PatriotforFreedom: “I gave you two examples where the state was stopped, thus proving your argument false”
filc: The two examples you sited were war. To quote you specifically, “stopped them” in both the French and American revolutions".
Correct. You asked for examples of when state abuse was stopped. I provided them.
filc: I disagree with you in that war is effecient. On the contrary to your statement I think you further prove that government is ineffecient and unable to be controlled.
I have not argued that war is efficient – although we could debate whether it is more efficient than other remedies. You asked for examples of where a state’s abuse was stopped, and I provided them.
PatriotforFreedom: "You have also yet to demonstrate any proof for your new statement that “Even when governments intentions are honorable, they fail.”
filc replies: “I have proven this to you. Without contest. You cannot name one single government on the face of the planet that offers consistent, effecient, fair, justice. Not one.”
I have never claimed to be able to cite absolute examples of those values in practice, as that would be as imaginary as your notion of an anarchic utopia. What I can cite are real-world governments which are much more efficient that what you describe in your fantasy of Anarchism. And if your proof was “without contest” you would not need to continue for 11 pages to so desperately seek to support it here.
filc: “So how is it that I have not proven this to you? You prove it yourself by being incapable of conjuring up any defense for argument. Don’t try and spin this on me. I site every government known to man has failed man kind in servicing their best interests. You offer no counter argument. I have offered the proof. How many times shall I repeat myself?”
The counter argument which you have continually ignored, is that governments have been of service to men, and that they will always be much more consistent and so more efficient than any real or imagined state of Anarchy. The only consistency you have shown is to rail against abuse of government, which is not the same thing as a government or its constitution, and to continually tilt toward the absurd notion of an anarchist utopia.
PatriotforFreedom: “Why would mercenaries fear “public scrutiny” unless there was a social contract with an enforcement body sworn to principles of justice?”
filc replies, “If they were interested in deriving a profit they would feel public scrutiny and respect it, or suffer a financial loss. If they received a bad reputation all companies doing business with a questionable security firm would also drop their business for fear of public scrutiny. On the free market business’s aim to please their customers, not upset them.”
-
How would they “feel public scrutiny”? Why would this “feeling” convince them to behave differently? Forget Hollywood – your attempt to block the reality of history – outlaws did and do exist who take great pride in support of evil.
-
What if they received a good reputation for being bad, and so were then employed by persons wishing to do evil. Wait, sorry… I forgot that in your land of Ozarchy, there are no evil people, and there can be no evil mercenaries for hire. Yeah… you “proved” that false by citing hollywood movies.
-
Your final statement I would agree with, but it begs the same question – what about customers who intend to conduct unjust business?
Hey… I guess the mafia has been portrayed by Hollywood, so they don’t exist, unless you choose to use them in an argument without mentioning hollywood. Your circular gymnastics are becoming tired – but they are still amusing so have at again, and again…
PatriotforFreedom: “If a security company’s goal was purely the profit incentive, then they could indeed work for evil men…”
filc replies, "You reveal yourself here again as a socialist. Villianizing the profit motive. Milk companies provide milk with the insentive to gain a profit, are they also evil?
The only villian I suggested was a person – the employer – not the motive of those being employed. Their motive is profit. The profit motive is fine, of course, unless it creates a monopoly, or puts people into slavery, or sells drugs which may kill people. But you again resort to the straw man desperation tactic – a misrepresentation of my position as being that of a “socialist.” This is because your logic has failed you, since you cannot show that mercenaries have not, do not, and would not work for evil men.
About milk companies seeking a profit… you really must be able to come up with something better than that. Let’s boil it down simpler for you to grasp. Profits are fine (selling milk) as long as they do not violate liberty (selling humans) or any other divinely granted rights. Get it?
PatriotforFreedom: “This is why a binding agreement on consistent rules for liberty and justice is required.”
filc: “You contridict yourself again. How can there be a binding agreement when everyone disagrees with that agreement?”
Of course not “everyone” disagrees, nor could you prove that they do… but I understand why it is convenient for you to overlook that fact so you can feel safe here with those that share your position.
PatriotforFreedom: “So, filc, while you do present a case for the production of idiocy, you have not yet been able to show a real-world example of it going undetected. Small wonder.”
filc: “Not true. Society pretty much accepts that our public education is inadequate. The issue is we choose to do nothing about it, like all government programs we perpetuate the error.”
- Please prove that society accepts our public education is inadequate. While I agree that many feel it could do better, I imagine there are many in education believe they are taking steps to improve it and that in many cases it has proven quite adequate. Or did you forget about the great engineers, scientists, and writers our system has produced?
- I agree that we have not done enough, but again you make an ignorant (to give you the benefit of the doubt) “blanket” claim. Do you really maintain that all people have chosen to do nothing about the inadequacies of education? If you do, that would mean that your Mises Institute, and all those within it are shams.
- Please prove that all government programs, including the navy, are inadequate. If you cannot, then please do not state unsubstantiated conclusions.
filc continues: “If a business however was performing poorly they would go out of business. And yes, I have shown you a real world example by providing a link to ed.gov.”
Agreed, as to what you have stated about a business. Agreed that government agencies, when desired, should be set up the same way – and allowed to fail.
What have you shown us by linking to ed.gov? It is a website for education run by government. This is proof only of what exists. Did you wish to actually make it a coherent part of an argument?
PatriotforFreedom: "Please cite where I claimed to believe in “socialized security.” I do not believe in social security, nor do I believe that a police force sworn to uphold justice constitutes “socialized security.”
filc replies, “You’ve stated several times that people should subsidize the existence of a state run navy. Am I wrong? I WILL quote you on that, I’m just lazy to go back on the 11 pages of your logical fallacy’s.”
Yes, you do appear lazy now, because the raising of a Navy does not fit into the definition of socialism also earlier given. And I notice too that you are too lazy to use your spelling checker, as well.
filc continues: “That argument is socialized security. Not to be confused with Social Security, the government insurance program. Which is also a fallacy. I’m talking about the monopolized socially subsidized means of security.”
Sorry filc, your assertion that something is something else just doesn’t cut it. You actually have to work back to the definition of socialism, then attempt to show that a navy, as currently run, would fit within that definition. Perhaps this will prove too exhausting for you.
Really, you must work harder if you want to look credible, because in a true “monopoly” as you label it there would be no other options for security like private detectives, rent a cop services, and personal body guards. Yet we freely have those options, so we are not in a monopoly.
I know you think you are “winning” because of the other weak thinkers here who are cheering you on, but most independent thinking grade schoolers will simply be able to see that you continually fail to prove any points.
PatriotforFreedom: “And I have asked you several times to prove how anarchy could provide consistent and more efficient justice for all in a better way than a constitutional government can and has in the US. To keep side stepping and answer, only shows an example of how you are unable to provide one.”
filc: “I have sited a single example, one you cannot refute. The milk industry. Don’t lie and say I have not provided you with a valid argument.”
Huh? Reading your reply out loud is good for a long laugh. Let’s see what you have stated: The milk industry is an example of how anarchy could provide consistent and more efficient justice for all in a better way than a constitutional government has done.
Hmmmm that might make a good advertising campaign: “Got Milk? Anarchy works.” Yeah… that’s how it works.
PatriotforFreedom: “I cite the United States, as providing a justice system which is more efficient, and honorable than any other you have previously stipulated, and more so than any other in history. Perfect? No. Better than other governments? Yes.”
filc: "If it’s effecient and just then why do you aim to change it?’
Read the statement again – I said it is more efficient than others you can cite. But, it has been abused. I aim to help restore it to the letter of the constitution, and to help it work better than it has.
filc: “I reveal the fallacy in your argument. It’s obvious you to also beleive our current government is not just or effecient, otherwise you would have no motive to write your own manifesto.”
We are both agreed, I think, that our current government, which stands in abuse of the constitution, has many failings. But I have not stated that justice is not still done within it, or that it is not more efficient than other governments. I have motive to write a manifesto reaffirming Liberty that is true to the constitution and with new safeguards against the abuses we have witnesssed.
filc states, “I’m glad you think things like Social Security, Medicaid, CapnTrade, Universal healthcare are just, fair, and effecient systems. We however do not.”
To the contrary, I think none of those you list are fair. Are any of them in the Constitution? No. Do you see them in the Liberty Manifesto? No. So you again misrepresent my position – a particular habit we have seen from you when your logic fails.
filc: “If you yourself do not have the right to dictate what others do, how can we delegate that right to a state? How can you delegate a right you don’t have?”
PatriotforFreedom: “You cannot, and I have not supported it here, nor would I elsewhere. This would be directly contrary to a freely entered into contract.”
filc: “Do you really understand what you just agreed to? Because you just nullified any credibility to the premise of your whole argument. Did you watch that video we sent you?”
I understand that I have remained consistent in advocating a position which dictates to no one. Do we really need to look up the term “dictate”? The premise of my argument is freedom of choice, and on your sticking point of property rights I have enumerated at least four choices an owner has which nullifies your assertion of dictatorship. Other than for blind followers here, your logic remains flawed and so unpersuasive.
Did I watch the video you claim will prove I am socialist in my thinking? No. I know what Socialism means, and know that I do not subscribe to it.
Shall I provide you with links to videos about republics, democracies, and other forms of governments? It seems you are not well educated on those subjects.
PatriotforFreedom: “I do not advocate state, public or common worker ownership of the means of production or distribution of goods.”
filc: “But you do when it involves a Navy? What is it, either you do or you do not. Your starting to contridict yourself frequently.”
A Navy, such as we currently employ, constitutes neither common worker ownership of a “means of production” (as in a factory), or the “distribution of goods” (as in a transportation company). It seems you have failed to understand Karl Marx.
Our Navy is a freely contracted means of protection and enforcement of the laws of our land. I am hoping that if you are a student at Mises, that your Professor will not read your obvious mistakes here – your grade will be quite a bit below C level. Or should we say sea level in honor of the Navy?
A Navy is not a means of production or a distributor of goods. It is a military force sworn to protect the union, the constitution, and the citizenry.
PatriotforFreedom: “I do not advocate for a society where there is equal access to resources for all individuals.”
filc: “Then why are you making the argument that your society would be “Fair”, “effecient”, “just”. You’ve been debating for 11 pages to have a society with equal access.”
And for 11 pages you have not only continued to debate something which you believe is already proven, but have also failed to discern the difference twice now, that equal access to resources does not equal a government that is fair, efficient, and just. If you can’t see the difference, there really isn’t a lot of hope for you to progress toward clearer thinking.
So if you must really try to prove the unprovable again and again, then go ahead and show us how a “society where there is equal access to resources for all individuals” as under Socialism, is equal in any way to a government that is more efficient, just and fair than other forms of government as in our Constitution which sets up a Republic, not a Socialist state.
PatriotforFreedom: “However, I do understand why you would set up this final straw man (suggsting I’m a socialist).”
filc: “I set it up as shock therapy to reveal to yourself what you truely beleive.”
Illogic. If it was a straw man, then it would not be my position. But you believe that I am a Socialist so your thinking is depraved.
Wikipedia: “Semantics is the study of meaning.”
filc: “Modern semantecs aside, TV, modern education, and media have indoctrinated you well.”
This sentence reveals the conflicts at the root of your illogic and week debating skills.
- First, modern education, flawed as you pointed out, is by definition an attempt to provide meaning within several areas of study, and so semantics is involved and may not be set “aside” as you claim.
- Second, your sentence implies that you are somehow at a level above and beyond the influence of all schools of thought, and media infuence, when your rigid adherence to illogical Ozarchistic utopianism proves otherwise. Below we shall see that you make reference to a published book by F.A. Hayak, a form of media to which you remain indoctrined.
- And finally, it is not clear from anything you have said that you have made, or are capable of making an objective survey of TV, modern education and media.
filc: "Most modern capitalists are not capitalists at all but socialists. There is a reason why classic liberals can no longer call themselves “liberals”. It is because modern liberalism has nothing to do with liberty. Thus we call ourselves libertarian’s.
As has happened occasionally, here your statements are somewhat more clear. But it matters not so much what you call yourself, since labels may often devolve into a question of semantics. It matters more what you intend to do of and by your convictions. I have demonstrated to you what I will do. You have demonstrated nothing but a willingness to prattle on in an argument you claimed was irrelevant long ago.
filc: “You need to go back and re-read the history of Socialism and Capitalism. Your understanding of these things are gravely screwed.”
Again your argument fails for lack of proven premises. We are debating liberty and government. We have seen that capitalism figures in both, and that socialism is not about liberty. So again you have reached a “blanket” false conclusion unsupported by any real world evidence.
filc: “I recommend you start here. You are most definately on the road to serfdom.”
Since you have referred me to a link to a book by one F. A. Hayak, who wrote The Road to Serfdom, and you aspire to rise above modern semantics and media, etc., I suggest you take a more objective look, and work to consider criticisms of the author here, at wikipedia.org: "The libertarian economist Walter Block has observed critically that while the The Road to Serfdom makes a strong case against centrally-planned economies, it appears only lukewarm in its support of pure laissez-faire capitalism, with Hayek even going so far as to say that “probably nothing has done so much harm to the liberal cause as the wooden insistence of some liberals on certain rules of thumb, above all of the principle of laissez-faire capitalism”.
Perhaps you haven’t yet read Block’s writings. Do you know what laissez-faire means? It may be defined as “allowing events to take their own course” – something your Hayak spoke against.
You will be in serfdom to your own limited thinking until you read more, and expand from the small straw box in which you argue ineffectively.
