Please point me to one–*just one!–*post that displays above-average knowledge of Austrian economics. You’re clearly very vocal about your beliefs; I’m not sure why technical economic discussions would be so mysteriously absent.
Culture is gonna evolve however it wants to, and less smoothly with such restrictions. It’s like thinking that people aren’t going do drugs or alcohol if we make it illegal. It doesn’t do anything towards it’s goal except impede progress.
I have very little interest in technical economics. I do however have a fantastic grasp of Austrian methods for a layman.
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.
I do not think that it is okay to forcibly take something just becasue I want it.
What you do not realize is that you want to “coerce” people as well. Not everyone agrees with your conception of property rights, but you still want to force people to respect them.
Practically everyone favors coercion to a degree, as it is necessary to maintain civilization.
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?
How is it ok for you to use violence when you want, but not when I want it? Same question could be applied to you, and everyone else who doesn’t propose an all v all society.
I do not beleive it is acceptable for all of us to use violence when they see fit. I believe it is accpetable for people to use violence when I see fit. You believe this as well. For society to function properly there need to be laws, and there will always be people who disagree with these laws, and there will be others who agree with them. That does not mean either group proposes and all v all society.
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?
The government does matter. For example, I would prefer anarchy in North Korea as opposed to its current government.
Let’s get to the heart of the matter and replace “interest in” with “knowledge of.”
And, I wouldn’t even care, except that you consider it morally upright to accuse others of ignorance, when it’s truly you that lacks learning.
It’s almost as bad as how often you misapply the argumentum ad populum.
I don’t have an interest in it. It’s absolutely irrelevant to what I do on a day to day basis. I also have little interest in mathematics but that doesn’t mean I can’t solve an equation. Your tu quoque is cute but ultimately fruitless.
You demonstrate ignorance, and I point it out. I don’t have to accuse you of ignorance, your posts speak for themselves.
lol. I love when you guys appeal to an abstract society as “reality” and proof of some sort of consent or intent. Not only is the aap a logical fallacy, but it isn’t compatible with subjective value OR methodological individualism, which is why you will almost never see an Austrian make such an elementary mistake.
Not everyone agrees with not raping me, but I still want to force them to agree with me on that point.
Ok, because that’s important for us to figure out. So what justification do you have for demanding that companies label food a certain way?
You’re confusing coercion with aggression. When I defend myself, that’s non-aggression. When you force people to label, that’s aggression.
Who makes the laws?
Why? I thought we needed government?
Also, what about government matters? What is the difference between a good government and a bad one?
You’re confusing coercion with aggression. When I defend myself, that’s non-aggression. When you force people to label, that’s aggression.
No I am not, becasue what constitutes aggression will differ from person to person. When you stop a socialist from trespassing on land you consider to be your private property, you are the aggressor in their mind.
Did you miss my post on this point? Because I have already addressed it in a previous discussion. Would you like me to link it?
Did you miss my post on this point? Because I have already addressed it in a previous discussion. Would you like me to link it?
Sure.
Even if there is a state promoting one kind of property rights, you’re never going to get everyone to agree on everything, which means neither government nor anarchism can solve it. To truly achieve the sort of property rights ubiquity you’re asking for, you need one world government and an end to subjective value.
Which is basically the platform for communism.
Even if there is a state promoting one kind of property rights, you’re never going to get everyone to agree on everything, which means neither government nor anarchism can solve it. To truly achieve the sort of property rights ubiquity you’re asking for, you need one world government and an end to subjective value.
Earlyer you stated that I was confusing coercion with aggression. Given that we both agree that what constitutes aggression will differ from person to person, and that nobody is right or wrong (since it is merely a preference), you should not have made this point.
This is why it gets so tiring to hear ancaps refer anything besides the complete respect for their conception of property rights (which still depend on an inadequate homesteading principle that doesn’t even accurately reflect how actual property rights developed) as aggression. It is aggression in their opinion, we all know this, but the fact that they think this is not a good argument for anarcho-capitalism.
Anarcho-capitalism (individual freedom) is unrealizable/unsustainable for a species 99% of which is socio-biologically pre-wired to:
- think as a collective
- seek and follow leaders like lemmings
- be susceptible to a manufactured sense of purpose
- accept aggression (against themselves and others) because the tribal leadership said so
This is and has been human nature (the realm of human action) for all recorded history. If this wasn’t so, anarcho-capitalism would have long ago obliterated all other societies.
If, by some freak accident, capitalism becomes advanced enough (i.e. creates enough wealth), then collectivist claims to same wealth (by the parasitic blob) inevitably also grow, leading to completion of the societal cycle into utter destruction. The blob demands and the tribal leadership promises that 2+2=5, but this parasitic “symbiosis” can only last for so long. Economics is nature’s ultimate “government” imposing laws that no one can circumvent.
How could the logically consistent and principled 1% enforce anti-murder and anti-theft (anti-parasitic) laws against this giant unthinking parasitic collective? Convincing blind lemmings that they ought to stop jumping off cliffs is futile. Perhaps this birth/death cycle is as inevitable for civilizations as it is for individual humans.
If everyone was designed to think as a collective and follow others, how does that explain the leaders and those who don’t have class conciousness?
I didn’t say that no one was right or wrong. Obviously aggression has a meaning, but getting two people to agree to it at the same time can’t be more than coincidence, unless they subscribe to a particular framework for understanding what is and is not aggressive behavior. You were indicating people had different preferences. Absolutely, I agree. However, that does not mean people cannot agree upon norms between each other.
Your notion that people won’t agree isn’t a problem it is a fact of reality. The problem comes when there is conflict, and a system like ancap which has a very specific notion of property rights helps us deal with conflicts that may arise as people interact socially.
I don’t understand this paragraph at all. I am not making an argument for anarcho-capitalism. I don’t particularly care if you become an Ancap or not. I am refuting your arguments against Ancap. At the end of the day, I feel somewhat confident I can refute all of your consequentlist critiques as being rife with contradiction, thus making your rejection of Ancap strictly a preference, and not based on a contradiction in Ancap itself.
I choose Ancap (or more specifically, Voluntarism) because it aligns with my morality. That’s a subjective value preference. However, I can defend the means I use to achieve my ends as being consistent through simple logic and economic reasoning. That doesn’t mean they are right for you.
Without making this too complicated, I can also use an approach closer to de Jasay’s which puts the burden of proof on you (and I have done this to a degree) to prove why we need a state. Either way, I don’t think you can’t debunk Ancap without showing its internal contradictions (disconnect between means and ends).
This is not to be dismissive, but many of your arguments against Ancap have been strawmen or non sequiturs. Ancap simply holds non-aggression as a principle. And again, aggression has a meaning. To argue otherwise removes the possibility for any intelligent discourse.
The purpose of an Ancap order is to have functioning system for the resolution of the conflicts which arise from differences in interpretation. No matter what social system you have, communism, fascism, or anarchism, you still have to deal with conflicts. Ancaps believe we can resolve more conflicts at a lower cost, and with less bloodshed if we start from the premise of non-aggression. I believe this is primarily because eliminating the state as monopoly agent without consent, puts the costs closer to the source of the conflict.
In other words, if some guys here want “free” student loan money
Unlike you, I cannot speak for the species. I can only speak for myself. And I am ready for individual freedom.
This is both an appeal to history and an argument from ignorance. Just saying.
Perhaps you missed the collapse of the USSR. Or the reformation of various churches. Or American blacks being recognized as self-owners.
If you think this little of humanity (and I am sympathetic to how lazy, ignorant and dishonest most people are) then I cannot imagine why you hang out here, since this organization in particular operates in a completely contrary fashion. I don’t want you to leave, but I am just trying to figure out if you are advocating for us to stop agitating for liberty and a better understanding of human action, or some other agenda.
In the lunatic’s mind the rape victem he is trying to have sex with is trying to coerce him off of her. What right does she have to deny her body to him? She is a resource which should be shared with the community! See! The rapist is giving up his body in exchange!
IE Drivel.
I don’t gather evidence of Strangeloop’s ignorance of AE. What I do gather evidence of is that his participation on this forum amounts mainly to a variety of underhandedly or blatantly banal remarks.
Old modes (expressions) of lemming-like behavior are constantly being replaced by new ones. The type of cliffs off of which the blind lemmings jump changes but the fact that they jump remains a constant. Yes, humans stopped sacrificing goats and virgins few centuries ago but most of them still believe in a bearded God, a nation, a class, a union, a war, an ethnicity, a culture, a sports team. The majority of humanity is still willing to put on a uniform and hurrah across the field behind a tribal parasite carrying a flag, any flag. The drive to belong, to be a part of something larger than oneself is just burned too deep into the human genome.
I’m still here because this forum has the largest concentration of individuals belonging to the other 1% of humanity – the statistical aberation, if you will. By no means am I advocating that you stop agitating and educating. That’s the only hope. But don’t for a moment delude yourself that you can “re-engineer” Man. We (the 1% aberation) are literally slaves to this collectivist force of nature (the blob), just like we’re “slaves” to gravity. The only things we could expect to achieve is maximize freedom within these constraints over whose existence, I’m afraid, we don’t have much say.
Z.