Excellent. To me, the power of Hasnas’ reason and logic on law, politics, and society, is almost equal to the Mises’ and Rothbard’s on economics. I’ve never read anything from him that I didn’t greatly enjoy.
Z.
Who is John Hasnas?
This is false, though. Anarcho-capitalists, at least of the Rothbardian variety, do not maintain a tradition view of property for such views have always had room for a state, and have never claimed that the right to property is absolute. Instead, the Rothbardian approach claims that the right to property is absolute and a priori.
Was the sarcasm intent on inciting fear or doubt in our arguments? Or did you just post to humor yourself?
There is no need to put words in our mouths to help win your argument. To correct you Scineram, it’s a crude representation of our argument to state simply it’s all"buying and Selling". Also it’s a gross mischaracterization of our argument to state that we claim that society has progressed only by buying, selling. It shows a lack of understanding of our actual argument, the part thats grounded in praxeology. To stay within the framework of human action the correct wording would be to use “Exchange”. And whatever framework builds outside of voluntary exchange is fine, buying/selling simply being a consequence of that reality. But more or less it’s exchange that has progressed society forward. Coerced exchange is where the errors come from and breaks the rational approval/appraisal system of individuals.
At any rate society’s history is made up of markets, of governments and all other sorts of things, we never said otherwise. Please do not mis-represent our argument. All we are doing is simply pointing out the method that is economically sound, the method with the highest exposure to scrutiny of the people it serves. The method that is capable of adapting in the quickest way possible to reflect the needs/desires of the people those methods are meant to serve.
lol, its cute how you two support each other but your attack on economics is shortsighted, no offense. It’s like attacking the concept of gravity because you think it’s unfair that you cannot fly. You can admit reality, and employ reason to construct a method of defying gravity, like many have done via helicopter, airplanes, balloones, ect… Or you can live the rest of your days in resentment over reality never making positive progress. The choice is really yours.
-
Not everyone here is a “Rothbardian Ancap”. Your argument goes no where attempting to argue against a dead ghost. You would be doing yourself a favor not assuming so.
-
It’s not the state per-se thats at odds with anarchy. It’s the methods they employ. If the state robs, murders, and pilllages it’s no more damaging on the economy than if a private party does. Is any of this really that difficult to understand? To us it doesn’t matter who does the burning, pillaging, enslaving. Any party which does this causes a detrimental effect on the economy as a whole.
It just so happens that most modern states position themselves so that they are exempt from the market process, but as a result end up being wastful in their consumption and employment of things.
And where does my comment presuppose the existence of only Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists?
And this bit of preaching has nothing to do with my comment, so I wonder why you bothered wasting your time typing it.
Its not an attack on economics, just an attack on those social theorists who think that knowledge of economics is not only a necessary condition, but also a sufficient condition for understanding society. Reading comprehension on this forum has hit a new low.
Son of Google.
There is nothing to be trusted, nor nothing gained by revolutions or revolutionaries. If a tradition is worthless to the actual factual “masses”, they will reject it, it will dissolve due to it’s uslessness. Likewise, do not expect traditions to be something that can not evolve and adapt (they do or they will die). We do not need some yuppie pseudo-intellectuals, who is most likely relativly high on the social hierarchical pyramid, stirring up people for no good reason other than for their jockying for social positioning.
If there is an actual spontaneous revolt of the masses things were probably that bad anyway to where the institutions in place were rotten to the core, or a major homeostatic shock made certain intitutions impracticle.
Personal insurrection is fine; revolution and revolutionaries are a sham, that cares for and can calculate nothing other than…the revolution or the revolutionary leaders, and in many cases at the expenseof the lives of the “common man” they said they would “help”.
See, you’re advocating what people have already called a naive, atomistic conception of individualism.
Egoisim can also lead to a Hobbesian outlook.
But the absolute, lockean concept of private property never existed. It’s a myth. There is nothing for libertarianism to preserve, but to invent and impose with its rationalism.
Well you have been directly addressing those people in the majority of your recent posts.
Sorry you missed the point, but don’t attack my reading comprehension than if you can’t see why it relates. 