Lam, if I were to call you an idiot or something like that I would be insulting you. But what I’m doing is simply describing in a value-free manner your posts - which are reactionary and boring.
I need to prove nothing to you, and seeing that I don’t use my real name as my screen-name then I also see any personal details such as the above as irrelevant.
You know how many people other moderators have banned for insulting people? Its nothing special, and I don’t even know why you need to bring it up.
I don’t care about any “Lam vs. LS” - all I care about are arguments, and I don’t come whence they originate. It is only you who are making this personal.
Why does this need to be personal?
the good news is Doc Block heard you would be joining us and kindly left you some reading materials.
lol, found the actual link
‘Do not be one of them. Your very life may be at stake. For over 40,000 people die on the nation’s roadways every year, and you or a loved one might one day join this horrid list.’ - Walter Block
The untactful words of Dr. Block make me smile yet again.
So under the state, everyone is to be treated as a criminal? Everyone is to have their property rights denied? That makes sense. Maybe we should get rid of this institution that treats everyone as a criminal for merely existing within it’s territory. No?
The vast majority do believe in the legitimacy of the rulers. Ideology is the cloak of the state. They cannot rule without it. An Austrian Class analysis is helpful in countering the Marxist class analysis and every other one. At least you concede that it yields knowledge.
I agree with this definition.
Oh god! [:P] the highway thing… my uncle works for a company that makes roads and it’s not the government that does it… government usually contracts private companies to do this in the state I live in, but redistributing/handing-out contracts isn’t the same as building the roads. Workers do that.
First before you get into this stuff. Let’s turn the attention to liberty and arbitrary. As you point out let’s “act on principle”. Do you think individuals have a right of property?
Some gems …
Liberty Student wrote: “The roads, the roads, they always start with the roads. There is no reason why a national highway system is needed, and if it is, there is no reason why it cannot be built privately either by one operator, or a series of operators with connected highways.”
Questions:
- We could argue that a national highways system promotes free trade. Your response?
- What agreements would be required for a series of operators to produce an efficient national highway system?
- Please clarify how “one operator” could build a national highway system?
And as to “they always start with the roads” – the statement implies what? That that is the only place to start? That you have a “handle” on it because your position is above the fray? Maybe it’s neither, but then you could have simply proposed a different point on which to debate and stated clearly why that was necessary.
- Scott
read the book. we can wait. we can press pause on this discussion.
read the book.
God talked to me. He/She/It isn’t too happy about being bound to an invisible social contract. [:P]
You didn’t get the point: in order to protect the innocent’s property rights, one must violate the property rights of the guilty; yet, if we hold property rights as perfectly inalienable then there is not just method of dealing with criminals. But of course, we can always create imaginary constructs like “proportional justice” to show that we are not violating property rights.
You speak as if the rulers of the state are a class of illuminati poisoning the wells of innocent mankind with their insidious ideology.
Is all justice an ‘imaginary construct’ or is it just proportional justice?
Who made the roads for the rural colonists before the existence of our government?
We have no way of knowing the most economical way of transporting people/goods because government has a monopoly over transportation. We may not use roads at all, thats entrapaneral discovery something that cannot happen when a government takes ownership of an industry.
Now it seems completly plausable for business’s to invest in a road system. Business’s however would invest in the roads that makes the most sense to them, and not fund a multi-billion dollar bridge that services nothing.
As it stands presently all the construction of roads are done privately, the organization is done by the state, So on your third point any existing civil engineering firm could not only pick up the task they could probably do it with less money. But than again how do we know that a highway system or roadsystme as we presently know it is the most effecient, economic way to transport goods and people? You can never know untill free market is allowed to reign.
Why don’t we use the same argument we use on roads as we do with food? WHy doesn’t the government plan the produce of our food? Entertainment? Vehicles(almost there), general purchases, health decisions, financial planning? You cannot argue for a free market and use the word “BUT”. You cannot defend governmental control over roads but be against it in another industry, it’s complete hipocracy.
I would ask what industry under free trade has failed the whole of man? Keep in mind I said “Free Trade”, not industry’s that have exclusive rights granted by the state which have failed or distorted the market.
Justice is only justice if man believes it to be so - justice is a creation of man, and hence an imaginary construct.
To speak of justice means universal unbiasedness. To speak otherwise is the tyranny of injustice.
Well so is math…and the arts and basically almost everything. Frankly you are a creation of man and yourself, therefore I propose you are imaginary according to your logic.
Hello -
Yes, I do believe that individuals have the right of property.
As to reading the links provided, I will do so where they seem relevant – and some good ones have been given, thanks.
As to an earlier commenter here (not wilderness) If you are suggesting that I cannot converse with you until I have been specifically indoctrinated, then I simply suggest you leave the debate. Your position implies that only the books you have read hold the correct interpretation on our subject at hand, and that no one should proceed until they read the books you deem essential. Doesn’t really seem like the “requirements” that should come from an anarchist, does it?
As to reading any particular book, I am not in need of that at this point to continue the debate since I have read quite a number already, thank you. Please do not presume to know what I have and have not read, and confine yourself to the specifics of the subject at hand.
Oh no, I got your point, I just believe there is a difference between the initiation of violence & the defense against violence. I believe there is a difference between voluntarism and coercion. Or are you a pacifist? The guilty lose their rights, to the extent they violate anothers. The victims. Or don’t you believe in victims?
I speak as if I just read:
HUMAN ACTION
Action within the framework of Society
Chapter IX. The Role of Ideas
Might (p. 187)
How does a get it’s operational expenses? taxes (or the hidden tax of inflationary printing money out of thin air)
How is the tax number surmised?
I believe that if one believes that property rights are inalienable, then one must be a pacifist, and violate the property rights of no one.
Why do the guilty loose their rights to property? In addition, when justice is actually being done, there is no absolute knowledge about whether or not a guilty man is truly guilty, and justice is done without the true knowledge that the so-called offender is truly guilty; one may very well be an aggressor against an innocent person - another reason why all believers of inalienable property rights ought to be pacifists.
It thus follows that ideologies are the cloaks of every single movement in history, not just that of the state. Without belief that the ideology is true, or at least advantageous, the movement will fail.