do you mean that in some weird poetic way, or just how it literally reads?
have you ever thought you might lack imagination perhaps through a little too much indoctrination since you have lots of beliefs that you cant justify from simpler principles.
you cant coerce a criminal in their act of criminality. coercion is done to innocents. want to rewrite your question?
Your simply a logician friend. You make no arguments, you just use tireless logic to justify yourself. Remember that just becuase its logical, doesnt mean its right. Or did you not learn that in the first sentence of the first chapter of the metaphorical book on logic.
As Ive said before my argument is very simple. Yes, I am my brothers keeper.
You get one more shot to defend your belief that it is ok to initiate force against other. Fail to do it and there will be…consequences.
You socialists need to learn that “Give me your money or I’ll beat you up” is not a valid argument.
This site is WAY too tolerant with socialist trolls… in revleft or some other bullshit marxist site he would have been banned 9 pages ago.
Off course that speaks very highly of you.
Im kind-of a doaist. I dont fear threats. So, do what you have to do. You will only prove my point.
Ive made my argument, your faith blinds you to it. We are our brothers keepers. We are our brothers keepers. We are our brothers keepers. To violate that is a crime against society.
And besides, Im here to gain focus on the libertarian philosophy. Not to spell out mine. I know youve already gone to great lengths to justify your sin, and its hard to have someone arguing against your tireless logic that protects you from your own conscience. BUt all Im asking for is serious debate. Ive refrained from getting petty, and ive threatened no one.
Its very funny that you would threaten my right to debate in this forum. Isnt that just the cats pajamas. Personal freedom for all, except the ones who disagree with you.
Priceless ? What exactly is an argument according to you ? I thought that an argument was an attempt at using logical reasoning to make some sort of case. I guess that in your mind “argument” means a mob of progressives like you beating up dissidents.
Ooh, such rhetoric.
What makes you say that you have a “right” to debate on this forum, which happens to be privately-owned?
That’s not an argument. That’s just an idiotic mantra.
Whoa. A cheap gangster lecturing ppl on morality. What a cheek.
We are our brother’s keeper… because you say so; or rather because it feels bad when people violate this imaginary compact. That’s the gist of your argument. (But hey, why let logic get in the way of what is right?)
You have no right to be at this forum. It is not your property so it is merely by privilege. It is the property of the Mises Institute and therefore the moderators they designate may ban whom they wish.
ok. i can tell when im frustrating the ires of the locals. And much like Jesus it is time to wipe the dust from my feet and move on
We are our brothers keepers
As such we have a responsibilty to the world
self serving at the behest of the collective is dangerous to civilization and is a crime against the right to private property
no matter the system there will always be corruption
anarchy is not the best way to check corruption
anyone who thinks theres a place for government is not a marxist, and may just believe that a completely free market isnt the only solution for the world. In fact they may just believe that it will quickly regress us into a dark age
Is that simple enough to understand?
No, I won’t, actually.
That you’re so stupid as to actually believe that it would is justification enough.
Will you explain how does government manage to gain authority over its subjects ? I suppose it’s the same system your friend jefferson used to get his slaves ?
So, Reverend, if you think that we are our “brothers [sic] keepers”, what makes you think that coercion is necessary for cooperation? Are they not mutually exclusive? And what would be a better way to check corruption? More bureaucracy? We understand very well the strawmen that you consistently set up.
No one is saying that those who believe in government are Marxists. No one is saying that the free market is a cure-all. Unlike you and your fellow democratic socialist dolts, libertarians don’t offer any utopia. And you know what really would regress civilisation back into a dark age? Coercion and the loss of real responsibility. You consistently talk about responsibility, but if you want more and more government to enforce it, you are shifting the responsibility from individuals onto a mass of disinterested bureaucrats. “Simple” indeed.
Can somebody translate this for me please? Help would be greatly appreciated.
I don’t want to get into a Jesus debate, but Jesus was the guy taking on the Empire aka state.[;)]
A libertarian, Austrian economics man or woman is a brother’s keeper. I can see this is becoming a religious war over who’s the real Christian…lol [:P]
The criminal teaching morality. Who would have thunk it. [:S]
Nobody here has once used your definition of “self serving” working in the free market…um [^o)]
That’s what we keep saying but… [^o)]
Maybe if you like freedom more than slavery you would understand. But hey I’m talking to a criminal so I’m sure to get some kind of doublespeak.
Freedom or Slavery… hmmm? I know what is more moral, but do you is the question?
When you start comparing yourself to Jesus, it is time to get out.
Even had you proven this, would it justify individuals coercing one another?
Same question, substaniation?
And how do you know when this is occuring… WHAT ARE THE GUIDLINES!!! And wouldn’t those who are “preventing” individuals from hoarding, act on selfish interests themselves, YOU FAIL.
Agreed, why a monopolistic system like government is the rational result of this i have no idea.
We, and I, the collective members of Mises.org have never called you a Marxist directly, unless my memory decieves me. You are suffering from delusions of persecution. Free economies have allowed people to advance THROUGH dark ages.
Is that simple enough to understand?
No we aren’t. Prove it.
No we don’t. Prove this.
No its not. We have explained the Rothbardian view of natural property rights. You do not have any argument against this, or for your proposition.
True, any government will have corruption. Which is why it is bad that they have a monopoly of force over a territory. With competing governments, they would need to be or at least seem less corrupt. If there is a monopoly, then corruption screws over everyone.
The only way to eliminate government corruption is to eliminate the government. You said yourself that there will always be corruption.
Anyone who believes that it is okay to steal for others in order to satisfy an arbitrary set of needs for others is evil, marxist or not. You have not given any justification for the state’s coercion except that:
we can leave - this is not a good argument, uses circular logic, and has been refuted.
we are our brothers keeper/other mantras - these are meaningless and you dont say anything to back them up other than the fact that you believe them.
emotive pleas
Condescension and argumentum ad nauseam. Great way to make a name for yourself.
No, you didnt call me a marxist. You called me a thief and a murderer. And then banned me for expressing my opinion. But I digress…
“there is a tendency in the economic system to give every branch of industry precisely that amount of capital, labor, and products that the consumers demand. Those who guess right make profits; those who are wrong incur losses. The result is that eventually control of the factors of production gets into the hands of those who best satisfy the needs of consumers.”
This is a valid argument in the sense that consumer demand is met. But consumer demand is not always demand for the best products. Sometimes it is not even for what the people actually want (maybe its just whats cheapest). And I think you leave out the power of marketing in this equation. Very smart, sneaky people are very good at getting people to want deficient products.
Consider the Awesome Auger. My friend buys one thinking he can weed his garden in a day. Meanwhile the drill they send cant even screw in a screw, let alone rip a weed out by the roots.
If Im not explaining myself they way you would like, I apologize. But we come from entirely different starting points on our view of the world.
My argument is that if we wish to have a strong civilization our infrastructure has to be well tended and our people have to be confident in their situation. This has to happen or the system falls apart and people resort to agrarianism. These costs will be passed on somehow. If not through taxation then through general price raising. And EVERYBODY will have to chip in whether they like it or not.
The only fair way to do this is progressively. My evidence for this is interest. 5% means a lot of money made for the wealthy. It can potentially make millions in a day. But 5% is nothing for the average investor. It will take him decades to generate any real wealth.
Putting it in the opposite direction. If I already have $300 million/quarter, Im not really worried about $3 million. It hurts but, Ill deal with it. If I have 3000/quarter then Im kinda worried about losing the thirty dollars. Thats round about a days necessary expenses.
Thank you for once again proving that socialist cannot argue with rationality or logic, but can only pander to emotional impulses and ad-hominems. You should be proud of yourself.