Again, another bunch of words that didn’t give any knowledge.
Definite ad hominem.
You gave no knowledge here, again. And you advocate violence for “no good reason”: “like throwing a small rock…” am I supposed to be the dog? I never said you were stupid before, simply that you didn’t give any knowledge in your post. Try not to be so hard on yourself. As the saying goes, ‘hold your face one way and it’s bound to stay that way’ same would go for thinking you are stupid.
Keith, perhaps you should learn to take things in a constructive, non-personal manner. You may be wedded to your views, but that doesn’t mean that you’re correct, ok? That goes for a lot of people here, too.
You seem to have completely misunderstood my posts and points in this thread. Frankly, I find it difficult and unrewarding to have a discussion with a quote and slogan machine. More often then not the quotes you are posting (as replies and “refutations”) have no relationship with the point discussed, so forgive me if I have begun to skip through a few of them.
Ever since I joined this forum I have not made a single complaint that a point/response/refutation of mine has been neglected. That doesn’t mean that those oversights aren’t in fact regularly occurring. I understand that people here are busy and have lives outside of this forum, and are perfectly free to focus on or neglect points as they choose. I’m not here to win a pissing contest, but merely to improve my structure of knowledge about the world. I couldn’t care less whether anyone here walks away thinking that they have “won” by making me “lose”.
I hope this helps you better understand my motives and MO.
The fact is, my original post may have been thin on details, but this stuff, I’m sure, has been hammered to death. I’ll pop in some more details here, but there are some very hardened positions that I feel are being hurled from an ivory tower.
There are some problems right out of the gate. What does a non-aggression principle realistically mean? It’s just words. There is no way to definitively say that it wouldn’t make complete sense to aggressively move against a sovereign. As the original post says, threat is a loosely defined term… possibly very loosely defined, such as, “If we don’t invade, there is a threat that we might miss out on all that free stuff.”
When I say, “we”, I’m talking about one of two things: either a private army taking things for itself, or something that resembles a state that necessarily had to arise to contain the private army.
There has to be a final authority. Private courts, and private security are all fine and good, but what if I receive a summons, and decide not to show up? Is there someone going to make me show up? If not, I won’t. If it’s a security firm, well, I’ve already purchased a my armed bodyguard package, and they do what I say, so good luck, and expect the premiums to go up for security.
Or, perhaps it might make some sense to have a uniform coda.
Remember, private security is for hire. If they are the final authority, then there a more than an existential threat of complications. A poorly behaved security firm would lose no more business than the mafia does today.
My point about airports was that it would be reckless for a 747 to fly into an airport that allowed snoopy and his doghouse to fly in unannounced because there is nothing to prevent him from doing so.
That’s probably enough to bite off for now.
The curtness of my previous comment was in reply to uncalled-for obnoxiousness.
Part of life entails acceptance that you don’t know certain things. It also entails acceptance of when you’re wrong.
Even think there might be a valid reason for such?
That we live and let live.
So’s excluded middle.
You’re not realizing that the NAP is about initiatory aggression.
Which is an invitation for other to engage in the same behavior toward you, and you can’t complain. Kinsella’s estoppel approach, you know.
No, there doesn’t.
Then you miss out on being able to defend yourself. And it might not go well for you from a social standpoint, depending on the nature of the offense.
Or they dissolve the contract.
And good luck getting people to deal with you.
Why would they be?
And how long do you think such an airline would stay in business, hmmmm? Do you think that without a government people would just forget how to deal with customers? That PR wouldn’t matter? Do you honestly believe such nonsense? You must, if you are at all consistent.
You did, after all, state that you are confused. So I fail to see why you got upset. You admitted your confusion, and that was echoed to you. How you could be upset by an echoing of your own admission is beyond me.
But surely you understand that “that people here are busy and have lives outside of this forum”. Why should I re-write something when it has already been written and often than not more succinctly? It further gives the opportunity to ‘air’ articles, media and resources that are buried within Mises.org. If I didn’t think they were relevant or addressed the point at hand, I wouldn’t be posting them.
Sure. Except it could be considered rude to ignore someones points that have been raised against yours.
As am I. Yet I find it contrary to that goal, by raising criticisms and then not addressing the ones in return. Oh well.
Knight_of_BAAWA, thank you for taking the time to respond on all the points.
I came to Mises.org during my quest to find alternatives to the current situation on nearly all fronts. I used to love politics, and now I loath it. I’ve always been highly critical of the government, and I can point you to a great deal of my writings about that. I tried to organize a raid on the AT&T building in SF to remove the spy equipment ourselves, the thought being that a trial on trespassing and destruction of property would be the last thing the government would want. It had to involve more than one or two people, otherwise I (or we) would be isolated, crazy loners. You know… the standard line.
We (the US) adopted a constitution that tried to put in safeguards against tyranny and other problems. Various actors have been picking at the seams for over 200 years, and now the fabric of the nation is unravelling in many places. Something has to change, and I found mainstream libertarian ideas very appealing. I have not yet been able to wrap my head around some of the more extreme positions. I understand very well the concept of individual actors acting in their own self interest, and I agree we should be allowed to… right up to a certain point. I have not yet been able to go past that point. I believe a certain amount of organization makes complete sense in some areas. I believe there is utility in common cause, and central arbitration.
The free market is directly efficient at the transactional level, which is the most important. It’s ability to spur innovation is a secondary effect, and that, in my opinion, is a glaring weakness. I have no problem chipping in for education and basic research. The free market did not produce the space program, and I’ve already heard all the excuses. The fact is, a directed effort using public funds is what gave rise to weather satellites and global communications. Think about the efficiency improvements those improvements have brought. I’m just using this as an example of the good that can come from common cause.
The government needs to be dismantled, but something will take its place. Under anarchy, the first jackass that comes along during hard times, telling the affected who their enemy is, and what he will do about it will be a problem. So won’t the hundreds after him.
Keith your certainly welcome here and I hope we can help you understand the more ‘radical’ side of libertarianism.
I highly recommend you read the first 200-300 pages of Human Action. I would recommend just buying the book in one way or another but you can also read it online here. This will get you caught up with the concept of Praxeology.
In today’s day in age the free-market would never produce a space program. It’s probably the most unprofitable program one could think of.
Ofcoarse it’s naive to assume the government could not have accidently produced something of value. Entrepreneurs accidently produce things of value every day. Though how can we conclude that the free market would not have conceived of it’s methods of global communication? What if those means were more efficient? I can almost guarantee you they would have been when put into practice more efficiently.
Using past technologies as an excuse to extort money from citizen’s is a poor excuse. The market will conceive of things that people actually want. THe government plays a gamble, it doesn’t know what people want. Sometimes it may get lucky, sometimes it’s produced good isn’t of value untill 20 years later. At the time the government was creating all it’s space toys those objects were of little use to the consumer or businessmen. They didn’t come into use until later when that technology got sold off.
If you look at the aggregate it’s more likely that those technologies are still in the red considering how many resources have been by governments into making them. We are likely still paying it all off.
Actually, we can’t admit. The most likely outcome is MUCH worse than the current set-up, and the “worst case” is even much worse than that. The pin falls, whereas it is currently still standing.
Praxeologically or not, it’s a tremendous stretch of imagination to presume that the free MARKET would be the decisive balancing force when the “traded product” is POWER. The self-interest incentives of an agent acquiring and “selling” POWER are much different from the incentives of an agent selling SHOES. And to even suggest that societal ostracism (what else?) would make the powerful think twice before they use their power to acquire more of it is at best romantic and at worst delusional. Only the people devoid of threats and fear can afford to ostracize. Instead, instinct of self-preservation conveniently transforms ostracism (that never was) into respect and submission to power.
And no, I don’t have a proof, but I will only let that bother me after I see a single thing being proven by anyone else on this forum.
this happens now. he’s called the commander in chief. he seriously outguns you. this might explain why he gets to determine so much of what happens to you and what you can do.
That`s idiotic. It is precisely because you are far more opposed to private tyranny than to public tyranny that private tyranny can never occur. 100,000 men is nowhere near enough to do anything significant in any context. The power of the state over its citizens rests on its percieved legitimacy not on the number of its bayonets. If you have no better claim than naked force you have already lost, bringing even more force to bear is only going to increase resistance against you, by convincing more people of the urgency of dislodging you and motivating them to join in the fray.
You try to take Atlanta with 100,000 men and in a week you are going to have 3 million Southern volunteers descending on your Dr. Evil arse.
What is the traded product when you enter into a contract (trade) with someone who has POWER (FORCE) while you don’t. You need (demand) something that he has (supply)? What is “it”?
For evidence, check any history book, or presently ANY area in a state-power vacuum where turf wars, threats, rackets, and misery are the rule. Only an alien from another planet or someone nicely cushioned by benefits he fails to acknowledge would ACTUALLY ask to see evidence for the process that I just described.
Actually our history books mainly cover conflicts between states… like the civil war, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, bla bla bla.
This is due to the state’s failure to provide law and order in poor urban areas. I bet you want the state to do a better job. Why don’t you go sue the federal government in federal court with federally appointed judges and see what happens. Numerous laws keep the crime around… the war on drugs, fire arms restrictions, taxes in general…
Conversely, there are many examples of private law being very successful. I would be happy to point them out to you but anyone who can type should be able to find them here on mises.org. Plus you’ve displayed a lot of hubris over a poorly thought out and poorly argued position.
Actually, you quoted bloomj31 not me. Not important.
Yes, I agree. Except, something tells me that the pin is more likely to stand straight if the power structure with so much influence over me is decided by SOME input from the population instead of pure FORCE (or the “market” in your book). But that’s me. We each get to pick our poison.
This is a silly point to make on an AE forum. Please read Chapter 6 'Business and Trade" in Walter Block’s “Defending the Undefendable”.
Your post is vague, are you referring to extortion and the use of (FORCE) as you state it? Or a free exchange where neither party is forced?
Your next comment is riddled with so many logical fallacies it’s disturbing.
Let me ask you this. How is it that Milk arrives on the shelves every morning untainted by poison? Don’t answer the FDA because they don’t have the resources to check every last carton of milk in the country.
I’m going to go out on a limb and state right now that I think Austrian’s have done a bit more researching in their history in comparison to you. Especially when you make such lofty claims as you just have.