So the Billionaire is a State or lives in a State?
Then you are illogical because if the opposite does not protect all rights than your “solution” is no better.
It was not a subjective argument.
He just stated he did not qualify it as “all”.
No you incorrectly assumed that. I read exactly what he said.
That is not true and illogical.
Giles claims are perfectly valid.
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.
OK, how about “I ate meat”? Did I eat all the meat that has ever existed?
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.
That’s not even close to being true.
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.
Non sequitur. My system allows for rights to be protected. The state requires that rights be violated in order to exist. So
-
it has more “potential”.
-
5% is better than 0%, and 90% is better than 80%.
-
Still a non-sequitur. Please stay on topic.
Well it had to be, because he can’t prove it objectively as I requested.
Prove it.
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.
We have another guy like you. At least he knows what a libertarian is.
Why are you playing semantic games Giles?
-
You maintain the state protects rights.
-
You claim the state protects only some rights.
-
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.
Yes. I am denying this.
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.
The dictator has a monopoly on coercive force. Therefore the dictator is government. Definitions definitions… No point arguing this anyway its peripheral.
Government has no incentive to be “productive”. You are holding onto the claim that it is physically possible for government to do this, but the definition of government with the accompanying incentive structure makes this an impossibility.
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.
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.
That’s where the fun is >
You have not proven this.
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?
Neither can you.
in LS’s system, its contingent whereas in yours its necessarily impossible.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
You’re probably right. Tbh I’m doing the debate for my own sake. A lot of people think like them (though I daresay they are some of the good ones) and I’m interested in experimenting with this conflict between people like me and people like them.
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.
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.
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.
Why not? If you’re a free marketer, how come you never want to discuss free markets?