christophe youre a tool, if you want your issues addressed go read a book.
I don’t see where all of you got this fetish about reading books. I also have reasoning and insights which I did not just copy from a book, how about you? I can explain any of my viewpoints to anybody without having to demand from them that they read any book whatsoever, why can’t you. But if we’re going to compare our literary penises anyway, chances are mine’s bigger than yours, friend. I stopped keeping count when I passed the boundary of 100, who cares? Even so, it’s a non-issue, I’ve never (never) used the arguement of “I’ve read more books than you” in any conversation, simply because it’s a show of weakness rather than strength to have to hide behind that sort of thing. Doing so doesn’t impress me, it only makes me suspect your other points are too sketchy to stand on their own accord. If you’re reading books just so you can say you have read a lot of them, then to me that says a lot about the kind of person you are and about the chances of you having actually understood the implications of what you read. “Go read a book” is the hallmark fo the pseudo intellectual, spare yourself the embarassment of uttering it and keep them guessing instead of removing all doubt.
For all the talk of not initiating violence, I say most of you are pretty agressive and quick on the draw, at least there’s some ironic amusement in it for me, much like when selfprofessed “openminded” socialists go ballistic whenever you disagree with them.
Having said that, if you don’t have anything to say, then don’t. I don’t see the problem, am I spamming any of your threads with verbal diarrhea, “tacoface”, if that is your real name? I’m not. It doesn’t cost you anything to return the favor and it doesn’t cost you anything to be polite. Practice what you preach, at least.
Christophe started with a simple enough question about externalities and you guys have led the discussion to insult war over which is the best possible unrealistic form of government. The simple fact of the matter is that there isn’t enough evidence to say that anarcho-capitalism would “work better” than the current system or even an idealized small government system. At least we have evidence that small government works pretty well (Hong Kong, Singapore). I don’t want to get into a methodological debate, but evidence is necessary to establish the efficacy of such a massive reform as eliminating the entire government. You don’t even have any well organized blueprints for handling the most basic criminal offenses. I am all for free-markets, but it is never enough to just say “the market will work things out,” especially if you are trying to convince people who don’t even think markets are efficient in general.
sigh, there is literature out there which addresses your “concerns” (and boy are they unique), it’s not my problem if you do not seek them out, i’m merely giving you some advice.
The simple fact is that evidence is not necessary for an ancap. Ancap is based on a principle, not consequentialism.
Works well for who?
So the slave must prove he can thrive without his master before he can be freed? What silliness.
And the alternative to the market is?
By starting out with “you’re a tool”. I know your kind, friend. If I ever need any advice on how to dig a hole for myself you’ll be the first I’ll ask.
Untill then I’d appreciate it if you held on to a minimum of elementary politeness when conversing with another human being. Don’t tread on me and we’ll get along just fine.
So you admit that ancap could or would lead to worse results than the current system?
For everyone.
No, you must prove to me that is it better to be free. You are not trying to convince the government here, you are trying to convince citizens.
Government intervention, obviously.
Where is your evidence (your standard) of this?
Ancap is an ethical position. It is not compatible with consequentialism. Results (as you speak of them) are some aggregate or macro that is meaningless to individuals.
Uhm, that is exactly what I wrote. You’re telling me I have to prove I deserve freedom before I can have it. I’m ok with you having that position, but it means you’re a statist.
I’m not trying to convince anyone. I am under no obligation to petition for my freedom.
And pray tell, what can the government do that individuals cannot?
Translated: Justia fiat pereat mundi.
Most citizens.
The quick abolition of serfdom in Russia did more damage to the living-standards of the Russian serf than any otherm prior event in Russian history; therefore, one can very well put forward a credible thesis that the instant abolition favored by Tsar Alexander II was irresponsible because the serfs could not thrive with a sudden dramatic, insitutional change of Russian society . Again, your position is justia fiat pereat mundi.
hahahaha your translation would be good if we spoke latin, i dont know where you think you are
In the company of a moron apparantly. Grow up, you’re irritating and add nothing to the conversation. Back to the shadows with you.
Quantify most. What metrics are being used? Where is the data?
Irrelevant example. Must the slave prove he deserves his freedom to his master, or does he have a fundamental right to be free?
not only are you a tool, but youre a humourless tool. do you understand the term, taking the piss?
Per capita GDP with purchasng power parity.
So you would prefer living in a statless society with a guaranteed $3000 per year income over an indeal minarchist society with a guaranteed $40,000 income per year?
I should have been clearer. You mut prove to me that freedom would be better for me.
Tax, subsidize and regulate.
Why should there be taxes, subsidies, and regulations?
By all means, keep digging
And who chose this standard? How was it selected?
Nothing in life is guaranteed. The promises the state makes can only be provided by proxy violence. Ethically, that is unacceptable to me. I would rather live a modest life of peace, than a wealthy one of thievery and violence.
I don’t care if you want freedom or not. My freedom is not conditional upon you having yours.
Individuals can steal, bribe and coerce. Again, what can the state do that individuals cannot?
Quite honestly, due to the fact that the status-quo has emerged as it has without mass-uprisings that most citizens are at least content with their government. The national voter turnout in the United States’ 2008 national election, which is around 58.6% of the voting-age population, displays that most American citizens of voting age believe in the legitimacy of their government.
I disagree.
Throwing the serf out the door, without the support of any social institutions, to give him is “freedom” is irresponsible. The abolition of slvery must be a gradual process, and the ability of slaves to provide for themselves must be rippened before they freed.
Externalities, for one. Hey, we’ve gotten back to the original question!
Do you have a better standard? Anyway it isn’t really a standard; it is an indicator of quality of life.
It is a hypothetical question. The government isn’t guaranteeing anything in the example. Maybe guarantee is the wrong word. Let’s try again. So you would prefer living in a stateless society with an expected $3000 per year income over an ideal minarchist society with an expected $40,000 income per year?
Yes it is. That is the point of the State.
But can individuals overcome the free-rider problem with those actions?
Yeah. ‘Responsible’ people would rather uphold slavery. You know, the ends justify the means - that’s your ‘moral philsophy’ no ? And justice is a bad thing.