People already buy almost all other services on the market, especially very important ones.
Those are consensual relationships, not coercive ones. Where they are coercive, they clearly are not social norms or they wouldn’t need violent enforcement.
This entire line of Whiggism is so hilarious. Every ancap who can’t hack it, becomes a Whig and an authoritarian. It’s been going on here for 3 years and it is just as funny now as it was the first time. One Whig leaves and another appears. It’s like whack-a-mole for bizarro conservatives who don’t understand libertarianism.
That’s true. However, the extent of self-enforcing contracts can be limited; thus, government can actually extend the reach of markets.
I’m going to answer that, if you offer me an explanation on my previous post.
Is the State granted power because it grabs it coercively or because the people legitimize it through belief and consent?
@LibertyStudent
If you don’t understand the moral reasons to be a libertarian, it’s very easy to crack under social pressure to bend towards the state for solutions; to social issues that the state makes us think we need it to solve.
Thus they become Whiggs.
I think we should take this to another thread.
Some consent, and others don’t. The former supports oppressing the latter.
Your claim about AE in this thread is false.
(Austrians, using their economic theory alone, have no reason to believe that individuals will adequately save for retirement)
I did substantiate it by quoting it. It should be obvious to anyone familiar with AE where your statement is methodologically wrong.
Try sticking with an ideology for longer than 3 months, and then maybe someone will take you seriously when you try to tell everyone about your latest political and economic epiphany.
This is an outrageous claim. Since the dawn of mankind social norms–of all sorts–have been enforced violently. Many unjust acts within a stateless tribe, for instance, have been penalized with death.
Who are “the people”?
^Doesn’t make it right.
Then, please enlighten me.
Eskimos. I’ve been talking about Eskimos this whole time.
I made a logical claim. Attack my premise. An appeal to history is a waste of both of our time. Oh wait, you’re a Whig. Your entire position rests on appeals to history. Well, good luck with embracing a fundamentally illogical ideology. I’m sure you will have yet another one in a month or two and be back here to announce it.
Oh all-powerful logician of this Internet hideaway, can you please just enlighten me on how I misrepresented Austrian economics first? Afterward, I’ll take your kindly advice to heart and begin purging myself of all historical knowledge (which is wholly useless, of course, when one can master a priori reasoning).
How do you know this? I buy health food items that are labeled very explicitly with what they don’t contain and how the product was manufactured. The information I specifically need. The government doesn’t require this sort of labeling and yet the industry does it on their own in response to customer demand.
I just proved your claim incorrect. That should matter to you if you are interested in intellectual honesty.
Government regulation always benefits someone. No one is contesting that. But at what cost? Because you don’t want the market to decide, you have no idea what the tradeoffs were. This is basic Bastiat. You should know this stuff, you have been around here for years.
Because that’s not their ideology. Libertarians believe in spontaneous order. If the order is social engineerd then it is not spontaneous. Of course libertarians believe that the market to a certain degree compensates for interventionism; if you put up a barrier and the water will flow around it. We do consider interference a cost like any other. But a lot of the time the market can’t get around the interference if it’s enforced with guns. Usually the market does well despite interventionism. Meaning that for every bad thing that happens, there’s usually some regulation to blame.
That’s outsourcing personal responsibility to the state. Can you name one example in history where that ever worked? It sounds good in theory, but it never works. The notion that you can outsource responsibility to the state is based on the assumption that responsibility is fixed regardless of the need to be responsible. The assumption is that humans are by nature too stupid to do exactly what they fail to do right now, there’s x amount of irrationality in the human animal (such as an inability to plan for ones retirement), and you can supplement that with a law forcing them to be responsible in that regard. What the lawmakers then soon discover is that people found some new way to be stupid. Then you need more state intervention to take care of that. Pretty soon you have a population of children that’s worse off than if you build a system where they can fail. It’s like safety signs where there’s holes in the street because of construction. If people don’t expect a warning, they look where they are going and don’t fall into holes. But if people know there’s going to be a sign at every danger, they stop being careful and have more accidents.
When people are actually oppressed, the benefits of fleeing increase. If the costs of this “oppression” are so immense, why not settle in a region of the world unmolested by State governance (they do exist)?