You haven’t even begun to make an argument to this effect. So far, you’ve asserted a lot of things, mixed in with bad economics.
Nonsense.
Again, nonsense.
How does that even follow?
Unjustified.
Unproven assertion.
-Jon
Jason:
working through my views on your last big post
I think that although humans will act in a way that they think will lead to there well being they will not necessarily be right, and most often wrong, one reason would be that they don’t understand the game that is being played out because it is too chaotic.
if you are punished and rewarded for respecting property then a person will respect it. however if you can get away with it then I don’t think there is an inherent respect for property. society must therefore insure people can not get away with it in order for people to respect property.
I see what your saying there with the real wealth. although I belive all this can only occure with the formation of a governing body to set rules and prevent abuse of the system. An intelegent person can not (i believe) do this by themselves. an intellegent person will want to work with other people but they will also want to compete and be better than the people they trade with.
want we have today is the trade held within a braket of behaviour which prevents the extremes that individual human beings tend to have.
so My main divernce here is again one of human nature and government intervention…the economics side of things I think I agree but the lower stuff is getting in the way.
MY VIEW OF AN IDEAL SYSTEM
I was thinking on this earlier and to me government intervention is needed becasue it is not human. a human being may seek selfishly to appear intellegent and create aspects of system. but once this system is out of his mouth it becomes a phenomenon and has no emotion at all and has no lifespan. government ideally should be a group of people that follow these phenomenon in the shape of a system. it should be hard to change and grow/shrink organically as it is needed. in this way we are governed by something that in a way isn’t human…but an output of humanity. individuals will still seek to manipulate the system and society but there route will be slowed far more than if there were no system in place at all.
you could say that the more complex a system is the more possibilities exist for greater abuse and perhaps the chaose an individual man can create is nothing compared to the chaose an individual man can create with a great machine he alone controles…but thats getting too complex.
and i just don’t see taxes as stealing. and I do see that you get a product for your taxes. you are forced to do it this is true.
So: You hate humans and think that government isn’t human?
Honestly, why not have your ideal system be like the matrix?
Hey man, I’m selling lemonade at a lemonade stand down the street. You’re going to come and purchase 5 glasses, and if you don’t I’m going to have a group of bandits come kidnap you and we’re going to seize everything you own.
I’m not stealing, not at all.
govenerment and knowledge in a sense is not human because it is passed on from generation to generation. if anything evolves from man it will probably be a product of his production because mans ability to evolve phenomenon vastly outspeed biological evolution. thats what I mean by a system not being human.
I think what you say about stealing is partially correct on moral grounds. so I would call it a necessary evil for now. unless you provide an explanation for how a system without taxes would work. but I think our different views on human nature would mean I wouldn’t agree.
I think this thred needs dividing into about 50 different ones …but I suppose it serves me and my nebulous arguments right:)
When you say “civilization is built on taxes”, you are saying “civilization is built on theft”. Agorism is a reasonable way to achieve a true free market. Multiple competing police agencies are superior to an unaccountable monopolistic cartel.
You say “I have the right to steal from FSK via taxes.” I disagree. Now, it just becomes a question of tactics. You’ll look for cleverer and cleverer ways to steal, and I’ll look for cleverer and cleverer ways to protect myself. Offense/stealing is usually more expensive than defense, so eventually the free market activists should win.
OK, so we disagree on human nature. I say “Government/taxes is not an intrinsic part of my nature” and you disagree. Does that mean we’re different species? How did I wind up alone surrounded by hostile aliens?
Based upon? Is this just something we repeat, or something we know?
ok ok I like the agorism thing, but how do you prevent the power vacume that I would believe would emerge as the government was destabalised?
how would the agorist revolution be funded and organised?
how would people work together?
how would the agorist system be prevented from becoming the system that we have today? this woulf take some sort of rules from an authoratative body right?
I don’t see how the free market would provide monopolies from forming? it was free they formed, so I think they would form again.
how long would this revolution take place? would people die during it? would there be strikes and food shortages? would there be civil war? would a foreign power seek to gain advantage during the period of instability (you have to admit there would be some instability)
I feel that the best that would happen is that the current system would be repeated and the worst that would happen would be that another group would seize an opportunity in the instability to seize power, or have undue influence in the decission making process.
I feel the best course of action for an agorist would be to become influential and alter policy in a modest way in whatever way you see fit and become one of the many voices arging for compromise in a modern democracy. in that way no damage can be done and a group wil be represented in relation to their popularity.
I didn’t understand the hostile aliens bit:)
jon
yup, its all just creativity.
So we must initiate force against others?
Could you perhaps phrase that in such a way that your conclusion logically follows?
Utopian scheme. Political power breeds political power. Leviathan ALWAYS takes more power if it can.
Further, it’s inevitable that rape will happen, so it’s best that it be legal. Right? After all, there’s no different between that and government being inevitable and all that rot.
Let me ask you this: how do people work together NOW? Hint: it’s not because some government forces them to.
Give me an example of a free market degenerating into a State. All the States I know about were imposed by violence/conquest/trickery.
For example, the americans won their freedom from Great Britain after the revolutionary war. A handful of people got together and formed a new strong central government. They funded George Washinton’s army to go around the country putting down tax revolts (Shay’s rebellion, whiskey rebellion).
The vast majority of people didn’t realize they had just been conned out of their hard-won freedom. They were accustomed to paying taxes to the local colony government, so they went along with the Federal government.
The american revolution abolished control by the British government, but it did not also eliminate the individual state governments.
The US government was imposed by violence/conquest/trickery.
Can you name a government that was created as part of a free market process?
In the same way as paying the mafia to not burn your business down is paying for a product.
That didn’t really make much sense, can you rephrase it?
It is totally correct. And I don’t need to give into statist, consequentialist claims. You’re making the assertion, prove it.
Also, I have no views on human nature.
There are about 3 topics on the general, unproved assertions of statists like you, and why the “necessary evil” analysis is unjustified.
ok I’d rather pay the government than the mafia even if they share some of the same characteristics.
i think I’m going to have to pay someone regardless.
and you’d want to force everyone to pay the same people as you instead of letting people have individual choice in the matter?
martinglake, thanks for arguing and debating. I think you’re doing so in good faith. Unfortunately, this forum isn’t always the friendliest when someone with statist perspectives or opinions comes around looking for answers rooted in the philosophy of liberty.
The difference between the mafia and the government, is that the mafia doesn’t interpret the law. The government does, which gives it a virtual monopoly on violence. You can fight back against the mafia, it’s called self-defense. If you fight back against the government, you’re a traitor engaging in insurrection.
How do you eliminate something that hasn’t been proven?
Freely of course.
How do markets work?
It cannot be proven that it wouldn’t. So what?
Nope.
Then you don’t really understand economics. And if there was a free market monopoly, I don’t see why anyone should mind it. It would mean that the monopoly business is excessively more efficient than its competition.
Nope. Government intervention caused them to form. I assume you’re talking about the monopolies that started popping up in the Guilded Age?
As long as it takes for the government to stop killing and robbing.
Yeah. Isn’t the statistic, like, 1 person dies every 2 seconds in the world? I’m sure a lot of people would die during it.
No, that’s only something that happens in an interventionist market.
Civil War is a factioning of a state into two seperate parties attempting to gain power, so no. The government might decide to attack innocent people though.
I don’t have a crystal ball. Also, there would be relatively little instability if a free economy exists when the state topples.
Not really relevant, but okay, feel that.
You and liberty student both. 
-
You don’t have to pay somone regardless
-
Why would you want to pay someone who forces something you don’t want upon you?
I think you meant to use the wink icon, not the smile icon. Although it wouldn’t hurt for you to smile a little more.
if I write go jogging at 6am tommorow. to write it is a human act. but now it exists as a phenomenon on a piece of paper and it holds a power over me, namely the promt to jog at 6am in the moring.
society is a vast network of phenomenon or one single phenomenon depending on how you see it.
technology is also a phenomenon speedily evolving and having a emense effect on society.
if we have any kind of revolution it will no doubt be heavily influenced by technological evolution.
I might argue that the system was more reliable because it wasn’t human. and follows abstract/ideal laws that are not based on human nature.
I don’t think my/your views on tax can be proven. they are subjective points of view based on the literal definition of tax and theft. We simply disagree and must defeat each other by clever talking and persuasion. or more acurately persuading the nation should either of us ever be in charge:)
no views on human nature? thats the foundation of ecconomics. you can’t have a ecconomic model without out being to presume how people will act. surely?