We’re talking about Hong Kong and Singapore. Do you have any data on Hong Kong or Singapore?
I’m curious Lam, if the majority of Germans supported gassing the Jews, did that make it legitimate?
I’m sure the North Koreans would agree with you.
And that is irrelevant to the discussion. If the serf demands his freedom, do you believe he should have to prove his worth of it to his master? In other words, do you see the master slave relationship as legitimate or not? These are simple questions.
Blatant question-begging. Rejected as such.
Please, please, please don’t dodge. If you made an error, and we all make them, then own up to it, so we can move on in the discussion.
How did you ascertain that GDP is the standard that people in Singapore and Hong Kong universally use to determine how well their system works?
What you are asking is, would I tolerate violence and criminality for personal gain. And my answer is still no. I would not tolerate proxy violence against others for my own personal gain. I consider it unethical. YMMV.
The state is completely illegitimate and I don’t recognize it’s authority except as an agent of brute violence. Your freedom is still irrelevant to me. My legitimacy as an individual agent, is not contingent upon a group or majority.
Again, please don’t dodge. Answer my question before asking a new one. What can the state do that individuals cannot?
Since the status-quo has emerged without a mass revolt, and if you desire to combat my anaylsis of American legitimacy feel free. By the way, LS, both Singapore, and Hong Kong were in parentheses meaning that they are not the subject of the conversation, rather possible examples; its basic syntax.
Do you have any conception of the meaning of “legitimancy”? Its a more of a point of view, and perspective than an absolute fact. For instance, Caesar strangling Vercingetorix in Caesar’s triumph was a legitimate course of action form the view point of the contemporary Roman; however, most Westerners would be abhorred by such an action in today’s world. If the majority of Germans supported gassing the Jews, then, from the German point of view, gassing the Jews was legitimate.
I wonder, but I’ve never met the majority of North Koreans before to poll their opinions on the matter; ergo, this critique is base, and without any supporting evidence.
Legitimacy must be understood in light of the contemporary conditions. While there is absolutely no ground for a legitimate slave-master relationship in the modern world; in a society where slavery is the status-quo, then a temporary slave-master relationship during the gradual abolition of slavery may very well be legitimate, see the UK’s own abolition of slavery as an example of this. By the way, LS, why is everything about what I believe in? Can you possibly address the concept at hand without needing to know a full survey of the debator’s own opinions?
And despite all your huffing, and puffing you have not even dented my point. To tell you the truth, I could careless if you thought I was a fascist commie who shot serfs for laughs.
What is justice? Is justice starving serfs who no longer support themselves?
You made a point ? Except showing that you believe that ends justify means ?
What are you talking about ? Oh wait. Slaves are too stupid to survive without being enslaved. The good master Lam is going to uphold slavery for the common good of the slaves.
They were specific examples of small states. We were talking about small states, not the United States, which is clearly not a small state. Feel free to substitute in any other small state like Lichtenstein or Monaco. Whichever one you feel confident that you can speak for all of its citizens.
What about from your point of view? Do you agree that a majority would be sufficient authority for any people to decide to commit genocide on another group of people?
Do you need to meet a majority, or will one North Korean suffice? Is legitimacy only possible by majority?
No. I can’t. You are the one intervening in the discussion, critiquing my positions. You will be asked to defend your statements, and the beliefs or reasoning behind them. If that makes you uncomfortable, then sit this one out.
Thanks. So you don’t believe the master-slave relationship is legitimate, as we live in the modern world. Excellent.
So now I am curious to know, given that we live in the modern world, if an individual has a right to secede. What say you?
Where was the dodge? There is no standard. GDP per capita is simply a good indicator of the net benefits of a particular form of government. Can you offer me a better indicator? The fact that the citizens of these countries aren’t emigrating en mass shows that they think their systems work well enough. North Korea obviously isn’t a good example to counter this because there are massive restrictions on emigration there.
If you really believed this you would have moved to Somalia by now or set up your own homestead in the wilderness. No one is stopping you.
Right back at you. Hence my position on government.
Again, how is this a dodge? It was a rhetorical question. Let me rephrase it: Individuals cannot overcome the free rider problem.
Thank you.
I do really believe it, and who is to say I am not establishing my own homestead?
Nonetheless, that’s also irrelevant. Even if I did not act on my self-ownership, that doesn’t mean I am not a self-owner.
As long as you’re willing to admit to being a statist, then we’re in agreement.
And the state can? Look at Bostwick’s response which I marked as verified. The state is one enormous free rider problem.
So again, what can the state do that individuals cannot?
There can be no truly objective standard for morality. All attempts at finding a logical foundation for moral systems inevitably lead to infinite regress. Per capita GDP is REASONABLE as a measure of quality of life and therefore I use it (as do most people). Natural rights do not have an ultimate foundation either. I’ve tried looking for it and it doesn’t exist.
If you are, good luck. I hope it’s worth it.
I am a consequentialist; hence the name of my blog. The term Statist implies a principaled devotion to the State, which I certainly don’t have. My position is simple: certain forms of government have net benefits for their citizens.
Of course there is government failure. The point is: does the state have NET benefits. I think it can. Even if the state has failures of its own (and it does), it still might be able to mitigate the failures of markets.
Institutionalized theft and other initiatory violence has net benefits? On what Bizarro world?
so you are devoted to certain forms of government because of the principle that they provide sufficient benefits for their citizens. a statist.
I couldn’t read them either, that’s why I went with the very brief simple question, but he couldn’t answer even that… should I assume something… not a question cause I am assuming something oh well… lol
Obfuscation is such a lame technique, but it does have one benefit. When someone repeatedly refuses to reply in a succinct manner, it’s a strong indicator that their position is so difficult to understand they may not grasp it, or they are attempting to pull a “run out the clock” scenario.
To be fair, there are several posters here who are unable to man up and answer yes and no questions with yes and no answers.
I never claimed there was. In fact, I claimed the exact opposite.
I didn’t ask what your subjective measure was or why. You made a claim about the people living in those countries. I need to know what OBJECTIVE measure they have chosen, and you are using to back up your claim about them. It’s very simple. If you make a claim, back it up. If you can’t back it up, then don’t make it. If you have to qualify it and shift the goalposts, no one will take you seriously. This isn’t my first rodeo. We’ve seen every kind of pro-state apologist and libertarian here. You are not a unique snowflake.
Not obeying my sense of values is a life not worth living. It’s really that simple. Besides, its not as dire as your hypotheticals, because under the state, I own and earn nothing. But as a free individual seeking free exchange, the sky is the limit for my wealth, even in a statist world. The richest people in the world are the ones you never see on TV or in magazines.
You’re a statist. And I find your “consequentalism” funny. You are presumably low on the state food chain, so it’s likely you are taking a net loss, not receiving a net gain. Some bizarre form of state worship combined with state stockholm syndrome.
And I have asked you no less than 3 times to name what benefit the state has that private individuals do not. And you refuse to answer it.
Because it is false, no matter how many times you repeat it. There is nothing the state does, that private individuals cannot do themselves.
I’ve a far better idea: you prove that slavery is “better” for me without recourse to empty numbers such as GDP or “externalities”. Too bad “better” is subjective, too bad that “externalities” are merely an instance of transaction costs and too bad that evoking GDP doesn’t really prove your point. So, try again.
Is reading up on the topic another one of those things that is beneath you? It’d seem so…
I gave it. Go back and re-read my comment.
Do you even understand what you are saying? You admitted that an ancap society might be worse from a consequentialist stand point. If the government is better at providing protection services than ancap and it can do it without significant faiures of its own, there is a net benefit.
And I answered it. It begins with an F and ends with ree rider problem. The burden of proof is on you to show that the market can overcome market failure by itself.
I can claim victory without actually giving any arguementation as well, as it seems that’s the only thing you guys understand.
It’s pretty simple really and all it boils down to is this: where is your absolute truth and where is your anarchy.
In trying to answer this question contradictory to what is the visible and tangible reality of our world, you only show yourselves to be intellectual midgets and blabbering cultists, incompetent to grasp at the complexities of interacting forces while claiming economic principles of supply and demand as your foundation like, a cheap harlot trying to buy class with too much rouge. The grade to which you lowered yourselves over the course of the last few pages with your childish remarks and back-patting herd mentality is beneath the image of both what you hold yourselves out to be and that which I was expecting and hoping to find. You talk about philosophy and morality but are unable to even begin to comprehend the non-contradictory relation between might makes right and being of a non-aggression principle, that says more about you than it says about me and in the end proves you to be nothing but a bunch of frustrated despots that can’t even summon the self-restraint to stop yourselves from looking like effeminate fools by lashing out in a completely disproportionate manner at the first breath of disagreement that blows your way. You lack even the most basic intellectual honesty to admit that the only basis you have is your own personal preference, and instead of seeking validation in that based on your will and strength, you hide behind all the talk about your “natural law”, or at least your pseudo-philosophical interpretation of it; a complete non-issue to which you hang on for dear life like a castaway drinking seawater. You self-proclaimed champions of freedom and rationality.
I’m considering myself the victor here even though it was a debate which I hoped on losing for once. Quite the Pyrrhic victory indeed.
Long rants go a long way to bolstering one’s masculinity I hear. So, when do you plan on I dunno, actually reading up on the topic?
really?
a little humor [:P]: