And that, as they say, is where I stopped reading.
Wake up guys. There is reason most economists and moral philosphers disagree with you.
Have a nice day.
No, the number really is meaningless on its own to me, as are most aggregates - it doesn’t tell me whether I am “better” off or not in any way on its own. There is a reason why sensible economists and moral philosophers disagree with you.
Have a nice day.
In the context of the debate, I think Jon was referring to the fact that GDP is an empty figure when referring to those being enslaved. Reading further in to GDP in economics in general, there are lots of reason’s why AE’s are critical of the figure and the way Keneysian’s choose to calculate it and infer the strength of the economy as a spending metric.
My point of view does not matter, and its just a obfuscation of the debate - don’t ask for it again.
I would like to poll the opinions of most North Koreans; tragically, I doubt I’ll be able to poll every single North Korean so polling a majority would more than suffice, yet, in reality, I doubt I would even be able to do that. But its all technical details, and your response one non sequitur.
Feel free to actually address the positions, rather than the person.
What is this other than one non sequitur to obfuscate the debate at hand? My own personal opinions don’t matter, and this topic is not on sucession.
This is an ironic statment in light of the above. All you do, LS, is obfuscate the debate with political questions.
Lam, the value-freeness joke is getting old.
Which post was it in?
I don’t believe I did, but if you see it as such, I have to remind you that I am not a consequentialist, nor do I care what consequentialists think.
But you haven’t proven that. You haven’t proven that the state can do anything better than private individuals.
No, I have already replied to it by directing you to the post I marked as an answer to the OP. The state creates the free rider problem and institutionalizes it. I don’t have to prove the market is better, because at worse, it has the same negative, although I think any reasonable individual knows that externalities are linked to property rights, and under the state, there are no property rights whatsoever, making the market, ceteris paribus, better.
So try again. What does the state do, that free individuals cannot do?
If I see one more personal insult out of you, it will be your last. You have no idea who you are talking to on this forum, and should assume that personalizing comments is beyond the pale.
If your point of view doesn’t matter, then please sit silently on the sideline.
But you refuse to admit you have any positions (point of view). Which is it Lam?
Is it your personal opinion that this topic is not on secession? I’m just trying to figure out if you are a statist like Christophe and Jack, or if you are a libertarian. I know from your past comments, you have some sympathy for the state, but I am giving you a chance to clarify where you stand. If you don’t want to clarify your position, I recommend you withdraw.
This is a political discussion. Externalities are related to property rights and the state. If you did not believe this debate was political, then you should not have offered your pro-state defense of externalities. You can’t have it both ways, where you defend the state, and then claim you are above politics.
My point of view is not necessarily the point that I am making; there is a duality between those two.
Again, my beliefs on the subject are not necessarily the points that I am making. It is fully possible that I may be a Marxist, but that has no relevance to the points that I am making.
Because my view of the state has no relevance whatsoever. Where I stand on the state does not matter in a conversation about externalities, what is relevant is what I say, and that is all that I am putting on the table.
This is an economic discussion, LS, Chistophe, the OP, is talking about externalities from the position of economics. So, if you desire to say that the state cannot solve externalities feel free, but asking if I am a “statist” is an absolute non sequitur to the topic.
Then, please, give an economic critique of my “pro-state defense of externalities.”
ah, we have a devils advocate.
You didn’t interrupt a discussion between Christophe and I. You interrupted a discussion on politics between Jack and I. I’m done talking to Christophe and I think universally, everyone is done with the OP.
It was already done by others. That is why I did not engage you. Now let’s go back, and see what it is that I wrote and you disagreed with.
Oh yes, I am still waiting for you to provide an example of a small state you can speak for. I think that is where you interjected. Please, do carry on.
That’s the funny thing about minarchists, its relies on faith in democracy. No wonder they all hate Hoppe so much.
They rely on the faith of government
Not all governments. A main tenant is that we should preemptively create a democratic government to prevent any undemocratic (and thus worse, supposedly) governments from forming.
Even if we grant their assertion that government is inevitable, that still doesn’t justify deliberately creating a democratic one. The government that will be most “minimal” is the one who’s usurpations are most easily recognized.
The only tenet I have heard minarchists propose is that we need government, not which is most just.
I wouldn’t even grant them that assertion [:P]
Not necessarily, it depends on court historians and intellectuals.
Its been brought up a number of times around here.
I don’t believe it but it doesn’t matter, as their argument doesn’t stand even with it.
Not sure what that means. But when government was seen as separate from society it was small, now that government is seen as representative of society government is unlimited.
Government is always a usurper, having a usurper as head of state helps highlight that fact. Democracy is about pretending that changing the head of state changes the nature of the state.
When was this?
The monarchial age.
Ah; so, your position is a consequentialist position (where the consequence is peace)?