Political Theory

should the government decide who is legal to employ?

cab21 — Thu, 09 May 2013 06:02:13 GMT

should the government decide who is legal to employ?

i hear conservatives call for a police state that calls for strict legal labor laws and enforcement, is this good or bad for freedom?

How can anarchy sustain itself?

RumblyElk — Fri, 03 May 2013 16:10:09 GMT

Hey guys,

I'm studying economics right now as a hobby, focusing specifically on the Austrian school. Currently I'm reading Human Action.

I have a question about anarchy that I have never heard addressed. How can an anarchical society sustain itself? I understand the whole roads thing. I understand the privatization of law. I understand how it could all work. But it seems it would only last for a relativley short time, maybe 25-50 years.

In an anarchical society, the most likely scenario would be that there would exist buisnesses that own communities. In these communities, members would pay a rate, like a tax, but voluntary, for basic utilities and law enforcement. This is where I see problems arising.

Let's assume there is one such buisness, call it 'CommuniCorp', that is extremly popular. They have low rates, good service, the whole bit. Due to their popularity in the market, they soon start buying up other buisnesses and expanding their corporate empire. Before long, they own hundreds of square miles. After a few decades, they are the WalMart of the community buisness, owning thousands of square miles. At this time, there are only a few community buisnesses left, all equalling CommuniCorp in size and power. Switching between community providers is now much more dificult, as you would have to move literally thousands of miles to switch buisnesses.

At this point, CommuniCorp launches its own law enforcement branch. They start making their communities 'safer' by implementing all sorts of social and economic laws. They start to offer 'complimentary healthcare', although soon start to make it mandatory, saying that they need to keep the populace healthy in order to attract customers.

At this point, we would be back at square one; we would have states again. The only difference would be that they might be called buisnesses, and they are probably worse than the states we started out with.

As far as I know, this may have been addressed already in a book or other discussion. If so, could you please tell me where?

Thanks!

Minarchy vs Anarchy

Gavin23 — Sat, 04 May 2013 01:12:04 GMT

Hi new member here. Been lurking for awhile finally got around to registering.

Anyway in my time reading these forums I noticed a very Anarchist viewpoint espoused frequently.

Few questions.

Does being a Austrian economists mean you have to be an Anarchist? This site is named after Mises who I believe was a Minarchist not an Anarchist (Right?) Further many notable Austrian economists such as Hayek, Peter Schiff and others are also Minarchists. So whats the relationship?

Many on these forums seem to be Ron paul Fans. Do Anarchists support him or denounce him as some sort of traitor for his Minarchist views?

I tend to view myself as a Minarchist. Government restricted simply to Judicial System/Police and Defense. Im starting to read up on Anarchist ideology but regardless my question is are there Minarchists on this forum or is this a Anarchist majority forum?

Do Anarchists Reject the political process or middle ground pragmatic solutions? For example school vouchers? Not perfect I know but arguably a step up regardless so would Anarchists support this or denounce it?

If anarchists do reject the political process how do they plan to go about achieving their ideal society? Do they reject slowly working towards atleast a Limited Minarchist state or is it the abolition of the state or nothing at all?

Thanks!

Myths of Geolibertarianism

Lincoln — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 19:08:19 GMT

I made a thread on a forum I am a member off here. It is based on a blog post I made.

I want to know what you people think?

Thanks.

Geolibertarianism – The Social Contract Fallacy

Sadly, libertarian philosophy today finds itself capitulated to the sloppy thinking and muddled premises of the 17th century original thinkers. But none are as strange as geolibertarianism.

After having spent some time reading various posts of certain geolibertarians on a forum I frequent, I began to realise a set of reoccurring arguments and premises. I think it prudent to make an entirely new thread to act as a compendium against geolibertarian collectivist premises.

I argue that the geolibertarian position, the view that land differs from all other elements of production, and that individuals are not entitled to so-called "unearned value" is economically (and ethically) fallacious & fatuous.

What is Geolibertarianism?

I think the best way to understand geolibertarianism is by defining what they think. I have formulated below a set of fundamental assertions that all geolibertarians would nod their heads to:

Geolibertarians consider "land" to be the common property of all mankind.
Private property is derived from an individual's right to the fruits of their labour.
Land is not property since it was not created by anyone's labour.
A person can privately possess land on the condition that rent is paid

Land as Property

To an extent there is a misperception in the way we think of 'land'. There is no such thing as 'land'. Land is a block of three-dimensional space (which there is plenty around us). Private property is the material which we see around us – from trees, swimming pools, pebbles and boulders. What was once a leisure centre is now a cinema, and what was once a tree plantation is now a farm.

What makes the land underneath my feet different to the laptop I am using? It so happens that gravitational forces have created a circular planet and it's because of gravity that we are bound to it. But does that circular planet have anything different to my laptop? No, of course not.

One cannot own land, as such – any more than one can own 'space'. We happen to talk about 'land' because it is a convenient unit of resources.

This is a point that I think one would do well to consider.

Myth 1: Earth was Left in Common to Mankind

Libertarians (and their geolibertarian neighbours) today derive their understanding of what "makes" private property from the works of John Locke. John Locke was struggling to solve the earlier Grotius-Pufendorf problem of how property could be justified, if God gave Earth to mankind in common. Grotius and Pufendorf postulated that consent justified private property. However, John Locke advanced that appropriation of those goods is justified by labouring on them. The Earth belongs to all, John Locke asserts (by appealing to natural law which he argues is knowable by reason).

Underlining all these notions is a communist assertion that people have "rights" by simply existing – and not through human action (a point I will return to later).

People have these entitlements to scarce goods out-of-nothing other than existing! Geolibertarians proudly claim that people have "equal rights of access". But this presupposes that all people already have a positive claim to everything. You can only "access" that which you own. It is a necessary condition of ownership. This creates a positive obligation on every human on the planet to ensure they are not breaching the entitlements of others.

A "collective" is made up of individual people (it can be six people on the planet or even six-billion people). The collective entitlements are derived from the rights of its individual members. Thus, if one man cannot claim land – nor can the collective. If it is the case that man cannot claim ownership of land, then nor can any collection of any number of individuals.

The very definition of "ownership" is exclusive control over the use of a scarce good. The concepts of "ownership" and "common" are incompatible. A person does not have the 'right' to free speech any more than the 'right' to access sidewalks. I have come across the spurious so-called "distinction" between common and collective ownership. The difference hinges on the common ownership being "equal rights" whereas a collective ownership may vary in proportion. But the fundamental point is that in each case everyone has a prior entitlement to that resource.

One can't help but noticed that geolibertarians (or commonists) also invoke the "… when there was only one man on earth …" state of nature to explain that "we would have a right to the use of the whole earth." Anyone, with even the vaguest concept of evolution, should dismiss this nonsense. But even if you are the only man on Earth, you don't have any more entitlement to resources – than sheep or horses. You're free to do as you please. But you have no entitlements. Indeed, planet Earth has been in existence for billions-of-years. What about all the animals and our primate ancestors? Do they not have an equal 'entitlement' to resources? Should chimpanzees, therefore, be locked-up in zoos? When did homo sapiens decide that they have a unique positive entitlement to everything on the planet. Notice the sophistry when the say that the first human (Adam from the bible, of course) would have been able to go anywhere and do anything. But this is obviously not true. He couldn't, for instance, march into a lion's den to snatch a cub – not for long. With a big gasp, geolibertarians should be asserting that the lions are preventing Adam's "right" to access! Further, they would say, shouldn't the lions compensate Adam's 'right'? Perhaps the pride ought to give Adam one of their cubs as payment. But, for some strange reason, this hysteria is directed at homo sapiens and their activity. Geolibertarianism suffers from a grand confusion of positive entitlements (or 'right') to land and the freedom to act. (Not forgetting the notion that Earth was given to mankind)

Further, the problem with so-called "collective rights" only begins by asking who determined what they are? Who proposed these rights? And who is bound by them? Geolibertarianism assumes land is owned in common as the beginning point. How did such ownership exist? It is entirely question-begging with no real answers. Hence, one really does need a God to support this foundationless sculpture.

Myth 2: Private Property is the Product of Human Labour

This is my favourite part of the geolibertarian Lockean mantra, because it doesn't take a lot to shoot-down.

Geolibertarians assert that since man did not create land (i.e. it is not the result of human labour), man is not entitled to own land. But there are no resources on the planet that have been created by humans. The First Law of Thermodynamics asserts that matter (or its energy equivalent) can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. Fundamentally, nobody "creates" anything. Land, like everything else, is a "product of labor" to the extent that it is initially transformed. According to the Lockean proviso, man is no more entitled to a house than a mountain. He happens to have taken some wood of the floor, and re-arranged it. But the wood is not the product of his labour. Thus, the "man didn't create land" is an utter strawman.

We must depart from this Lockean notion and refine the arguments about rights and property. Labour does not establish private ownership. Scarcity establishes private ownership. According to geolibertarians and Lockeans, private property derives from applying (or mixing) labour with resources. But this is not true. Private property is a result of a natural phenomenon – scarcity. Humans act as a means to an end. Those means involve scarce goods, and since they are scarce, they must become private owned (i.e. exclusive). Two people cannot consume the same apple.

A new argument, a by-product of the previous one, states that man must not be entitled to the value of that which he did not create. But the value of something arises out of its demand – which is determined subjectively. Moreover, how on Earth (excuse the pun!) does someone separate the "original" value from the value added by human labour? It's time we moved on from the Labour theory of value!

There is another argument that needs to be addressed here. Private property is sometimes involves the production of security (risk-taking) and information. In other words, land has to be discovered. Christopher Columbus was sent by the King of Spain to find new lands. This was a carefully planned & operated and financially-backed venture that wasn't even sure to produce any results! Shouldn't the King of Spain be entitled to claim the Americas as being under his dominion? If not, there are no incentives to discover new resources.

Lastly, how can individuals claim that they have ownership over themselves if they didn't create themselves? Since the geolibertarian position is that one can only claim private property over that which one labours. By that account, man doesn't 'own' himself. I hardly think any libertarian would assert we're not entitled to our own bodies, since we didn't create them.

Myth 3: Private Ownership is Harmful

In many ways, John Locke paved the way to the Marxist trap that ownership is harmful (and thus, bad). But appropriation and private property is NOT a zero-sum-game.

When we imagine first appropriation, we imagine a race in which first-come-first-serve are the lucky ones. The unpalatable reality is that life was very harsh for those first appropriators. Consider the first settlers to England. If given a choice, would you rather live in primitive bronze-age England or today? The most we have to wake-up to in the night is a wet dream. They didn't have long-distance travel done in the matter of hours, or a microwave to cook food, or a Sainsbury's to do one's shopping. Original appropriation benefits latecomers infinitely more than the appropriators. The poorest in today's society enjoy life-expectancy several decades above the original appropriators. This is a fact. The state of the commons before appropriation is a negative-sum-game. It is only when private property comes into fruition that economic standards improve and human existence is extended to more favourable circumstances.

People tend to place the highest value on things that they own. They have an individual responsibility to maintain and increase its value. Equally, they have the least incentive to maintain resources they can get for nothing. Why else was the bison almost exterminated, whereas cattle are never in danger of extinction?

The geolibertarian-Lockean position that one is free to act as long as one doesn't infringe on another's right is the source of the problem. My taking X, means that someone else cannot. That is a simple fact of scarcity, which I deal with above and below.

Myth 4: Freedom is Dependent on Land

It is said that freedom is dependent on the availability of land! This is what someone said on an internet forum I'm a member off:

This stops the choice of 'work or die', for many, which isn't really freedom at all.

I don't own land. Lots of people I know don't own land. What is wrong with working and saving (other than the fact I am a capitalist)? Human labour is necessary for survival – not land. Wealth is created by the productive efforts of man in the division of labour – simply owning goods is no guarantee to anything.

Even if one is designated a certain space, you can't live long without trade or working the land. By all accounts, therefore, one still isn't free since one has to work.

Therefore, we need to revise what freedom really means. People act as a means to an end. There is always something that would make us more satisfactory. Freedom is not about the limitations of choice people must make (which is qualm against the nature of reality) – but being free from coercion to make one's own choices. The real non-freedom is when someone denies another person the option to work, in the example above.

Myth 5: A Difference Between the State and the Community

If it is true that humans need land to survive (which it is not), then surely – to geolibertarians – taxing land is tantamount to taxing existence. There are two ways to tax. You either tax humans for action, or you tax humans for the resources by which they act. It is perceived that there is a difference between the two. Resources are scarce, and man needs resources to act. Either way, man is being taxed for acting. It is not his fault that he lives with scarcity. But, geolibertarians claim that private property is unjust and that man must pay to rectify the unjustness. This is the basis of the LVT (and, thus, it is dealt with above).

Some choose to call it a rent or tax. The question becomes how does one pay it? How does the assessment, calculation, collection and distribution take place without an institution with the monopoly on the use of force that cannot be retaliated against? What happens if I decide I don't want to pay this tax, and that may land is indeed justly acquired. You need such an institution that has the monopoly on the use force without being retaliated against. This seems so obvious, I don't think I need to spend much time explaining any further.

But how is the LVT 'calculated'? The fact that the quasi-government would have to be involved in this process makes that government inherently political. And the nature of government (or the seductiveness of the monopoly on force) is such that it can only expand. But the LVT can only be calculated by either: (1) an arbitrary figure and/or (2) whenever the lease on a given land is up, the new one is auctioned off to the highest bidder with government approval.

The reality is that the people in the market determine the value of a given stretch of land. Land is still scarce as it was 100 years ago. And if the market-place is the most efficient way to ensure an optimal supply of a scarce good (elastic or inelastic), then it holds that land – on the free-market – would tend to an optimal supply too.

Purchasing land does not reduce the supply of land. If land starts to actually become really scarce, economic incentives would induce resources to be spent on building more land — either by building skyscrapper, or digging deeper into the earth — or to discover land on different planets (if things got really serious!).

Some declare that the LVT has no economic effects. This is bewildering! The LVT has about the same effects as the income tax.

What connects Nietzsche with Libertarianism?

fakename — Tue, 07 May 2013 03:51:40 GMT

I've noticed that a lot of people really identify with Nietzsche and his philosophy of life. However, I never did see how his philosophy should necessarily create very outspoken libertarians. Perhaps this is because I don't know enough about his ideas.

So why does Nietzsche influence libertarians?

what do you think about the electoral college?

No2statism — Fri, 03 May 2013 19:59:48 GMT

Do you think it's more anti-libertarian than popular vote?

I think so because no one consents to the electoral college except the electors themselves.

It's also worth noting that it favored the less statist candidate every time there were differences (Lincoln vs. Douglas/Breckenridge, Tilden vs. Hayes, and Cleveland vs. Harrison; the only time it didn't matter was in the 2000 election) which means that the Counter-Revolution would never have happened if it hadn't been for the electoral college. Dr. DiLorenzo pointed out that Lincoln was a very unpopular president and that he had a cult that made him popular post-humously.

In addition to the aforementioned, the Constitution was incredibly unpopular at first and that it would not have beat the Articles of Confederation had they been put to a popular referendum (in addition to the fact that it could not be ratified without force and fraud).

Secession was also something that was popular (even though it's not now)... ~100% of the voters in what stayed Virginia voted at referendum to secede (I believe the percentage was 83% since those in WV ). At least two other States that seceded did it through direct vote with 75% voting to secede in TX and at least 90% in TN.

Hitler's cumulative popular vote average in Germany was < 1/2 (I think the highest he ever got in Germany was 55% and that was after he came to power) and Stalin's was zero.

If Dr. Paul had run against Hillary Clinton (or Obama) in 2012, then either Dr. Paul's lead in popularity would've been higher than his lead in the electoral college or Dr. Paul's loss in the electoral vote would've been far greater than his loss of the popular vote.

Finally, the electoral college is centralist hierarchy (that is, a decentralized union would not have a chief executive).

separation of politics and economy in minarchy government.

cab21 — Sat, 04 May 2013 23:34:59 GMT

how does this even happen?

in atlas shrugged, rand calls military a proper funtion of government, but how does the military stay out of the economy, when a military needs resources? who is in control of the military and how are purchasing orders and bids dealth with in a way that politics is separate from economy?

there is even a scene where galt says to fire government employees as part the the economic realm. you can't have a army with no empoyees.

in the book rand also has a private army that saves galt, saves reardon, and recovers stolen loot at sea.

court wise, her book has 1 judge that does not even have to make a judgement in 12 years. the judge also came across more as a private judge than a public judge in galt gultch. the gultch itself did not have any structure that seemed like a public, so it did not show a working government with separation of politics and economy.

Defence in anarchy

Eric — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:06:43 GMT

Would simply want to know different opinions on how defence from other nations, and defence from domestic threats would be resolved in an anarchial society. ty

The Question of Choice...HELP!

Kaasproav — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:32:31 GMT

I keep getting in debates with my philosophy teacher who comes from a sympathic background to Marx, Beavoir, and Hegel.

The main question she has for me is that of 'choice'. I argue that poor people have the choice between a terrible job in a sweat shop, prostitution, and poverty, since they are in the sweat shop (given there is no coercion preventing them from quitting) it demonstrates that they prefer that choice to the others.

But she objects that there is coercion outside of the idea of physical force. I don't know how to articulate the Austro-libertarian position very well.

Help would be awesome.

Question on value free method

Kaasproav — Fri, 03 May 2013 18:35:33 GMT

So I'm a very visual person and sometimes an outline and hierarchy helps me understand concepts. In Rothbard's Mantle of Science he points out that if there are means and ends, the different types of studies of human action are simply different aspects of looking at means and ends. I'll let him explain:

We have already begun to build the first blocks of the many-storied edifice of the true sciences of man—and they are all grounded on the fact of man’s volition.2 On the formal fact that man uses means to attain ends we ground the science of praxeology, or economics; psychology is the study of how and why man chooses the contents of his ends; technology tells what concrete means will lead to various ends; and ethics employs all the data of the various sciences to guide man toward the ends he should seek to attain, and therefore, by imputation, toward his proper means. None of these disciplines can make any sense whatever on scientistic premises. If men are like stones, if they are not purposive beings and do not strive for ends, then there is no economics, no psychology, no ethics, no technology, no science of man whatever.

So I understand taht Economics is a value free subject. Only the fact that there are choices and means and ends on in this world can be stated, not if those ends are bad for example. But does that mean that the other studies, technology, psychology, ethics, etc. are value free? I'm a little confused. I guess the way i'd like to visualize it is by some kind of heirarchy of value-free-ness (for lack of a better term). Is praxeology (economics) the only value free science? If so why? Why not technology?

A little help would be great.

Does the government own your land?

ReadRothbard — Thu, 02 May 2013 20:46:05 GMT

I was arguing with my female friend (who is very attractive, by the way), whom says that taxation is not theft because we are living on government land, as they claimed the land we live on first. I've never heard this arguememt before, and she almost seems to have a point. What should I say?

Would you support a military coup?

LandJ — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:43:37 GMT

Would you support a military coup and its paternalistic policies in order to provide economic freedom?
Consider, that under such conditions, the dictator will restrict individual freedom and civil liberties. Moreover, opponents may get killed or imprisoned. Take Pinochet's junta as an example. He restricted and killed people.

- Do you support PInochet' s restriction methods?
- Would you support something like that?
- In other words, do Libertarians support the saying "The end justifies the means." If no, why not?

Difference between conservatives, liberals and libertarians...?

Monroe — Thu, 02 May 2013 18:14:17 GMT

I had some thoughts after hearing an interview with Allen West recently on the push for at least part of his and others sharing his political views agendas to be passed slowly but surely. It spurs the argument against Incrementalism, so I'll paste my thoughts here and hopefully start a discussion.

People often assume if a person is not liberal, they are conservative - and for a good reason. Like in many other aspects of life (say someone is not a creationist, well surely they would be an evolutionist right?), disagreement with one position tends to place you in the position furthest apart. There may be cases however, where the position you 'fall' into still upholds values that you strongly refute. This is where my argument lies, a part of conservative philosophy that could turn off those who are even so opposed to liberal philosophy is incrementalism.

You could call incrementalism gradualism and still come away with the same meaning: a policy where gradual social and economical changes bring about the preferred outcome. Think about people you know or even in your own life, specifically those who had problems with addiction. A few methods come to mind that people in an intervention might discuss. They might have been told "baby steps..." "one step at a time..." or my favorite "please tie your shoelaces before going down the st-" you get the point. This method would be known as incrementalism - a deceivingly harmless approach but one that is completely dependent upon time.

This -ism is how conservative thinkers would approach fixing the current socioeconomic problems that we so desperately need to alleviate. The key word here is "desperately" - urgency - which supports the notion of incrementalism's dependency on time.

What if your friend (or you) - the addict - was in the intervention after already being in a horrible state of mind, not just beginning to go downhill but nearing terminal velocity itself? Would taking baby steps really meet the sense of urgency required to prevent them from going beyond the point of repair? You could argue against that. So, what then could the intervention suggest?

"Cold turkey."

Interestingly enough, quitting something cold turkey might just suffice. After all, I don't think the addict needs any more examples of what might happen if he or she pursues the current path any further (which is a version of incrementalism catered toward liberal philosophers).

So how would all of this apply to America? Well, I bring up conservative and liberal thought here because they are the two primary driving forces in our country's decision making. The idea that policies implemented in the near future (2014 and onward) which promote slow, gradual changes (the kinds of changes you'll notice when you hear pundits say "this plan is a good start") can sufficiently allow for necessary recovery is a tad obsolete. Sure, implementing these changes say 40 years ago would have been manageable, but not in the present era. Likewise, the idea that continuing on our pattern of masking our debt while encouraging consumer spending as the savior of our economy is about as wise as covering a dirty bandage with a clean one.

This leaves us with a middle ground - logically speaking - where in combination of urgency, application and resource, we need to abandon the mainstream thoughts of recovery, namely incrementalism, and pursue one of a draconian nature.

Thoughts?

(ps I hope this post isn't a repeat of something similar out there, I just started posting here a couple days ago.....)

How does one become a libertarian political speaker?

fakename — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 20:45:44 GMT

What sorts of credentials are needed and how and where, does one "set up shop" so to speak?

Governments Can Easily Force People to Do Something and Claim No Force is Involved

genepool — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 01:33:12 GMT

You got 5 offers in increasing order of pay. A, B, C, D, E. Governments wants to force you to pick C.

What would government do? Tell you to do C?

No.

Governments need only to prohibit D and E. Then government would say, no body force you to do C. You can still do A and B.

Then government will say that D and E is so bad anyway nobody would want it anyway. How the hell we know that nobody wants D and E if both are illegal? We can measure it by the amount of money people are willing to bribe to be allowed to do D and E. And that’s the issue is. The more government prohibit, the bigger the tax or bribe.

The most obvious sample is marriage. We can think of A as abstinence, B as homosexual relationship, C as marriage, D as prostitution, and E as intercontinental prostitution.

Many women prefer to be prostitute than getting married. Many women in poor country prefer to go to richer countries for higher paying mates. To force people to get married, governments simply prohibit prostitution and intercontinental prostitution.

Government will say, “No body force you to get married. You are still free to commit suicide, commit abortion, commit seppuku, or embracing abstinence.”

In a sense, government is right. There are many ways to circumvent this anyway. The best way to enforce contract is to split it into pieces.

Rather than paying her, it makes sense to just buy her flower and chocolates and see if you get laid after that. She stop humping, you stop paying. However, this doesn’t really accommodate more complex contract but should be good enough.

When you want to have children, things get more complicated.

Government doesn’t even have to prohibit D and E. Governments only need to whack the market price.

Say the price of carrot is $7/kg. Say governments want to prohibit carrot. It’s easy. Government will either set minimum price of $50/kg or maximum price of $1/kg.

Now there will be over supply and over demand.

We see this in many areas.

You can donate organ but you cannot sell it. That means maximum price of organ is 0. Hence there are very few organ donors.

Say governments want to prohibit women from picking the rich. Government does not have to explicitly say that. Government can institute a maximum wage of 0 for sex workers. Government can demand exorbitant child support from richer males.

Governments decide the amount of child support a man should pay to his mate. The women do not decide that. That effectively prohibits women from picking richer males to breed.

Also governments do not have to prohibit things totally when switching strategy is rare.

Most governments recoqnize freedom of religion. Well, those who choose their religions are heretics and apostates. Hence, to force people to adopt a certain religion, governments can easily prohibit apostasy.

In fact, all that matter is not what religion you believe in. All that matter is you do what your slave owners want you to do. Hence, government can easily claim that all religions tell you to pay higher tax and tolerate rulers extravagant spending. Governments then claim that religions that believe in different opinions as heretics.

Indonesian governments use this strategy to force people to get married. They want to criminalize all cohabitation agreement. Then governments claim that all religions prohibit sex outside marriage. If someone raises an opinion that even popes have concubines they are called heretics.

My ex employee exploits me and became my competitors?

genepool — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 03:08:27 GMT

Everybody said about how bosses exploit their employee. I cave in. I tried to be a nice boss

By the way, my ex employee just became my competitors. I taught them. I paid them salary. They used to pay huge tuition to school learning garbabe, I taught them real stuff.

Then, they did the same thing behind my back and left.

Now who are exploiting who? I feel I am being exploited. I learn not to be too nice to employee anymore.

Ownership is just a philosophical term. Control ship is everything. The richest guy in the world is not Bill Gates. Bill Gates can't even kill 1 person and get a way with it. The richest person in the world Obama, Chavez, Suharto. They have huge power.

As for letting people earn their labor. Fine. Don't work for me. Figure out how to make money your self.

In fact, I am going to be so nice I am going to tell you how to make money. Sign up to bitpay.com and coinurl.com. Buy traffic from coinurl.com and sell product at bitpay.com

Will it make money? I haven't tried. If I have tried and tested why should I tell you. It takes 10-20 experiments before I found something working. Can average employee do that?

Not if I don't teach them. Very few people can figure out how to do things right away like me without being taught. I deserve the fruit of my labor.

I took the risk by paying them salary and taught them how to do stuffs. I am just digging my own grave.

Unfortunately the only way to get what I deserve is by not teaching my employee everything. They can be drones that do things that save my time never seeing the big pictures. That's, unfortunately, the right way to deal with them.

Sometimes we have bosses exploiting employees. Well, I wanted to get out of that stereotype. Now I realized, exploiting each other is how everyone else do their stuff.

It's the natural order. Keep what's mine mine, and keep what's theirs' theirs.

Now I'll just teach family members.

The Invisible Hook: Peter Leeson

vive la insurrection — Thu, 25 Apr 2013 19:49:34 GMT

Anyone read this book, it looks awesome? It was kind of always in the back of my mind to get, but after reading these posts it's jumped up to my "top 10". I think it can be found at places like "Barnes and Nobles" even.

2 interesting blog posts on the book

http://www.coordinationproblem.org/

Anyway some thoughts (I haven't checked the links he is discussing yet):

1) In a more "natural order / natural anarchic" type world Democracy may very well serve a vital function (this seems very intuitive to me) - and this shouldn't be too alarming for any Austrian.

2) "Efficient institutions, in other words, are context dependent".

This is an awesome quote. However I seem confused as to what is at stake in what Leeson is trying to defend: whether or not an institution is a pragmatic, organic, or tensions of power = all three are well within the scope of "classic" Austrian views of institutional formation. Is he just trying to show the fact that there are more than one way institutions form, or am I missing something (my wireless is crap right now, I only read the article once, and I dont have the patience to reopen it until I go to work tommorow)?

Anyway, hopefully I can comment more on the next few days, when I can read the article in more detail

The Mentality of the 'New Libertarian'

Aristophanes — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:58:26 GMT

So, I'm going to tell you about an observation in my personal life experience with libertarian politics.

We could call them new libertarians, born again libertarians, conservative libertarians, but I think the most apt is simply politician. But, ummm, the pejorative sense of the word "politician." (The left has noticed something that many here are unwilling to admit and that is, namely, that libertarians, or people who call themselves that, are tricked into supporting NeoConservative goals (I just found that site when looking for a picture, it is coincidence that the caption for the picture, that I found on Google, says what it says, honestly).

The kids at the YAL at my University promoted Ron Paul to no end, but they also promoted Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. Now, I don't want to make people think that those two are excluded from the intellectual side of libertarianism, however, I would like to mention that this YAL treated them as if they are the frontrunning writers and inspirations for the movement.

This kid who ran the meetings and represented our University's chapter at the regional and national meetings (as I am sure they all do). He made a few comments towards me that pushed me to dislike this kid. First, he was the primary one touting Friedman as 'our' economist. Second, is personal (he made a joke about me (where I got my LvMI sweatshirt) when I questioned his motives for not going deeper into libertarianism in front of the group - this sort of made me think that he felt threatened and his instinct is to denigrate then laugh off the threat (AKA his alpha instinct). Third, he mentioned, again after I'd pointed out that what the group was thinking at was shallow, that YAL was not a book club and that perception matters.

Yes, perception does matter. How people perceive the so called "libertarians" who work deeply within the political system is an important factor. It is not a secret to us here that politics draws the lust for power. Power draws on and exacerbates ambition and ambition is closely linked with avarice. Thus, we end up with power hunger people in the most powerful positions. There were even meetings that revolved around resume building which entails getting your name on everything that you can so you can use it for help getting a job on a political campaign...and running for office themselves.

Thinking for a second on the attitude and psychology of the kid running things for the libertarians here has me thinking that he does not realize that power is what is drawing him to libertarianism, but I suspect, this is his personality type. He is just one of those drawn unconsciously to power. This is evidenced in his reaction to my questions. He ridiculed me and the idea that people should look deeper than Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman for 'the movement." When his leadership and direction was questioned he didn't explain himself he distracted the others. Because perception matters. "If I can make a fool of this asshole questioning my motivations (which i may have never fully considered), then the group will still believe what I tell them and see things the way I do. Thus, I retain my rank and position within the 'libertarians'." He played the political card that dealt the highest damage control rating in the given circumstances of the YAL meeting. (I think Plato's distaste for democracy was likely because Athens' democracy sentenced Socrates to death for questioning things taken for granted. My disdain for democracy is similarly founded.)

Unfortunately, this only adds to my pessimism in regards to political success. The kid, again, I don't think knows that this is his behavior pattern, but it should enlighten us as to the mentality of the people who are running in the stead of the illustrious Ron Paul. Ron Paul stands out because he never actually did give up his convictions. He played politics with certain issues, but never allowed the fundamentals to be taken for granted. I do not have the same faith those that were inspired by him. Sorry.

I'll end with a quote from Bertrand Russell in his Conquest of Happiness

It is affection received, not affection given, that causes his sense of security...but also admiration...has this effect. Persons whose trade is to secure public admiration, such as actors, preachers, speakers, and politicians, come to depend more and more on applause. When they receive their due meed of public approbation their life is full of zest, when they do not, they become discontented and self centered. (CoH, ch. XII)

Libertarian Prisons

thetabularasa — Thu, 10 Jan 2013 15:09:44 GMT

Most of us active users on Mises.org are against collectivism; by collectivism, I mean a group of at least two people aggressing against the will of an unprovoking (contextually innocent) individual or a collection of individuals. In short, the ideology that one group of people can rule another person or group of people. Here is its supposed etymology, and Google defines collectivism as:

"The practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.
"The theory and practice of the ownership of land and the means of production by the people or the state."

While there is a varying degree of definition regarding what rights are, the general consensus I can ascertain from reading multiple threads is that, indeed, most active members in this forum believe we have rights. There has been much discussion and debate concerning how a truly free market would handle the others infringing people's rights, (perhaps as Dr. Block puts it, murder, rape and theft) in an anarcho-capitalist society. However, after checking the SEARCH, I found only one mention of libertarian prisons, and it was in the Low Content Thread.

So I ask: in a free, stateless society, if you or some other individual is murdered, raped or stolen from, and the victim is incapable of defending himself or herself during the time of the unwarranted aggression, what is to become of the murderer, rapist or thief? Are libertarian prisons an option, and if so, who would come to the aid of the victim, even if the victim is dead from the unwarranted aggression? What would libertarian prisons be like? How would they be managed or checked if they are indeed private companies? If, for instance, an American Horror Story-esque asylum was in practice, and the communication between prisoners and the public was impossible due to the aggressor's crime, how would competition be affected? Would there be a death penalty in a free society? Could collectivism actually be an option in a free society, whereby multiple individuals band together to bring recompense to the victim?

could boston attack on american soil been perpetrated by us government?

Kelvin Silva — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 02:24:44 GMT

Thoughts?

Obama maybe wants to advance gun control/bomb control.

Or i just hate government too much?

Low Content FAIL Quote Thread

Willy Truth — Tue, 26 Mar 2013 20:20:56 GMT

Have you ever read or heard something so ridiculous that it made you face palm so hard you (hopefully metaphorically) smashed your nose into your brain and sustained irreversible brain damage?

This thread is to immortalize those comments, verbal or written, composed of enough earth-collapsing ignorance to single handedly rip a black hole in reality large enough to devour our universe through its vacuous, unadulterated stupidity.

Toughest An-Cap Topic?

Willy Truth — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 05:53:20 GMT

I've had several discussions regarding stateless societies lately, and they have ranged from the legitimacy of NASA to the ethics of a state regulated currency. **Sentimental moment:** I truly enjoy experiencing 96% of everyone on this forums' intellectual insight (Wheylous, Clayton, JJ, many others--you guys are amazing)... If nothing else, I feel like many of us share the common experience of being occassionally marginalized for our beliefs by someone completely blind to our system... I think this effect is illustrated by many prominent libertarians, Amanda BillyRock being one of the poor souls that has completely shifted their life to accommodate it...

But what do you consider the be the toughest issue to persuade (for the average debate) of An-Cap? If you had to boil down what you've had the most difficulty debating, or simply explaining, to one issue, what would it be?

EDIT: In essence, what is your best "devil's advocate" argument against An-Cap?

The likelyhood of a staged coup in North Korea

Aristophanes — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 07:25:05 GMT

Sanctions have little effect and do not stem the belligerent behavior (as we know they won't). A massive show of force is had (two nuclear capable B2 stealth bombers) to no avail.

Dealing with North Korea, Constraints:

The nuclear sites being so close make a ground war very dangerous. We have basically lost there before despite a clever maneuver that managed to get the status quo back.

South Korea, Japan, Russia, China will all be involved immediately.

China facilitates large amounts of north korean trade.

Using strategic nuclear weapons will not be allowed by China or Russia (or UN).

Russia, China, and Japan may use the crisis to make their own land grabs causing greater conflict.

The North Korean army is 1.2 million strong with 200,00 guerillas.

The civilian population is brainwashed.

The civilian population is starving.

Options?

There is no way to fight them that doesn't turn into a gigantic blunder. Anything posturing that we do the Russians will see as latent posturing aginst them (they will not help the West). China is the only real country that trades with North Korea. Do they want to risk turning dennis the menace loose in Beijing? I think a good ole fashioned 1970's era CIA coup is the only option. It has to be 1970s style because it will be hard to foment a democratic movement there (internet access is less rpg-oriented in Egypt than in the DPRK). It doesn't need to be public (often the overconfident establishment types will blab about a "color revolution" and as soon as the target country's foreign ministry gets ahold of it the jig is up). A good coup is one you don't know about until twenty years later when the files are declassified.

How could the intelligence agencies of the world pull it off? Are the brass in North Korea also brainwashed? Does North korea have dissident groups that can be prodded and helped? Does the West have any assets in North Korea?

George Ought to Help Sequel NOW OUT!!

Wheylous — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 23:46:39 GMT

Pretty dang awesome:

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Anarcho-capitalism - Why it's Broken & How to Fix it

Michel — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 01:55:30 GMT

Guys,

For those of you who don't know, StormCloudsGathering is a channel on YouTube, the author is a voluntaryist guy. I think he is very intelligent and his arguments are generally logical and clear. He posted a video some days ago.

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Now, this is not a post "he criticized anarcho-capitalism, destroy it!". I actually consider myself a truth seeker, and I don't think I'm attached to the way I think the world should be, in the sense that I immediately disregard any argument that goes against it.

That said, I don't think his arguments in this video were bullet-proof. I don't know much about DRO theory, but, for example, his characterization of the way they would supposedly work is off, imo.

What are your opinions on this video?