Once again, let me reiterate that, in the best of conditions, we all conform to a large set of social norms; furthemore, violating these implict or explicit regulations can result in various penalties: ostracization, stigmatization, shaming, jailing, etc.
I don’t “just want to control people”; clearly, the ideological black-and-white version of libertarianism you believe colors all that you see with a very rigid perspective. Frankly, I consider “control” more amorphous than you: not only is government coercion “control,” but so is billion-dollar corporate influence. Once again, there is evidence that propaganda campaigns from corporations outcompete other scientific proselytizing. Furthermore, using even more evidence, private tort litigation during the Gilded Age was incredibly ineffective at curbing corporate wrongdoing.
I believe we should advance pragmatically: if letting people free to save or squander their incomes results in an amount of severely-poor old persons, then that is unpalatable to my conscience, and I would recommend forced savings for greater well-being. In essence, if sticking to your short list of ethical principles results in bad outcomes for many people, then maybe your ideology sucks.
We should maintain our skepticism about grand theoretical visions that seek global change. It’s easy to morally shrink our complex social order into a “coercion versus freedom” framework and then see the wretchedness of government everywhere; it’s more challenging to accept an organic evolution of society where all the moving parts have accumulated to produce stability, prosperity, and other civilizational benefits.
“If I don’t agree with someone’s personal preferences, then I have the right to force them to do something that they do not want to, in the name of their own ‘well-being’.”
Strangeloop, how an earth do you “de-radicalize” yourself from libertarianism when you never were one in the first place? You don’t even grasp basic AE, and throughout this post you fail to explain why. No, don’t even be detailed, continue spouting that your “position is right because you said so”.
I asked you a question a while back. What do you think of bailouts? Should we bailout 5 major corporations in order to avoid mass unemployment(45% let’s say)?
Here’s another sure sign of a cult: “You were never really one of us!”
I was an anarcho-capitalist for years–not that it matters. I hope none of us need to be Islamic terrorists to be able to criticize its fundamentalist errors.
I do “grasp basic AE understanding”; of course, that especially doesn’t matter, since Austrian economics is not linked to anarcho-capitalism in a necessary manner. Furthermore, I’d appreciate you proving to our audience (and me) how I have displayed ignorance about “basic AE understanding.” It’s easy to make an accusation when it is untied to evidence.
I won’t dig into your hypothetical because it’s vague: why did the firms require bailing out? what would the bailouts be like? how long would “45%” of the country be unemployed? would the restructuring help avoid moral hazard?
“If I don’t agree with someone’s personal preferences, then I have the right to force them to do something that they do not want to, in the name of their own ‘well-being’.”
You are being misleading. Nobody is saying that just becasue we don’t agree with a personal preference, that we then have the right to force the person to do something that they don’t want to do. I for example do not agree with heavy drinking, but I do not think that alone gives me the right to force a heavy drinker to stop drinking even if I thought the drinker would be better off.
In certain cases however, it is acceptable to force people to act agaisnt their preferences. Should socialists be forced to respect others property rights? I say yes. Why? Because it benefits society (including the socialists who if they knew the true alternatives would support property rights), and it upholds the rule of law if this is the case.
I think we’re not on the same page, I never said “You were never really one of us!” nor did I make it sound like it. Did you read my whole post, did you read everyone else’s?
I myself was really interested in reading a good critique of libertarianism, you offered none mate?
All you do is point out how ignorant you are and continue with the same " morality matters" central planner dogma.
Please be detailed, avoid insults and do point out the flaws of libertarianism.
If you are going to continue with the moral argument “it’s my duty to protect others from themselves to save our culture” then we have nothing to say to each other anymore.
How is logic a cult? Something either is, or is not. A mathematician should be able to understand that 2+2 is not equal to 5.
Labeling yourself has to be one of the easiest things to do. You’ll swap labels again soon when it suits you, because the label is just a cloak for ideas, and if your ideas aren’t coherent, it doesn’t matter what you call yourself.
You haven’t criticized any errors though. You just argue through fallacies. Where is your critique?
It’s not the same thing, there’s a difference between forcing someone to not coerce me and forcing someone to save money for his retirement because it’s what you think is “right”.
But you do prefer that food is labeled a certain way, so you favor coercion of business to satisfy your preferences, right?
Acceptable to whom? Which cases?
How can you force someone to respect property rights, without violating their property rights? Can you not see that your solutions are performative contradictions? An expropriating property protector is a contradiction. It’s pretty basic.
To expose your lie (one among others): you first asked, “Strangeloop, how an earth do you 'de-radicalize”'yourself from libertarianism when you never were one in the first place?" Then, you state, “I think we’re not on the same page, I never said “You were never really one of us!” nor did I make it sound like it.”
Of course, first you also stated that I didn’t grasp basic “AE understanding,” but you never followed that up with evidence, even when I asked. When you want to accuse me of ignorance, you should be especially pressed to prove it. Otherwise, you’re just rude.
Furthermore, if you want good criticisms of libertarianism, you should look elsewhere than the forum at Mises.org; I’m not particularly motivated to provide one, and this lengthy debate has produced more heat than light, since dogmatism closes its ears and eyes to counterpoints. I have made recommendations of books and journal articles; read those.
At this point, I will claim, “You are stupid. You don’t know Austrianism. You don’t believe in anarcho-capitalism. You can’t do simple logic.” I hope you and liberty student can appreciate the lack of a need for evidence.
Strangeloop you haven’t been exactly the least rude person here. You insulted LibertyStudent for no reason too. I think we should all just relax a bit. Everyone has been posting here a while. Anonymity is so no reason to be disrespectful.
It’s not the same thing, there’s a difference between forcing someone to not coerce me and forcing someone to save money for his retirement because it’s what you think is “right”.
The person who does not believe is property rights is being coereced in their mind when they are forced to abide by them. In their mind, forcing you to abide by communal property laws as opposed to property rights is them forcing you not to coerce them.
Do you know how grating it is to be called ignorant of Austrian economics by (1) someone who hasn’t proved it (2) someone who is a “true believer” but understands Austrian economics less than I do?
To call someone stupid is an insult, and I’ll happily retort. And I always will to liberty student. Has he ever, in the history of this forum, even contributed to technical economic discussions? No. Not ever. I won’t take him as someone worthy of degrading my knowledge.
But you do prefer that food is labeled a certain way, so you favor coercion of business to satisfy your preferences, right?
In some circumstances, I favor regulations. Product labelling is one of those cases.
Acceptable to whom? Which cases?
Acceptable to me. Other people will have different opinions when it is acceptable. Some people will believe that it is never acceptable.
How can you force someone to respect property rights, without violating their property rights? Can you not see that your solutions are performative contradictions? An expropriating property protector is a contradiction. It’s pretty basic.
I do not believe that property rights would be enforced to the extent that they are now in the absence of a government.
You called yourself a libertarian. You never promoted or demonstrated any understanding of libertarian ideas. If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. I called you out as pro-state months ago, you’re just getting around to labeling yourself consistent with your beliefs. Big shocker, not original, seen it many times before.
You don’t. Your posts on most things economic here demonstrate it in spades. You can’t articulate a praxeologically sound argument, and you can’t refute praxeology. I’m not even sure you understand what praxeology is.
As recently as this thread, you were sneering at a priorism, while claiming to be a big fan of math (your last avatar/personality change) completely oblivious that without the process of deduction there could be no maths.
You don’t employ methodological individualism, you reject value as subjective and your political beliefs require a suspension of understanding of the calculation argument.
What do you understand about Austrian economics is actually the better question.
Yes, this was my point. You favor coercion to satisfy your preferences. I am happy we agree upon this. When Eric wants something, it is ok to get it by force.
So then why is it ok to use violence when you want it, but not ok when I want it? And if it is acceptable for all of us to use violence when we see fit, how do you explain a war of one against all society as being superior to a society based on non-aggression?
Ok, that’s actually reasonable. You don’t know, but you’re going with an instinct, that things would be worse with the state.
Question for you, does it matter what type of government we have, or is the Kingdom of Saud and the USSR just as good with property rights as the US and Canada?