Statism isn’t radical accept as a revolt against nature.
I could have told you this 3 months ago.
Another whig is born.
Of course they’re right; that’s why I told you about it!
Here’s my point: libertarians are quick to say, “We don’t need the government; we’ll figure out how to do it privately!” Why don’t they also say, “We’ll figure out how to do it despite government interference!”?
No matter what the circumstances might be in a stateless society, libertarians believe private solutions will magically materialize. Why don’t private remedies to government intervention also materialize? That is, we can consider such interference a cost like any other.
The logic of an authoritarian. To make better people off, we have to force them to do things they don’t want to do.
How original.
What if those people, statistically, are known to regret previous decisions? (Lung cancer victims–more often than not–regret smoking, for instance.) However, in circumstances like that (cancer, old age, etc.), there is no repeated opportunity for learning (i.e., if you didn’t save for old age, you’re not going to learn from your mistake and “do better next time”).
After all this time, you STILL do not understand AE?
Unbelievable. I mean, I can believe it, I just can’t believe you have the gall to keep returning to the scene of the crime so to speak, since you’ve been shown to be very ignorant about Austrian economics by at least a half dozen people here.
Full marks for effort, you truly do not have any quit in you.
Oh, so the richest, freest, and least violent societies of all time are a “revolt against nature”?
What if?
Who has the ability to act as God and predict value changes?
Show me where I misrepresented or displayed ignorance of Austrian economics.
Assertions without substantiation are cheap.
Uhm, we do it all the time. It’s called parenting.
From what I see you just point out why you’ve been de-radicalized but you fail to provide detailed explanations. Explain why unions are good for the economy, explain why business encourages stupidity and explain why that matters?
Inadequate, really, now your going to tell people how much money they should have when they retire?
To emphasize the irrelevancy of your retort, let’s take a sojourn into evolutionary psychology.
Ohhh goody, pseudo-science, can’t wait to find out what my “ancestral roots” are.
Yes, my ancestors food spoiled because he had no storage and somehow from that he develloped a “biological instinct” that he passed to his descendants. Apparently, me wanting to eat my chocolate now rather then later has something to do with my genes. What if I don’t want to eat and I’m more of a frugal person by nature? Was my ancestor a frugal person too?
Again, you are assuming that people don’t knwo what to do with their money but somehow you do.
Insufficient? define that, while you are at it why should we care? What if I don’t plan on retiring and choose to keep money to spend it now, in the moment, what then will I go to jail?
Answer my previous post while you are at it, the one concerning the bailouts.
Thanks
Drew,
Parents are not the same as states.
The richest and freest societies became richer and freer by granting the state less power.
And which humans are capable of being parents to other humans? By what authority?
Consider the society I propose and consider the society you propose: which one of us wants to more radically alter the choices people make?
You are taking much more of an elitist stance than I am (you know how to re-engineer our social order to provide better lives for people than they have created for themselves).
The authority governed by social norms–e.g., teachers to students, elected politicians to constituents, religious leaders to the faithful, employers to employees, judges to litigants, etc.
What if these people have to take responsability for their own actions, because if they don’t someone else will.
Why should someone else take responsability for their actions.?
Lung cancer victims perfectly knew that smoking was not “good” for them(so is candy) yet they ignorantly continued their habit, why shouldn’t they pay the consequences?
Life works like that, yes…your point?
That’s too bad.
^Markets exist with or without a state.
That’s a pretty interesting point.
Calling names..O_O I see. Apparently I’m the one who wants to tell people what to do with their money. I didn’t know that.
I don’t propose any society, you on the other hand are offering ways on how to coerce people.
Because luck swallows everything.
Of course, more economically, I would posit that the benefits for all of us outweigh the costs (increased productivity and well-being from individuals is better for us all).
Do you endorse the status quo?