Here comes the “If you don’t like the state, you can just get out” argument.
With increased safety in automobiles, drivers have driven more riskily. With fire insurance on home, homes more likely burn. The point: market institutions suffer the same downside you are reserving for government.
And it should always follow the “I’m being oppressed in America!” argument.
I wasn’t careful to mention this the first time, but keep in mind that the same people can consent at one point in their life and not at another.
Yeah, why not?
Actually, Mises.org is the most popular economics website in the world. It’s far from a hideaway.
And I am not an all powerful logician, although using logic allows me to expose a lot of your arguments, so I can see how you trying to make fun of my capacity to reason without contradiction serves your ego, if not your positions.
Go back and read your claim. Then check your premises. It’s your job to correct your work, not mine. I (and others I believe) have been subsidizing your lack of knowledge for long enough. If you cannot see what is wrong with that claim, then that makes you look pretty foolish. I suggest you stare at it until the answer comes to you rather than continue to admit you don’t understand enough about AE to defend that statement as sound.
The only historical knowledge YOU have is the knowledge of your lifetime. Are you completely unfamiliar with epistemology?
Even if you believed something historical to be true, appealing to it in argument is a logical error. Not even a really obscure one, but one everyone knows. Like your appeal to popularity where you say that people wanted the state, and yet you cannot name those people. As I pointed out a couple weeks ago, you almost never make a logically sound argument. It’s all just contradiction and false premises.
For someone who claims to like math, I am suprised you reject deduction. Of course, if you are as good at math as you are at economics, it all makes perfect sense.
“The state isn’t that bad guize, let’s just stop fighting it and cooperate”
That’s your argument. Just because state’s have been worse, and I live in a better one, does not mean I can look to progress. That’s what limiting and eliminating the government is to libertarians. If one looks at a society and sees that are good things, but sees that slavery and mass murder still exists, why shouldn’t I, at the very least, morally be against it?
Some consent, and others don’t. The former supports oppressing the latter.
Some consent to property rights, and others don’t. The former supports oppressing the latter. Is it okay to enforce property rights even though some don’t consent? I would say yes.
Also, far more people consent to the status quo than anarcho-capitalism.
Great argumentum ad populum bro!
^When you can’t argue, resort to insult?
Great argumentum ad populum bro!
If someone is going to say the government is wrong because people don’t consent to it, I will point out that more people don’t consent to anarcho-capitalism.
You’re kidding right,?Answer the question and don’t be an ass please.
What’s it mean for something to be “okay”?
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?
Anarchism= lack of force. Thus you can’t not consent to it.
State= Force, thus many people don’t consent to it.
That’s a non sequitur Eric.
Absolutely unacceptable.
How are his insults not unacceptable?
This must be random insult day.
Point them out, and I will pronounce my all-powerful judgement upon them.
Anarchism= lack of force. Thus you can’t not consent to it.
No it doesn’t. It is a lack of what you consider illegitemate force. (I am assuming for the sake of argument that it would look anything remotely like anarcho-capitalism)
I also don’t consent to anarchism, even if you claim otherwise.
Isn’t coercing murderers a normal part of our idea of anarchy?