On the contrary, you are providing an excellent record of your lack of sincerity in debate, which ironically, you (at least until recently) considered grounds for a forum ban.
I’m not the one who is so dishonest as to be incapable of answering a simple question.
You were answered. Your dishonesty is in pretending you haven’t been answered, continuing to post that you haven’t, and avoid answering for your own assertions.
When will you answer my question to you? I know you are aware of it.
Is this some childish game of who has to go first? Because if so, I have already satisfied that condition by answering.
Here is a protip. Don’t make claims you can’t back up, or stake out positions you can’t support.
- Adam subjectively values Betsy’s pint of blueberries more than his own shekel. Betsy subjectively values Adam’s shekel more than her own pint of blueberries. The two engage in a series of events which we would call mutually beneficial and voluntary trade.
- Adam subjectively values Betsy’s pint of blueberries more than his own shekel. Betsy does not subjectively value Adam’s shekel more than her own pint of blueberries. Nonetheless, Adam rips Betsy’s pint of blueberries out of her hand. Whether he tosses a shekel at her is irrelevant.
Are these distinct categories of action or not?
YES OR NO?
Ah yes, posting in caps. Sure to get a response. CAPS IS COMMAND LANGUAGE! I AM ERO! OBEY ME!
ANSWER QUESTIONS! CITE YOUR SOURCES! DETAIL YOUR THEORIES!
ERO, did you understand Angurse’s post? If you did, and I have already told you his answer was sufficient for me, why do you continue to act out in what I consider a very childish and antisocial manner? Do you really think that you can prove a point by my answer? Or is it that you want to prove you can bully me into answering you if you post the same thing over and over?
Thsi is the social impotence I was talking about in the discussion group. No one here has to answer you. No one here has to do anything you want them to. If you want something from people, you will have to participate in good faith and earn the respect and trust of your peers. Then and only then will you be able to achieve some degree of effective communication.
It’s a simple yes or no, basic economic question.
Which has already been answered, and the answer pointed to more than once already.
Is your answer yes or no? I’m having trouble telling.
What was Angurse’s answer?
What was Angurse’s answer?
Is your answer the same as his, yes or no?
I have already answered that, have I not?
I don’t see it. Yes or no?
Look again.
As exciting as this is… back to the OP.
If there is a functioning market, wives have an alternative to reliance on their husbands for support, which is where much of the tyranny stems from. This could obviously deter and eliminate most forms of abuse. I think Steve Horwitz touches on this in Capitalism and the Family.
A lot of women beat up their spouses too. This idea that it is always bad husbands and fathers is a stereotype. There are plenty of abusive mothers and wives.
A lot of women beat up their spouses too. This idea that it is always bad husbands and fathers is a stereotype. There are plenty of abusive mothers and wives.
Of course, I’ve read its actually more common in some areas, capitalism would be beneficial to both non the less.
As exciting as this is… back to the OP.
If there is a functioning market, wives have an alternative to reliance on their husbands for support, which is where much of the tyranny stems from. This could obviously deter and eliminate most forms of abuse. I think Steve Horwitz touches on this in Capitalism and the Family.
Good point. Social services currently assume this role pretty much monopolistically, and provide a pretty shit service too. Yet most people see these institutions as the hallmark of enlightened progressive civilization. In a market society, there might be a lot more social workers who actually have practical skills and dont spend time studying sociology degrees to recite marx back to front. This is not of course to say there are not plenty of good people employed in this part of the public sector as any other however.
abskebabs, my response to you was unnecessarily harsh and I apologize. It just enrages me that people like liberty student are so intellectually dishonest that they can’t answer a simple question.
There’s reason to suspect that many/most people would pursue some form of monetary restitution rather than taking “an eye for an eye”. This is not really part of the libertarian calculus though. On the primacy of punishment, see this post by Kinsella. On why there has to be, at least in theory if not in practice, the threat of the death penalty for murderous robbers see this by David Friedman.
That’s funny because I don’t get enraged on the internet. I’m an adult and in control of my emotions. I know that these discussions are not worth getting upset over. ymmv
Btw, you were answered, and if you had accepted the answer given, you could have spared yourself all of that rage and angst. And you wouldn’t have had to pollute this thread (and now apparently others) with the same repetitious content.
You never answered the question. Don’t pretend like you did. Anyhow, the answer is yes and it disproves your hyper-subjectivism in regards to punishment. There’s a lot of writing by Austrians against hermeneutics. I’ll just let you check that out since I’m sure you won’t give me a worthwhile response.
How is the answer yes if I never answered it? Either I did answer it or I did not. You have destroyed this thread, claiming I had not given an answer, and now you claim to have it.
How can you disprove subjectivism? And how is my subjectivism “hyper”?