That’s alright I suppose. Although you could find sharper sticks to practice with. People who are going to argue honestly.
I support the Rothbard/Kinsella/Hoppe/Rockwell version. I hear you are quite fond of the Bob Barr version. lol
Yeah, the last time you posted that, I put it in a new thread for you. Good refutation in there from Hoppe via Nir.
All 10 of them… Arguing with a dishonest person who claims they are honest is probably an impossible challenge though.
So only opinions you agree with are allowed in the thread I posted? Or are you afraid of someone reading my post?
Yes which makes me an obvious neocon.
Not at all, Hoppe cannot speak for Mises.
No, only on topic replies.
Actually, your support for Romney makes you a neocon. Your voting for Barr is just sad. Barr is a neocon. That’s why Ron Paul wouldn’t endorse him.
He doesn’t claim to. But Hoppe was the editor of the Journal of Libertarian Studies, and is an esteemed member of LvMI. I’ll take his interpretation of Mises over yours. Particularly since few people hold Mises in higher esteem than Hoppe.
Ha! As opposed to you, who said Mises refuted anarcho-capitalism.
These market versus monopoly questions are indeed cute. What you guys have yet to prove is that absent a state there will actually be a market in the production of security.
I’d say that it is, yet you are also being taxed. So the state really only protects property rights at the expense of property rights. To me that sounds like a pretty shitty deal.
LS, let’s not turn this is into another personal drama. The same offer is open, as usual, if you have a problem with me send me a PM.
The entirety of this post is either not true or not relevant. No, for the most part the state won’t stop you being broken into, but neither will a Mutual Defense Association.
The point is that if my rights are violated I have the opportunity to take my case to the authorities and they may give me restitution. How they do about doing it is not relevant. What matters is that the state will and can do it.
Or maybe I think there’s more to Austrian economics that Misesian a priorism which is out of date as far as advances in economic methodology goes. Notice, I’m not making any statements about how economics should be done, I’m just saying that there exist a number of Austrian economics who would reject Mises’ methodology.
I had the wool pulled over my eyes by a second rate pseudo economist. I’ve learned my lesson though.
Belief in monopolies enforced by law being more efficient than the market is also cute. If people are helpless stupid drones then yes, absent the state there will be no market for the production of security.
Oh but however will the market handle the production of shoes!
Accept responsiblity. You pulled the wool over your own eyes. You’re still doing it.
Again, I never claimed anything about PDAs. You made a claim about the state. I have smashed it. The state has no obligation to provide restitution. Thus, there is no social contract for security.
No, they do not give you restitution. In most cases, lost property is not recovered. Madoff does not have to pay back the people he embezzeled. In fact, his victims will pay to support him in prison and the costs of his trial. It’s insult added to injury.
State fail again.
You’ve read Hasnas. You know better.
What? Are you serious? Is this the twilight zone?
You can ask the MDA (we actually usually refer to this as a PDA: P for private) to protect your house by offering them a contract to do so… simple as that.
That’s a big may. You’re putting yourself in the position where you’re asking the state to be the judge in its own case.
Same discussion. You have an unshakable faith in the possible good of the state. For further details see my last post which you left unanswered.
My bike was stolen, the police recovered it a week later. As for Madoff how would a PDA recover their money? Madoff’s suckers were not “victims” unless you are a progressive.
Hunh? Do you even know the first thing about Hoppe?
My bike was stolen, the police didn’t recover it a week later. Your point is?
Forced liquidation of his assets via authority provided by an arbitrator of his contract with his clients. Possibly a lien on future income.
That’s just spit-ballin, but it will do.
Sure they were victims. They were victims of fraud. Libertarians, the ones who understand property rights at least, know that fraud is a form of theft. Madoff was a scam artist. He cheated his clients, and thus they are … ba ba ba baaaaaah! Victims of fraud! Tada!
with the billions they steal the state can throw you some bicycles every now and then.
look, if its Christmas and the Mafia don hands out treats to the neighbourhood. and hands back some stuff that was stolen. suddenly they are ‘the great leaders’
Are you telling me more economists hold Hoppe in higher esteem than Mises?
He said Hoppe held Mises in high esteem…
I interpreted it to mean that Hoppe admires mises a lot more than most people…