Because the state gives her that power. She decides what the state can and cannot do, not you. That is why limited government is an oxymoron. There are no limits on the state, because the state is the sole arbiter of what the limits are. That’s Hoppe 101.
Btw, I want to reiterate, I am ok with Jacob being whatever he is, and you being a “limited government libertarian”. Jacob has at least shown the capacity to argue honestly, and I respect that, even if I do not support his political views. On the other hand, you are consistently avoiding addressing your errors of logic, and again, it’s not a problem that you’re not an anarchist, but I want to make it clear, that your definition of what liberty is, is arbitrary and inconsistent with itself.
Which I could say means limiting the state to only providing education, roads, courts, an army, regulations, licensing, fire fighting services, etc., etc. Congratulations, you just made the word “libertarian” meaningless.
It proves I interact with the real world, not the fantasy one you have created.
Maximize (Defined) - “To increase or make as great as possible”
Sorry you lose.
No.
Really where did I state this?
Then who is the final arbitrator on what is “moral”? You?
Kinsella’s piece is irrelevant to common English language word definitions that appear in dictionaries.
I have never claimed either to be Austrians. Non “Austrian” definitions for English language words? ROFLMAO!!! You crack me up. Yes apparently using a common dictionary is a waste of time for you.
All three were libertarian by the common english language definition. Rand is the only one who objected to being labeled because she had her own ideology and her dislike of anarchists who called themselves libertarians.
No it hasn’t. There is not a single word in anything he wrote in support of anarchism or anarcho-capitalism.
Exactly. The limit is whatever Pelosi wants it to be. Because Pelosi gets to decide. That is how government works. If Poptech could decide, then you wouldn’t need a government. Oh wait, that is anarchism. Poptech making his own decisions for himself. Can’t have that!
I’m interested in knowing how Rand/Friedman could be considered libertarian in any sense of the word, including your own definition, Poptech. Milton Friedman was a strong advocate of central banking; an institution more responsible for the expansion of the State than anything else. You may label yourself or others as you please, but the existence of the State guarantees the existence of coercion/aggression and it follows that if you condone the existence of the State you also condone these actions (albeit to a lesser degree than others).
If I said they were illogical, I would state this, what I stated was " made-up nonsense". I try to be clear and direct. You pretending to confront and show something does not make it so.
Why do you want to control people?
So why are you not living in Somalia again?
No it is about shock words. I only seen it done here and I find it laughable.
It is consistent with the English language. I am not concerned with your fantasy definitions of words.
Poptech, you seem to hold Mises in high regard. Isn’t Mises credited with saying "Government is the negation of liberty’ so going by your definition of libertarianism, namely maximizing individual liberty and going by your deep respect for Mises, then you should be combating that which is the negation of the very institution you propound.
Well now that that is over, who wants to get a beer? Anyone? Anyone?
You’re right. I don’t expect LS to see any difference between me (or you) and Nancy Pelosi. For him and people like him, the world is black and white. For me, and probably for you too, it’s shades of gray.
That being said, I enjoy people like LS because he has principles and dammit he sticks to them. I admire that even though I don’t think it’s…practical or realistic. I also really enjoy talking to him and most of the people on this forum. I find myself agreeing with them more often than disagreeing and I find most of them to be very smart, very sharp and very passionate about what they believe in and I admire that.
I think you’re a libertarian. I think I am too. Just because I’m a socialist murdering statist to an-caps doesn’t mean that they can really enforce their judgment. Milton Friedman would’ve supported yours and my position. I think Hayek probably would have too. That’s good enough for me.
Jacob, see what he did there? That’s what I am talking about.
Wouldn’t make as great as possible be absolute or to make whole? 100%?
I think you just refuted yourself again. DOH!
Sure it is. Progressivism is the warfare state, which is why Randolph Bourne wrote “War is the health of the state”.
By supporting the state. Do you disagree with them? If so, how do you reconcile the state using aggression and violating property rights? Feel free to make your position crystal clear.
Anyone can be if they apply a consistent (universal) principle. One that applies to both themselves and others.
So by that logic, would Austrian Economics be irrelevant to the dictionary definitions of economics? If the definition is neo-classical, or marxist, would that mean that free market economics are irrelevant?
But you mixed Austrians and non-Austrians, in the case of Rand, you just pulled it out of your hat. You apparently don’t know anything about Objectivism or her views on libertarians. What other reason was there to include Friedman and Rand? Neither is a libertarian, and if they aren’t Austrian, then it seems you might be quite confused.
Dictionaries are simply an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. I’ve already demonstrated that the definition you sourced either agrees with me, or is logically inconsistent.
You didn’t even know this until I told you and the latter portion about anarchists is not completely correct. Rand also believed that homosexuality was immoral. She was no libertarian by any definition.
Only Mises was. Hayek and Friedman were not. Only Mises argued that if the state could be done away with, it should. Hayek and Friedman did not think the state should be done away with.
You’re engaging in another logical fallacy. You’re arguing negative proof.
And as stated above, Mises supported anarchism if it could be done. He couldn’t conceive how it could be done, but he truly believed every individual was a sovereign. Do you believe every individual is a sovereign? If yes, how do you reconcile that with the state?
Have fun bashing your straw men. Everyone here (LS included) recognizes that there’s a difference between minarchists such as you two and fascists such as Nancy Pelosi. That doesn’t change the fact that the three of you (PT, bloomj, Nancy Pelosi) are, by definition, statists.
Milton Friedman was not a strong advocate of central banking, he was simply pragmatic. “I think I also have to be willing to discuss changes that are less than ideal so long as they point me in that direction. So while I’d like to abolish the Fed, I’ve written many pages on how the Fed, if it does exist, should be run.”
But they were both statists. They both supported the state. It’s like arguing in an echo chamber in here. You might as well have said, I think George Bush would’ve supported yours and my position, because he would. And he was clearly no libertarian.
No, I want you to explain the differences. I know there is a difference. But I want you to explain what you think makes your position more moral or righteous than Pelosi’s.
This isn’t true. It’s insulting for you to say it, but I think you say it because you are ignorant of my perspective, not because you’re trying to mis-characterize me. I do not see the world as black and white, but I do see things according to the law of identity. I do believe that A = A.
You’re doing it again. You claim to have principled differences with Pelosi, but then you claim that principles aren’t practical or realistic. What is realistic? Mises’ work was all theory, based on logic and a priorism. He didn’t appeal to empiricism which is what you do when you and Poptech bring up realism. Are you saying the Austrian school is not practical or realistic? Are you rejecting deductive reasoning as a means of understanding the world around us?
You have no idea how close to marxism what you’re proposing is when you appeal to realism and practicality. Even Hayek would have issue with that, because you’re operating under the pretense of knowledge. You’re claiming the limits of what is possible, is your capacity to conceptualize the possible. That nothing can exist outside your own ability to imagine it. Think that through.