Oh my. Can’t you see that monarchy is obsolete ? As was discussed elsewhere the idea that people would choose to live under private ‘voluntary’ tyranny is ridiculous.
I suggest you inform Mises of this. Or otherwise read The Epistemological Problems of Economics.
I suggest you discuss this with someone who cares. You would not know what Hoppe does or does not come up with because you just rely on second-hand sources and brief articles. So please don’t presume yourself in a position to lecture me on this. I bore of it.
This is related to social darwinism, how?
In actual fact.
You did. You said my words in regard to the poor were likely to turn them off libertarianism. Which is meaningless unless you plan on deceiving them.
No, he doesn’t. Perhaps you didn’t read it carefully enough.
No and yet in the long term there will be conservative outcomes.
Apparently you’re not listening.
Then so be it.
No shit. Fortunately based on this misunderstanding (or perhaps you’re just being purposefully stupid?) you go on to attack a strawman. As usual. Nobody has ever said that natural elites would be rulers. Merely that they would resolve the less formal disputes between members of the community.
Strawman.
Nonsense, I’m not backpeddling. I’m saying that whereas egalitarianism is a distinctly statist religion isn’t. It’s merely been coopted by the state.
Democratic states do not thrive on racism. Democratic states are inherently egalitarian, which is not compatible with racism. Nationalism, perhaps I’ll give you that one. But so what?
So what? Like I said private property has been used to justify slavery, freedom has been used to justify was a prosperity taxes. This said, the state doesn’t use the concept of natural elites because the state historically suppresses them, even monarchical states.
Yes, the state does rely on conflict. Such as the conflict created by egalitarianism, forced integration would an example of this.
I don’t suppose you could do me the favour of highlighting a democratic state that hasn’t engaged in redistribution?
A private ruler must respect property rights simply because his wealth depends on clearly defined laws explaining what is, and isn’t legitimate property and how people should act in regards to this. The same doesn’t apply for democracy because they don’t own their wealth. They’re merely temporary caretakers.
Whether or not democracy does or doesn’t lead to egalitarian distribution doesn’t mean anything. The fact is the justification and implications of democracy, is equality.
One can be an egalitarian anti statist, so what? States abolish private property,and the right to exclusion. Without the right to exclude much of the natural inequality amongst men disappears, not to mention the public property, the egalitarian nonsense spewed the state and its apologists and the pandering to mediocrity.
I’ll repeat, private property and the right to exclusion emphaises the natural inequalities within society. Abolishing this, like the state does, is therefore egalitarian.
Why is it indefensible? Because you keep posting strawmen? I’ve never ever said the poor are all less intelligent nor that the rich are all smarter. I actually explicitely said otherwise.
Stop attacking a strawman. I said as a general rule. And for you to deny that assumes there are no differences between men, which is just silly.
They’re by no means stupid. And no, not all the rich are bailed out, many lose millions and many poor make millions. You’re just being evavise and posting red herrings.
Yes they are. Not to mention public healthcare and other such schemes.
You’re just being silly now. Admit it, the poor aren’t the heroes you’d love them to be. There’s a damn good reason that most libertarians comes from middle and upper class backgrounds.
Most poor have no problems accepting welfare. For the reasons I explained. Stop being so childish and accept that you’re wrong.
Which amounts to consent. Either admit that you were lying about agreeing with La Boetie like you’ve been saying all along or that you’re changing your position now it’s convenient. Else, stop being pedantic.
Or, you’re wrong.
Before you said egalitarianism meant good outcomes? You’re not to keen on sticking to one meaning of words are you? Stop the intellectual dishonesty. There’s nothing egalitarian about giving voluntary aid to the poor.
And yet earlier you appealed to his authority on this? Be consistant.
Why is it ridiculous? These people simply aren’t capable of rational argumentation, whether this is biological or cultural makes no differences. The fact is they often cannot be brought within the divsion of labour and without any concept of property rights it’s impossible that they own anything. Moreover they have no legitimate claim to any of this territory and as such it’s f ree to be homesteaded.
As for the native Americans even if they did have the concept of property rights they had no proof in regards to who owned what and as such the land was free to be homesteaded.
I never said they don’t.
Indeed, hence all the twins that debate whilst still inside the womb.
You’re right. We need the government to protect out alternative lifestyles!
I’ve read that and also “Theory and History”. I don’t see how your naming a book refutes what I said. Not to mention that vaguely invoking Mises proves nothing, you know.
Don’t be silly. I don’t need to waste useful time reading everything a person writes to be able to know what he thinks. For instance hoppe argues here (in a ‘scholarly’ article for the JLS) that
“Theoretically bankrupt, the left-libertarian open border stance can be understood only psychologically.”
and then the psychobabble begins.
Lecture you on what ? It’s you the one who are lecturing me on how to read an author.
In that the measure of success of a society(you say) is how old it is – how able to survive it is.
There is no inherent differance between egalitarianism and religion in this regaurd. Once again, egalitarianism is not inherently statist. Both egalitarianism and religion can theoretically be both state-independant and statist in nature.
It by no means follows from that fact that a ruler is individual or “private” that they will respect private property rights. This entire notion of monarchy being benign is predicated on the monarch being a libertarian. Furthermore, the laws on what is just property in a monarchy are NOT clearly defined in conjunction with libertarian property theory, and the monarch’s claim to ownership is unjust under libertarian property theory.
Anarchism opposes rulers - both “private” and “public”.
I think you’re highly confused about the nature of the state. No state abolishes private property, not even communist ones. States claim and steal private property and then decide to exclude and redistribute it. The state claims the right to exclusion itself, and inherently is exclusive.
Once again, you seem to be functioning under the delusion that states actually make things more equal. They don’t.
How many times do I have to point out to you that the very existance of a state is based on inequality - the institution is a heirarchical oligarchy. We are not “equal” to the state and the state does not make us “equal” to eachother.
Oh yes - they are eternalizing the cost of their inability to properly allocate resources onto everyone in society.
Such things are hardly poor-specific.
You’re being ridiculously rhetorical. I never claimed that the poor are “heroes”.
Most rich have no problems acceptive welfare, and they recieve most of it.
No, it isn’t the same thing as consent. If a mugger puts a gun to my head and I asquiesce by giving him my wallet, does this mean that theft is “voluntary”? No. And I don’t disagree with La Boetie, I disagree with your conservative interpretation of La Boetie.
That’s exactly what it is: voluntary egalitarianism. You’re hung up on the stigma of a word.
I appealed to his authority at least insofar as equal negative rights for adults is concerned. FANL and TEOL very clearly work out a way of universalizing the concept of individual rights. Rothbard even refers to it as a “universal ethic”.
The claim that they are not capable of rational argumentation is highly dubious because the fact of the matter is that linguistic barriers exist. That doesn’t mean they are incapable of rational thought and argumentation. The implication of what you’re saying reduces to denying that certain people have any rights because of linguistic barriers and cultural differances. That is a conservative position, not a libertarian one.
I’m sorry, this is nonsensical. They don’t need to have a particular concept of property to occupy and use property in actual fact. The fact that someone isn’t well-versed in Lockean or Rothbardian property rights theory does not nullifying their property rights! Furthermore, the claim that such societies have zero concept of property rights is dubious to begin with - at a minimum, they have a concept of possession, and areas that they commonly used. You can’t just disregaurd their possession and common use of various property wholesale and proclaim it “homesteadable” as if it’s abandoned or completely baren. This is just a conservative rationale for colonialism and cultural exploitation. Clearly the reality of ownership in such situations is a mixed bag.
NOONE has a legitimate claim to the entire territory as such irrespective of labor and use. In the case of America, for example, some portions were legitimtely owned by natives, some portions were not, some portions were completely barren and free to be homesteaded. Some colonials legitimately homesteaded land, some stole land. The establishment of America was a mixed bag between land theft and homesteading. By no means can you use libertarian property theory to justify the exproportiation of land that the natives actually occupied and used.
Isn’t that cute ? I think that’s exactly what Mises debunks as ‘polylogism’?
In Sweden, and other welfare states, the redistribution of wealth is a primary task of government. One could say that the welfare state is a State with the specific purpose to redistribute wealth in society, with the purpose of making people more equal. With equal in this context I don’t mean the universality of rights, but rather material equality - that is forcefully created by the State
I call myself a liberal. I see no point in adopting another term for my views. It’s the only term I like.
It proves that you do not know how praxeology proceeds. It does not need to assume objectively provable ends; only that agents hold them. It will then provide an analysis fo the means to achieve them. So it has nothing to do with naming a book but to do with the fact that you’re oblivious to what Mises lays out in it.
Which is on equal footing to your constant ascription of motives to individuals, e.g. insisting they’re conservative, or racist, or whatever else the king of anarchism finds to his distaste. Hence, I will begin caring when you put an end to your silly little antics.
Do put an end to your gratuitous whining.
Yes. I, on the other hand, was assuming it is an end of any given number of agents desiring market anarchism not to have it implode on them within a brief period of time. Is this social darwinism too?
You are totally right! The so-called “anarcho-capitalist” view is just liberalism.
I said nothing about ‘provable ends’ : You claimed
So you’re talking about an objective standard for success. Not only that, but a continuous standard which lets you rank ‘enclaves’(…) as ‘more’ or ‘less’ successful.
Don’t tell me that individual actions are successful from the point of view of achieving or not individual ends because that’s not what’s being discussed. I could claim that anarcho-communist ‘enclaves’ will be successful from the point of view of anarcho commies, and so on.
Besides, you and Stranger tried to provide (different…) objective ways for measuring ‘success’, so now attempting to turn the issue into a subjective one contradicts your previous attempt at providing an objective measure of success.
Not at all. If X is constantly exposing conservatives views I can safely call X a conservative. I’m not getting into why X is a conservative. There’s no psychobabble in my labeling people as conservatives when in fact that’s what they are.
Some people here believe that race X is superior to race Y so according to the dictionary they are racist. I’m soooo sorry that your political correctness is offended by my calling a spade a spade.
And the way to do that is ‘social conservatism’ ? Here you go again assuming what you supposedly want to prove ?
I’m glad you agree =] – Too bad the word liberalism was stolen by anglo-american social democrats. But, historically, anarcho-capitalism is just radical liberalism…
Lets take it back! [:D]
Yeah, but how ?
I call myself a market anarchist amongst those who know what the hell it means. Amongst those who do not, I don’t bother with labels - I just explain my positions.
You’re incorrect. In both senses. Christianity is inherently anti - state. As for egalitarianism, it is the result of the abolition of private property, which occurs and can only occur as a result of the state. In the context of the state, we become citizens as opposed to individuals.
Yes, the monarchs claim is. So what? That’s not the issue in question. The fact is the monarchs property still rests on some understanding of property rights. If they’re not clearly defined or if they’re altogether disregarded his own property is suffer. As opposed to a public government who doesn’t own the government and has to pander to different sections of the population in order to gain a majority support. This includes disregarding the property rights of the minorty - the rich.
And it does not in the least bit depend on the monarch being a libertarian. It has to do with self interest, the monarch can pass his property on and owns it himself, the corollary being that he can sell it on the market and that it has a price. The implications of this is that not only does he have an interest in keeping the property value high, but more importantly, he knows whether or not his actions has harmed his property value. As we all agree intervention in the economy reduces overall wealth, he will tend to refrain from this.
There are more issues, but as you’ve allegedly read Hoppe you know these. No matter how much you try to ignore them.
Exactly why Hoppe condemns monarchs.
Yes, all states abolish private property. What do you think property tax and income tax means?
You’re attacking a strawman. But anyway, they do. Some people do get every rich as a result of the state and in that regard, yes, they make wealth more unevenly distributed. And yet the general population all become more mediocre and more alike. As a result of the inability to exclude and the destruction of private property.
You’re aware of the Austrian Theory of the Buisness Cycle, I take it? Well one of it’s most satisfying aspects is this: it correctly explains why otherwise brilliant entreprenuers make huge errors and allocate resources wrongly. Same applies to these rich that get hand outs. They may, or may not, be very intelligent and yet their inability to allocate resources does not reflect this. The institutional arrangements are to blame, not the people that are trapped inside them.
Who benefits most from socialized medicine, defense etc? Those that would otherwise be able to afford it or those that wouldn’t? Those that use private healthcare anyway or those that rely on the state? Stop the ad hoc bullshit.
The poor receive welfare, in many forms. If you’re denying this you’re just denying reality. Only more openly that you usually do.
And? If the poor are whats the difference? The problem is that nobody whines at the plight of the rich. There was widespread opposition to the bailouts. Granted, it was ignored but the bailout was by no means popular. On the other hand mention to the average person that you intend to abolish unemployment welfare or better yet socialised medicine. They’ll call you a monster.
What’s the problem with the conservative intepretation? Mises, Hoppe and Rothbard are three conservatives and they’ve all gained from his insights (although I think Mises cited Hume saying more or less the same thing). False analogy in any case. Once again though, if you’re denying that most people support the government you’d be an idiot. Sorry to break it to you, anarchists are still the minority. If you disagree with this then tell me why the state hasn’t crumbled under it’s own weight.
And for all practical purposes complacency regarding the state might as well be consent.
How on earth is a situation in which one party is clearly in a position of authority or superiority egalitarian? You’re twisting words. Double plus ungood.
Either they’re universal, with certain conditions. Or they’re not universal because they don’t grant rights to animals. Unless you think dogs are capable of rational argumentation and can be brought within the division of labour? Wouldn’t suprise me.
They’re not capable of it amongst themselves, there’s no linguistic barriers there. But I c ould just as easily say we don’t know that dogs are not capable of it. After all, there is a language barrier.
And yet if they have no idea of the concept of property they cannot possess it. Once again, like animals.
Some Indian tribes did have a concept of property rights. That doesn’t mean all primitives did.
If it doesn’t belong to anybody and nobody can prove their ownership, it’s up for grabs.
The truth of the matter is this: there are people who cannot be brought within the division of labour and peaceful exchange. As such, they must be removed from society. If they continue to violate property rights, they must be dealt with. Stop defending people whose existance is not compatible with property rights, just because they have dark skin. Stop letting your white guilt get in the way of your reason.
Racism :
A belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
The prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races
Oh god. Inequality, how horrible.
(It’s natural, by the way)