Murderer’s give away their freedom to be left alone, when they take away someone else’s life.
What’s it mean for something to be “okay”?
Acceptable.
Far more people use running shoes than not, but that doesn’t mean that they’re better. Given the right information, I think that most people would reject them. Maybe it’s the same way with statism?
I was pointing out that the argument that the government is wrong because some people don’t consent to it is a bad argument, because more people don’t consent to anarchy. The argument doesn’t depend on a persons specific reason for consenting or not consenting.
But you would force them in some way, right? That’s not a lack of force.
For who?
Yeah, that would be a bad argument.
That is a boringly weak rhetorical question-argument. The “cost” of oppression is the condition with oppression versus condition without it all else equal. Not condition in location A versus location B.
For who?
For whoever is considering the question. Each person decides for themselves if enforcing property rights is acceptable even though some people don’t consent to them. In my opinion, it is acceptable.
We should edit StrangeLoop’s posts for his own good. Lol.
To whom?
Whose argument is that?
That’s still a logical fallacy. It’s not a proof.
To anybody who might care:
The last of my reasoning power just dried up. I can’t even follow this conversation anymore. I’m gonna go to bed.
Isn’t taking such a homogenous view of anarchy a bit presumptuous? After all the whole purpose of the polycentric legal order would be to create a multitude of differing social organizations and property arrangements that individuals could fluidly move in and out of without major restrictions. Hence, an objection to the modern nation-state project which by definition utilizes constructions of ethnicites and historical narratives in order to exclude some from its discourse and alienate other citizens. Liberalism’s main triumph we could say is that of showing man that there is a way to construct social narratives through intercourses not involving such exclusionary concepts as the modern nation state which tend to lead to autarky,war and worse.
I think they are great the way they are. They say everything about his ideas that anyone needs to know.
Repeated for your benefit Eric. Whose argument is the above?
I think it’s sad, I just wasted my time thinking I was going to get a good critique of libertarianism and AE.
If you’re looking for a good critique, avoid laymen on forums. There are a handful of people here who understand both at a high level, at best most people can only grasp one really well, and a lot of the so-called critics don’t understand either very well. You’ll find most of the arguments are fallacious and ignorant ala Paul Krugman.
I think Bryan Caplan has done a critique of AE and there are replies to it. Caplan is intelligent enough about AE to articulate a good argument.
Wrt libertarianism, it’s a value system. People who aren’t into it, won’t be into it. We can make a case that someone who is not for human freedom, should be willing to accept if we enslave them, but that sort of logical progression eludes a lot of people who want to be treated as equals when they lack leverage, and superior when they have leverage. It is the odd duck who has principles come rain or shine.
Yes, but the obvious difference is that one is forced on people by an authoritarian state, the other is a voluntary transaction. The utilitarian argument is all the mandatory policies have. (You don’t seem to disagree that they are destructive.) Voluntary institutions are additionally justified because people should be allowed to engage in self harm. Mandatory policies require justification, voluntary interaction should be allowed by default and require justification to be prohibited. It’s the difference between legalized marijuana use and mandatory marijuana use - does the former being harmful excuse implementation of the latter?
http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/6247/Bowles_paper.pdf
Essentially, I want to also add that “privatizing everything” leads to cultural erosion. This was one of the more prominent reasons I recently rejected anarcho-capitalism (to put it bluntly, Hoppe’s belief that conversativism will flourish is outlandishly wrong).
What does is mean for a culture to erode and so what if it does?
Source please.
If he’s talking about cultural erosion I assume he’s talking about social institutions of practical knowledge. Similar to what Burke and Oakeshott would write about.
Which culture? There are literally thousands of cultures around the world. Which is the one worth preserving? Slave culture?
Nazi culture? The culture of the crusades? The inquisition? The culture of Mao? Yankee culture?
And are you really arguing that only the state can provide cultural adhesion? Have you not read any of my posts where I point out that the state can do nothing more than the market can except apply violence? Do we really need cultural enforcement enough that we must use violence to maintain it?
All of this reasoning, whether it is yours or Eric’s or the last Whigs here or “reformed libertarians” denies the equal humanity of all men, as any fractionally statist argument must. The question is, are you guys really the elite humans who are meant to run things, or are you not, in which case, don’t all of your arguments (as inferior humans by your own reasoning) come into question?
Essentially, I want to also add that “privatizing everything” leads to cultural erosion.
So you just want to control people? Make 'em conform to your way of life? Under the threat of violence?