Obviously, not everything which emerges from the market is good. The point I was making is that law comes before the state just as money and trade and society emerge before the state. The state doesn’t create these things out of the aether.
Assumptions are an issue.
The simplest argument I can make is that a government with a territorial monopoly on law and defense is by design incapable of protecting individual liberty. The nightwatchman state is, in my opinion, a farce.
And why would liberterian governments be able to protect individual liberty? And what is individual liberty as to your interpretation?
What a blunder.
Fallacious appeal to ignorance unless further qualified.
Great, substaintiated, and cohesive argument.
Actually, structured appeal to fact based knowledge
I said what a blunder because you can see how blatantly obvious it is. I’m embarassed for Ayn Rand.
Disproving a negative? That’s proving a positive. We do this all the time. There’s nothing special or magical about it. If I needed to substantiate this further, we’d all be in big, big trouble.
How about proving a negative? I think that’s what you were trying to say, anyhow. We do this all the time, too.
It’s called the law of non-contradiction. Also, modus tollens anybody?
Ouch.
Let E stand for evidence.
No E that X. Therefore, E that not X.
This is fallacious, sorry. It can be rescued, but it has to actually be substantiated. You can’t just say: ‘absence of evidence is evidence of absence.’
@ Logic as Law
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”- Carl Sagan.
And Carl Sagan obviously held no religious beliefs.
I have no doubt that Rand would be impressed by both Democracy the God that Failed and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
Or she would say they stole and/or bastardized her ideas and came up with nothing on their own.
Perhaps I can help clear this debate up somewhat. The phrase “you can’t prove a negative” does not mean “the absence of evidence is evidence of absence,” which is clearly false. What it is, however, is a statement of the burden of proof principle. The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive. That is what is meant, that belief and non-belief are not the same.
Atheism is not the belief in a non-God, it’s is the principled refusal to credit an arbitrary idea that has no rational basis and makes no sense.
Would you accept the principle that you need a reason to justify not believing in things? If so, what disproof do you have of Zeus, Odin, Thor, Ra, or invisible non-corporeal unicorns that give no heat signature and only exist in this dimension when you’re not thinking about them?
Rand’s point here is that theism and atheism are in different epistemological categories. It would be absurd to commit to every idea in the universe, any and every wild claim, until it has been disproved. Instead, reason demands committal to those ideas only with rational support. Belief in an idea cannot be the default position, until canceled by disproof. Belief has to be justified. That’s what it means that you aren’t called upon to “prove a negative.”
Austro-libertarians mainly are only concerned with economics. I don’t know if ALs really care about consistency beyond that; though most might believe in the non-aggression axiom or ‘deductive logic’. But sadly I think most of them think these things are axiomatic and not necessary to justify. Mainly they are about consistency around economics and …ethics as it has to do with people versus the government. Beyond that it is maybe possible to believe any possible thing and also be an AL. I even got into an argument here a few years ago about how ‘vulgar’ I was for criticizing Paul Krugman.
I think that is what Rand means calling the libertarians hippies: many believe that they are right, but don’t want to explain it. They have a philosophy of negatives… “i hate this, I hate that”… but no consistent philosophy. And a big emphasis on big tents for big tent sake.
ALs also seem to deal with hypothetical situations and talk about things they can’t really control: fed, the state, political candidates, etc.
Objectivism is a philosophy. It attempts to be a whole system for and about living life now. Objectivists are only as ‘dogmatic’ as ALs must seem to mainstream economists and political theorists*. I don’t believe in or understand all aspects of Objectivism, but I think there is a lot interesting stuff to apply to everyday life. Even if it makes people uncomfortable to talk about stuff other than just politics. Particularly I like Nathaniel Branden – who I know moved away from ‘the circle’ – but nonetheless holds beliefs that I think personally very useful and intelligent. I’m not very knowledgeable about Peikoff or the types of people who call themselves Objectivists to be honest.
Because they would not be monopolies.
Non-aggression.
John, you have been here for much too long to post this rubbish. Please.
More of the same.
Good point. I so much want to like her for introducing me to rational egoism, but she was so narcissitic and inconsistent at times.
I am convinced that my use of the term “absence of evidence is evidence of absence” was frivolous. And my coupling it with the idea of disproving a negative deserves the same adjective.
It takes a big man to admit a mistake, particularly around here where no one is ever wrong.
You’re ok with me.
Appreciated.
And yeah, the posters on this board are so confident, ardent and adamant in their beliefs, that debates never conclude. I just started to explore these forums, and I am intrigued by the ideas. But debates don’t seem like they lead to alterations in beliefs, which I suppose can be an indication of their strength, or of their oppression of facts and impartiality.
I try to manage the idea of holding a conviction and allowing knowledge to persevere. I think that management is vital and extremely difficult.
^It’s not necessarily a bad thing, most libertarians just do not like compromising their beliefs, though some just mistake not compromising with arrogance. Either way we’re not like republicans who will say yes to the free market, then hold anti-trade views (or straight up support candidates who create more regulations, George Bush for example).
Don’t get discouraged. 
For every poster in a thread, there are at least 5-10 other people reading it. It’s usually those who are confident who speak. Those who are unsure, on the fence, or willing to have their minds changed are usually quiet observers.
“John, you have been here for much too long to post this rubbish.”
When I look at the books for sale/download here, it is mainly economics. Most of the articles deal with economics.
If you look at the ARI, they have all kinds of topics as a matter of course. There is a different intention.
All people are interested in more than just economics. But the moniker ‘austro-libertarian’ mainly has to do with a similarity in economic opinions. Whereas Objectivism is more encompassing; you can predict the main attitudes toward a wider number of things.
There are folk here who I would normally even agree with, but because of the behavior you describe, I feel they stunt their own intillectual growth. It may be arrogance of me to say that however. Still I feel that many people here are more concerned with being right, then discovering any type of truth. I know I myself have been guilty of this in the past(Even LS has caught me a few times), so I just constantly have to proceed in a positive manner, and remind myself why I am really here.
Thanks for the bright spirits!
I certainly agree, and I did not intend to convey the impression of discouragement. I just see a pattern based on observing the threads that indicates neither person usually bends in any facet of their argument.
I concur; I believe the holding of conviction is one of the most honorable, to use the word almost redundantly, conviction, that man can have. But I agree that your desire to believe in your argument can lead to ignoring facts or reason to confirm your belief.
I appreciate the input!
Ideologues have a susceptibility to fact evading as a means of maintaining conviction. And I do not use the term ideologues disparagingly.