Alright, guys, I will ponder what you’ve said and I’ll get back to you with a response when I’m sure of what I want to say here. Good talk though.
Calculating, that sucks that your essay got destroyed. 
Not by the actual definition of socialism. They typically have the same short sighted views as the political parties… echoing whatever arguments you hear on the news. There is no attempt to link the policies to some broader ideology.
I have a new rule, where I’m not allowed to go into the socialism vs ancap debate unless I’m actually arguing against a socialist. So for the most part, everything I say is about how the administrations are bought off and how all the legislation is lobbied for by big companies and why do you think that medical costs rise even though its a super regulated industry etc etc. I try to stick to the hard facts of what is going on. Only once we agree that we have corporatism can you really have a conversation about socialism vs capitalism.
Which is unfortunate because lately i’ve become a student of anarchy.
Incredibly gay. Basically they just concede to all your points about how corporations rig things in their favor to hurt the poor man, and then say that even though everything I say is correct they still want Obama to fix things. It kind of gets to the point where you have to tell people: “You are a slave to the media and social trends. You are not an honest person. You only care about your stupid superficial image you present to the world. If you really cared about helping the common man you would be primarily focused on international politics rather than domestic. This makes you a nationalist and a racist, and that is just fine with you because it allows you to fit in at ideological circle-jerks where everyone affirms everyone else for wearing an Obama t-shirt. How dare you speak on behalf of the masses; you are not their champion.”
Sorry for the rant, but that’s how I feel about most people I interact with. There’s no point even bringing up anarchism in a conversation. You can’t even convince these people that Obama is just a smiley face for corporate interests; how could you convince them that national security is better undertaken by competing private firms?
Wow that was bad ass.
Don’t mean to beat a dead horse here, but I don’t feel like you answered this point.
What I was trying to say was that I too would like a “practical” solution, but I think the reality of the political process should show us that it is anything but practical. In fact, I may be so bold as to say that it might be impossible [:$] for a political solution…
Really? How is that? First of all, I don’t assume anyone wants to make the same changes I do. Please point out where I say anything along those lines. Second of all, I am saying that it would only take 5% of the population to want the same thing as I do to bring about the change.
So again, you small government advocates could get the small government you wanted, if you could get 5% of the population to go along with you. Do you want to bring all the troops home? Do you want to end the Fed? Do you want to end regulations, or some regulation authority, like the Department of Education? Any changes you want to make to the government, I believe you could make, if you could get 5% of the population to join you in not paying taxes or using FRNs until the government made the changes that you wanted. It is not a strategy that only anarchists could use. It is a strategy anyone could use that wants the government to change.
Do you think taxation without representation is wrong? Would you agree that the vast majority of the population does not have representation, given that the vast majority of the population did not vote for the winners?
Do you agree with the Declaration of Independence when it states that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed? And would you agree that the government does not have consent, and as such its authority is not just?
Ok, I’m going to play devil’s advocate here, just letting you know. Part of the game of democracy is that everyone gets to vote but they all agree to abide by the rules the winners come up with (oversimplification) until the next voting cycle comes around.
I do, however, think that there is a problem with taking people’s wealth for things they never agreed to pay for. At the same time, the argument can be made that as long as people choose to live here, they accept that they won’t always get what they want or get to spend their money on what they want because of taxes and inflation. That’s democracy. So while Dems are in power, I feel anxious and uneasy because I wonder when they’re going to try and take my money for welfare and entitlement programs I don’t agree with. But when Republicans are in power, I worry less because they usually want to send money to the military or Israel and I’m all for that (oversimplication again, but for the most part, I support military spending and helping out Israel.) Basically, it’s a pendulum, swinging back and forth between two parties who have different desired ends but use similar means.
So, the real question is: how can there be a tax system where people can opt out when they are displeased with the fiscal policy of the current administration? Because no one in government has ever tried to answer this question in a meaningful way, people like you and I feel abused because they’re taking our money for things we don’t want.
So…I’m trying to answer these things from a Machiavellian realist perspective. Even though I don’t always find Machiavelli’s Prince to be pleasant to read, I usually find it to be accurate.
I’m going to stop here because I need to think carefully about what I want to say next.
There is certainly a political solution but because of the horse trading and compromise that you’ve pointed out will inevitably happen, the solutions won’t be ideal. They’ll be fragile and subject to change at a later date. They’ll be vulnerable to manipulation, corruption and sabotage. Government officials will try to find loopholes and there will always be a part of the political spectrum that simply outright opposes libertarian principles being introduced in any significant amount.
It will be a battle. An endless, exhausting battle. Perhaps it’s impossible. But I think an-cap is impossible too. So it’s a tough choice to make here.
If the government spent your money on things you actually wanted it to be spent on, in the correct amounts, and at the correct time… why would they even bother? Why would they first take it from you by force? If this is such a good arrangement (something like a personal shopper), why wouldn’t this arrangement arise voluntarily on the market?
Good idea. I don’t think you know what Machiavellian means or what the Prince was about (exercising power). The Prince was about the opposite of democracy, which is funny because you’ve been having a discussion about democratic government and then introduce the Prince.
Do you have your principles straight yet, bloomj31? Do you realize that if you agree that it is wrong for individuals to initiate the use of force as a means to their ends, and that value is subjective, there is no point to political bargaining and trying to find a way to politically market freedom, because government violates both these principles routinely in order to merely exist?
It seems odd to see you assuming there is a “choice” between freedom and coercion. Freedom is about choices. Coercion is not. You seem very confused in your terminology and understanding of principles.
It doesn’t matter if an-cap is possible/impossible. You either accept that it is right in principle, or you refute those principles as wrong or else you say, despite the consistency of the principles, I choose to act violently and arbitrarily in my dealings with other human beings and wish that they will accept my arbitrary preference for low-level social violence in the form of a restrained government.
-
The benefit of having the government do it for me is that I don’t have to worry about doing it myself. Also, if everyone agreed to have their money spent the way I want mine to be spent, the combined purchasing power would be greater than it would be if it were just me.
-
I know exactly what Machiavellian means and what the Prince was all about. What he said was that there will always be a trade off between principles and power. Power, however, can make things happen, whereas principles by themselves cannot. Without the power to enforce libertarian principles, they’ll never get instituted. Which is the catch-22 of the whole thing. And An-Cap can’t sell and I won’t back something that can’t sell.
I know what my principles are, but I’m perfectly willing to compromise on them if they’d get me what I want. This is why I’m more of a politician than I am a philosopher.
I know how this sounds to people on this forum. But there’s a reason no one talks about an-cap popularly: because it sounds awful. And as silly as that may sound, I think it’s at the core of why libertarianism is still a marginal concept and statism of various shapes and forms is the majority concept.
Is there any way to fuse the two into something that resembles libertarianism but appeals to statists? I don’t know.
What I am is torn. I understand principle but I also understand power. I like both.
Also, I can do whatever I want. I can either accept it or not. What matters is what happens though, not what I say or don’t say, think or don’t think.
Bloomj31 Do you equate voting as being similar to a market process? What I mean is when people go to the store and cast their vote on the type of produce they wish to buy to you consider that being similar to the democratic process? I got hung up on this for a long while. Let me know if thats the case and I can try to differentiate some things for you.
Do you ever think about anyone but yourself when you consider these things? For instance, what if somebody like me wants to worry about doing it for themselves? But if the government is involved, then I don’t have that choice.
Do questions of justice ever cross your mind or do you not care about that kind of thing?
Also, your “purchasing power” remark is misinformed and inaccurate. You don’t automatically get more “purchasing power” just because you spend a lot of money at once. Or maybe you don’t pay attention to the lack of purchasing power in everything the government purchases? Do you not understand how that dynamic works? Do you not understand the government has no reason to control costs and make use of that “purchasing power” and therefore it doesn’t?
The government is not just a Big Buyer of Stuff.
You’re so confused on so many things I am wondering if it’s worth continuing this with you. I don’t mean that as an “ad hominem” (which it’s not, but someone will undoubtedly accuse me of it at some point, maybe even you), I mean it sincerely because it’s becoming “clear” from your original posting to now that you are completely “unclear” on what you’re even after.
You are calling for a contradiction. Libertarian principles reject the use of power/initiation of force as a tool of social organization and economic optimization. Yet you are insisting that without violating these principles, they can not be implemented. This is a contradiction. Yes, as you say, a catch-22. That means, stop. It doesn’t mean “Try to figure out how to integrate a contradiction” it means logically, “Stop, you can not go further because it is impossible to integrate contradictory ideas.”
You are essentially saying something like, “I know hate and love are opposites, but can’t we find a way to combine the two?” No, you can’t.
You further have contradicted yourself in that you insist that something not be supported unless it is marketable. But you yourself admit that you can’t tell if something is marketable until it has been tried. Again, catch-22… you can not insist your criteria for trying something for the first time be that it has been tried before. Hello? Does this make sense to you at all?
Great, for the benefit of the rest of us, or me anyway, can you explain what your principles actually are? You don’t seem to have ANY principles, which is why this conversation has been so confusing and self-contradictory. What are your principles, at least as far as this issue is concerned, for instance:
1.) is it okay for some individuals to initiate the use of force against other individuals?
2.) is value subjective or objective?
I’d appreciate your input as far as what your principles are on those two issues.
Another reason is that many people have never heard of it, given they haven’t been introduced to it in school and they likely aren’t curious enough about economics or politics to discover it on their own.
Now, what makes you say it “sounds awful”? What, in particular, sounds awful about freedom and a functioning economy?
Here’s a reason why libertarianism is a marginal concept: politicians don’t like it because it implies they are crooked tyrants.
Here’s another reason it’s marginal: because many people who understand the consistency of it ultimately reject it as “impractical” and instead support and advocate for violent intervention in social and economic affairs.
Ideas count, buddy. The world doesn’t operate spontaneously or deterministically. it operates through purposeful, reasoned HUMAN ACTION. Might I suggest to you the book of the same title by Ludwig von Mises for clarification of this important issue?
Again, I do know, and the answer is NO.
You can’t integrate contradictions. You need to learn how to crack that nut (impossible by definition) before you can bother working out specific contradictions.
If your honest-to-god thought process is “I only want to support something that other people will support”, and, seeing how libertarianism is not enjoying majority support at the moment, you may want to rethink whether or not freedom is something you want to support at all.
However, if your thought process is a bit more nuanced and mature than that, let’s talk more about economic and political principles!
No, it’s totally different. There’s a huge timing differential between market voting and political voting.
In a way, they’re both democratic, one is just much more representative than the other.
Calculating, your post is very long, I am going to break it up into pieces and answer the ones I think make sense for me to answer, I hope you’re cool with that.
Holy crap! Where to begin with this one.
Yes, you are torn. Because you don’t have principles. If you have principles, what are they?
As far as your “I can do whatever I want” teenage-angst outburst, listen: I outlined three possibilities that literally circumscribe ALL possible choices you could make in relation to the matter of principles. Again, for your amusement they were: 1.) accept principles and live by them, 2.) reject principles and refute them as wrong, 3.) accept principles as right, but choose to be a hypocrite and not live by them.
Those are the three things you can do in relation to sound principles. I wasn’t telling you how to live your life. I was telling you how you CAN live your life in this regard.
Does reality even matter to you? You’re sounding a bit like a consequentialist and if that’s your philosophy I’ll leave this thread alone now.
"Do you ever think about anyone but yourself when you consider these things? For instance, what if somebody like me wants to worry about doing it for themselves? But if the government is involved, then I don’t have that choice.
Do questions of justice ever cross your mind or do you not care about that kind of thing?"
No, I care about me. The problem is I’m not the only person alive therefore I have to consider the reactions of others when planning out my actions. It’s not that I really care about you it’s that I can’t get things done without you so I have to give you something you want in return for something I want. This is what I love about economics: I don’t have to care about anyone but myself.
Yes, justice matters. But what kind of justice are we talking about here?
I’d certainly prefer it if you answered everything, point by point, without hopping around but sure do whatever you want.
I wasn’t aware there were kinds of justice. For the sake of the argument, I would say we are talking about human justice, ie, discussing justice in the context of human beings interacting with one another in the various ways human beings can interact.