism." Give me a break. Your principles and/or your application of them blatantly contradict libertarianism, and it doesn't take a left-libertarian perspective to see why it is absurd to define libertarianism in terms of "inequality, conservatism, feudalism, elitism". Clearly, you are being trollish and disingenous.
"Inequality, conservatism, feudalism, elitism. Better known as libertarianism."
Give me a break. Your principles and/or your application of them blatantly contradict libertarianism, and it doesn't take a left-libertarian perspective to see why it is absurd to define libertarianism in terms of "inequality, conservatism, feudalism, elitism". Clearly, you are being trollish and disingenous.
Says who, you? You can live your mediocre life under the state and keep wishing things would be more mediocre, but when the state collapses you're going to be in for a big suprise.
By the way, you didn't comment on the avatar, it's the armorial of the Holy Roman Empire, if you'd like to know.
Byzantine: The classical meaning of a nation is a nationality, an ethnic group. The traditional nation-states are places like France, Sweden, the Arab kingdoms, Finland, etc. The US is a radical experiment in nationhood: a propositional nation, although de facto, it was an Anglo/Celt nation-state prior to 1965.
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