You don’t really have a point. Just knee jerks reactions to anything that offends your egalitarianism.
Stop stating it like it’s a fact, or prove it. As you’ve been unable to do the latter you’re going to have stop with the former. Furthermore you’re going to have to prove what’s wrong with authority in the form of natural elites, seeing as it is entirely natural when one takes into account the uneven distribution of certain qualities amongst humans.
The state can pretend to support religion in the family, yes. You’d be correct in saying that. However, it can only ever coopt and weaken these two pre state institutions, so I fail to see how this has any significance. In fact, this is just a red herring.
Racism and national can be used, but for obvious reasons democratic states tend to avoid using them as a justification. Nor can they be used by themselves to justify the state, whereas egalitarianism can.
Anyway, you missed my point. First I was merely showing that the idea of natural elites is not compitable with statism, so to claim that states use the concept of natural elites in their defense is silly, since they always will and always must do everything in their power to suppress them. Secondly,egalitarianism is distinctly statist. Private property is inherently inegalitarian, hence it follows that the negation of private property, the state, is egalitarian.
No, democracy thrives off egalitarianism and its corollary: redistribution.
I don’t think that it’s strictly true that we can’t use praxeology to analyze it, but as it’s neither here nor there I’m going to leave it at this.
Wait, when did I say that the poor are actually represented? That’s just a silly strawman. The opposite is true, I agree with that. There’s a good reason the poor are poor, they’re less intelligent than the wealthy. You might not like it, and before you post some strawman, it isn’t always true. But large it is, the stupid rich and the intelligent rich can lose and gain wealth respectively, perhaps economic mobility is not what it would be in a free market, but society isn’t divided into castes. Hence, it doesn’t make sense to think that the poor could outsmart the rich via the ballot box.
The rest is another strawman (you are rather keen on them), I’ve said neither that all the poor are morally and intellectually bankrupt nor that environment doesn’t play a part. Not all of the poor are morally bankrupt because there are many minorities, the less wealthy one, that shun welfare and if a member of the minority should accept it they would be frowned upon significantly by the community.
Nonetheless, a vast majority of the poor do accept welfare and have no problems with voting for it. We’re getting sidetracked here though but I’ll continue. Very few poor individuals have any problem with welfare and seem to assume that as a result of having less money they are entitled to some of that of the more wealthy amongst society. At the very least very few of them except those of certain minorities have any issues with accepting welfare. They’d rather take money from the government than go out and earn it themselves. Moreover, they’re too dull to realise, through long chains on deductive reasoning, that by accepting this welfare they’re hurting themselves more than anybody else. Or, to put it more succintly they’re morally and intellectual weak.
As for your second issue about me allegedly dismissing the environment in all of this. Well, you simply can’t say that this is purely the result of the environment since that would beg the question, and as I wouldn’t go so far to say that this is entirely the result of their dullness or the fact they’re morally bankrupt (many of them anyway), we’re going to have to settle somewhere in the middle. The fact is that we do live in a market economy, there are vast amounts of government intervention to be sure, but many poor people rise out of poverty and the rich occasionally end up losing large sums of money. At the end of the day, the poor are often poor because they’re unskilled, this often entails a lack of intelligence. But I won’t deny that through public schooling, democracy and many other measures the government keeps them down.
Back to my actual point though: if the poor did not accept forced charity and the poor bothered to realise that the government is the institution holding them down, not private property. They wouldn’t vote, if they didn’t vote and if they rejected the government far fewer people would see it as just. As I said, government rests on consent (not unanimous), the poor make up a large portion of the population, the poor view the government as just. What’s so difficult about this? Why do you keep avoiding this point and posting red herrings.
No, you said people with different conceptions of property rights could live by one another. Don’t take my word for it:
(Taken from the anarcho socialist topic)
In which case, property rights would be meaningless. Now, I’m going to have the enjoyment of watching you backpeddle.
So what you’re saying is egalitarianism is “double plus good”. You’re essentially using the word egalitarian to mean good, I wonder if you might have any agenda in doing this (pandering to the left and your own sentiments that favour equality)? In which case from now on whenever I say “cultural conservatism”, “inequality” and “voluntary exclusion”, I mean “wonderful”, “great” and “brilliant”.
That’s funny, I don’t remember saying I needed an official age of consent. What’s also quite amusing is your blatant appeal to authority, actually if you read Rothbard’s Kid Lib or introduction to the La Boetie’s book (remember, the one you say you’ve read?) you’d see that does favour using violence against children because they’re not capable of rational thought.
And no, even this doesn’t imply equal negative rights for adults. Some adults, such as primitives, are not capable of rational argumentation and cannot be brought peacefully into the division of labour. Moreover, they have no conception of property rights nor any enforcable claim.
No, as children have the potential that would still be wrong. Their guardians would have temporary, limited property rights that are not able to be used in any way that would limit their ability to reach the age where rational argumentation is possible, which means they cannot murder them or severly assault them. In fact, the parents don’t just have the right to do this, they have the obligation to do it.
Moreover if the child is being abused he can run away and the parents cannot stop them.
Which is distinctly inegalitarian (unless you mean egalitarian = good).
Inegalitarian.
What do you think charity is? One party helping another. One party is clearly in a postion of authority in regards to the other. One is dependant on the other.