No, man. You just don’t know enough for us to have a productive conversation. You’ve got too many wrong notions and misconceptions and you haven’t read any of the relevant literature. It’s not bad form to require you to learn the basics before serious engagement. And I don’t have time to sit here and educate you on the basics. If you refuse to read the core literature, that just proves you aren’t interested in truth and learning.
No. Your sense of history is screwed up. It’s you who came in here making claims. The burden is on you. Either prove you’re really interested in truth and learning by reading our core literature so that we’ll have a basis for serious discussion, or leave.
Stop being a crank.
You said society. You quoted a wiki article, which is reflective of a particular view. Wipe the egg off your face, now.
And? Argumentum ad verecundiam. Not a valid argument.
Refrain from referring to me with terms applicable to yourself.
No, I got the implication, which was the way we do economics is wrong (it’s in the very title of the thread.) You wouldn’t know that, of course, since you haven’t even done basic reading on the topic. It is your assertion that it is wrong that was challenged. So no, troll, the onus is solely yours.
Yawn.
Speak for yourself.
-Jon
Well if I don’t know enough to have a discussion, then you can’t claim that I am wrong about anything I have said because you just claimed that I didn’t say anything “productive”. Because you just said that I haven’t said anything. So I how can your claim that I don’t know enough, be true? You can’t get nothing from something. If I said something then it must exist, and if it exists it must either be correct or incorrect, and you can demonstrate for us that “I don’t know enough” in your own words and point out the flaws for everyone here.
Your refusal of demonstration means I am not going to further reply to you unless you can simply summarize the main points of the book you keep referring me to. So just define what you mean by rights, is anyone up to this challenge here? IT’s really that simple. What in your own words, is your definition of a right? If the encyclopedia isn’t a good enough for you at defining what a right is, then tell me what is? Because I can use another encyclopedia if you find wikipedia “too wrong” for your liking.
Why not? You’re still wrong. You are just too willfully ignorant to have a productive conversation with.
I think you’re having reading comprehension problems. I said we can’t have a productive discussion. That doesn’t mean you haven’t said anything, even if most of what you have said is wrong and meaningless jibberish.
This is what happens when you give someone a little knowledge and a little philosophy, especially when it is mostly of the wrong kind: disaster. Corrupted minds.
Oh dear. The lazy bum won’t reply to me. Oh no! Whatever will I do!
Apparently you’re not up to the challenge of educating yourself about the ideas you are attacking. Tsk tsk.
Why would you even use an encyclopedia at all? Is that where you get all of your “knowledge”? No wonder you are confused.
Demonstrate that I don’t or don’t reply, otherwise it is just a bunch of handwaving.
You claimed I was wrong, it is up to you to demonstrate your claim, because you’re saying “Book xyz says you are wrong”, no one would ever accept that bullshit at the upcoming conference and you can be certain of that, You can get away with this on the internet because it’s the internet but you would never do such a thing in front of an audience, in a public debate. It’s not too much to expect people to summarize their positions and their opinions when they make a claim to my error, in order to demonstrate using their own concepts and values that I am wrong. So the only answer is, if you continue to refuse to state your position: You have no valid claims
Hey, everything you’ve written so far is a collection of ignorant, loaded assertions, so why should we so much as lift a finger to demonstrate anything to you? It’s not too much to expect people to actually read the work they think they’re criticizing, so until such a time, you’re wasting our time, and are of no use to us.
-Jon
You have no valid understanding of Austrian money concepts or Austrian rights concepts, you think we’re conservatives because you try to argue with corporate power structures against our views of a free market. You utterly failed to distinguish economic power and political power by citing the example of lobbyists. You’re making normative assertions (“nobody should have too much money”) which you fail to prove philosophically, so you employ mathematics as an excuse.
Talking about your own views, those are just as deeply flawed. You claim nobody can rightly own anything, but then advocate large redistribution programs which make it necessary for somebody (government) to have ownership, otherwise it would be impossible to execute them. You claim is it immoral to make x+1 profit instead of x profit, but don’t realize the blatant incosistency. Finally, I explained to you twice that individuals, even if they were not capable of having a free will, are still determined individually by their respective individual gene pools and individual learning experiences. That makes fancy formulae obsolete as they could never satisfy such a great diversity of interests.
Face it, dude, you’re a social democrat in a physicist’s clothing. For more on social democracy, you ought to read Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom”.
This is a very good post, and sums up the problem with this discussion. Just because someone has an opinion, doesn’t mean it’s venue is the Mises forum, and just because they have an opinion, doesn’t exclude them from the responsibility of testing it against established opinions PRIOR to engaging in debate.
While the OP’s positions are for the most part, irrational, and have not been arrived at by deductive, consistent logic, what exacerbates the problem, are his demands of a positive obligation on any of our part to explain his mistakes or errors in thinking.
I think this is what happens when (as iirc Geoffrey said) people get a little knowledge, and then decide that they have it all figured out.
PS, the part where Wikipedia is used as an authority source or the possible consultation of lawyers on law were some of the funniest things I have read on this forum lately. Unintentionally funny of course.
So what do you suggest, troll? Your soybean sentence was nothing but filler without any real substantive addition.
No one suggests that all (each and every) prices are completely rational. You’re committing the Nirvana Fallacy.
I submit that you’re merely trolling. But it’s fun to tell you that.
No, they are not. I suggest you look at the real world where we actually live to see how wrong you are.
Yeah, it has. I suggest a dose of Jan Narveson and Hans Hoppe.
Notice how I’m not bothering with your soybean sentences. There’s a reason for that: they’re just meaningless verbiage. You, like Hegel, have confused verbosity with depth.
_
Unacceptable. Wikipedia is not a valid source.
So: how do you suggest we put limits on how much an individual can aquire in terms of property and money without violating that person’s rights? For if you set a limit, you’re saying that you have the right to do that. But how did this right obtain? You have the burden of proof. Further, you have to show that there is some limit to the ability to trade in much the same way as you’d have to show some reason that there is a largest number, rather than the set of integers being infinite.
So troll: had enough yet?
Awwwwwwwwww. Diddums poor widduw JCFolsom get his feewings huwut? Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. Do you want a pity-party now because you blame me for your ignorance? Is that it?
You’re guilty of the same garbage Econo is: thinking that I have to disprove your unproven assertions. Go take Logic 101, bubba.
Hey, look at that! You must have quite a quick wrist twitch to put down all them ws. No doubt built by jerking to gay porn.
And all that, after I complemented you! I said you were the former biggest jackass. That means you’re not anymore. Oh, is that it? You like being seen as the biggest jackass on these boards? Well, don’t worry, I fully believe it in your ability to take the title back from Econodolt.
Because we all know how frowned upon that is on libertarian fora, right? [^o)]
-Jon
Well, now I didn’t say we should ban it, did I? No, in fact, I pointed out its capacity to build fast-twitch muscle strength in the wrist.
Just because I think there ought be no law against something doesn’t mean I think it’s good or even not bad. Now, I’ve never insulted anyone for actually being gay on these boards, and I wouldn’t. I have no problem interacting with homosexuals. That doesn’t mean I (or most people for that matter) don’t find homosexuality odd, and funny. That’s all I’ll say on this here. Don’t want to distract too much from this wonderful, deeply thought theme.
Um, I was just questioning the effectiveness of such a quip on such a forum, but okay.
-Jon
I can’t speak for anyone who would be offended by it, but accusing someone of looking at straight porn just doesn’t have the same, “oomph”.
That said, flamewars lead to ill-advised comments like that. Sooner or later, something offensive and inapproproate is going to get said. Real gentlemen settle differences with pistol duels at dawn.
That is a very balanced comment. You should be a diplomat, however that would work in an anarchic society.
That being said, you are right. The comment was ill-advised, and I apologize for any offense I caused to anyone besides the squire (or Econodork).
Not if guns are already outlawed, as they happen to be around here. Duh. [:)]
Econophysics,
You might want to check this out (it’s not a book - you can read it half an hour…)
How very christian of you to say that. And how ignorant of you to not grasp the fact that when you hold down a key on your keyboard, it will repeat. Try it sometime.
If that’s what you think passes for a compliment…
Don’t worry though: you’re still the biggest whiner on the board.