^good response… good
You would have all the same possessions and stuff if you had never read his work. The same is true for me an the literature I have read, but I do not say “it works” for me.
Unless by “works for me” you mean the same way that christian nihilists do. They mean that christianity allows them to think and act certain ways that they otherwise wouldn’t be able to. They could care less about whether their ideas actually hold water.
What I mean is that Machiavelli’s teachings help me understand things in a way that tends to be functionally useful. Whether they “hold water or not” is a question of practice. Much like the techniques of jiu jitsu can be shown to work and I can use my fighting knowledge to understand a fight so too can I use the lessons I’ve learned from Machiavelli to understand how people and politics and by extension the state works. I don’t discard a certain set of tools if they prove to be useful.
When have you ever had to use Machiavelli to do anything. As far as I know, you’re not a congressman or senator.
What piece of light are we missing? Granted some anarchists flame, but Roderick T Long seems to understand how government functions.
Most libertarian accounts of governments seem to assume that political actors are either evil or completely opportunistic. I think the former is quite a ridiculous assumption, refuted by most casual empiricism, and the latter is only a half truth. Granted, incentives may account for some political behaviour, but in my opinion any explanation of politics also has to include hubris and ignorance.
We define coercion to mean aggression, or violence against innocent people. We have no problem using force against aggressors, but we don’t call it coercion.
As far as I’m aware, you’re in the minority here, most LvMI-libertarians would define coercion as the use of physical force and use aggression where you mean coercion. Either way, my point holds, rather than providing substantive argumentation for your point you’re arguing by definition. What you’re saying is that when somebody coerces another one they’re reneging on an obligation to respect that individuals property or liberty. Well, that’s fine, but I would say that people have other obligations, and that when I use physical force against them I’m merely enforcing these obligations.
I’m not necessarily saying that you’re wrong, perhaps you can find some justifications for your conception of coercion. I’m just saying that the approaches of Rothbard, Hoppe et al don’t really make the case.
Why? We do not advocate all possible anarchies, surely as you do not advocate all possible governments.
Well, I think government is necessary for certain functions. So, presumably by definition that would lead me to find anarchism wanting. But to answer your point, I know you don’t want “all possible anarchies”. But just as the supporter of government should have to answer the question “how can you be sure that your government doesn’t turn into leviathan”, the proponent of anarchism should have to answer the question of how he can be sure that his particularly form of anarchism would prevail.
Understand people, understand political events, etc.
What do you use economics for are you a professional economist?
Why do you think it is a half truth? It should be obvious that in a monarchy, the king’s decisions are guided by his self interest; in a democracy, the same can be said for the majority. I agree that any economic ignorance will hinder their efforts, but it isn’t a necessary condition for the phenomena we see today.
Im not trying to say you’re wrong because you’re not using words the way we do, I was just kind of taken aback that someone with so much history on the mises.org forums would make that mistake.
.
I doubt this. I know that Block, Hoppe, Rothbard, Kinsella, Long, etc etc all use coercion in this way. I actually don’t know of any instances on this site where i’ve seen self defense and aggression conflated as both “coercion”
Really? I could have sworn they made that kind of distinction. It was one of the first things people berrated me about when I joined these forums. I’d look up an example but I’m on a tiny laptop atm and its difficult enough to type these responses. We can return to it later if it becomes an issue though.
Well right now the state prevails. We claim there’s been some sort of intellectual or moral failure of society. I don’t think anarchism can persist if people think that protection rackets are legitimate, because then if one arose nobody would fight it. Conversely, I don’t think statism can prevail if people think there’s a more efficient or just alternative.
There are other considerations, but I think the problem is largely idealogical. The world could be full of people who want to subjugate their fellow man, but so long as people oppose their slavemasters, there’s hope for liberty. There are some game theory objections answered here that I won’t go into. It depends what your particular objections to anarchism.
How practical. You might have thought something about the government, but now you think something else. Dude’s still president.
No. But I don’t think my studies “work” or are “useful” to my life right now. They may become useful if I ever decide to become politically involved. And the state’s lifeblood is essentially idealogical, so if I can help educate other people, there’s a chance that my actions might have some impact on some policies sometime. Its a slim chance, but the rewards are manifold.
I study because I love knowledge. I have to know if a certain policy is going to help or hurt the economy, even if I can’t do anything about it. Maybe its irrational, but thats just how i’m wired.
So when you go out and shop for things, you don’t utilize your economic knowledge to discern between different choices, products, etc?
**
My knowledge of fractional reserve banking plays very little role in which loaf of bread I buy.
So you’re saying there’s no practical application for economic knowledge in everyday life?
I don’t know if you want to be that black and white about it. Man is always involved in some kind of economic action, but what I’m saying is that the kind of stuff I study and am interested in on mises.org doesn’t help me day to day.
This is just typical bloom. He’s changed the conversation from something about him (he thought that Machiavelli was useful day to day), and now we’re debating about whether I think what I’m interested is useful day2day, even though I’ve already said I don’t think it is. Can’t really work out why he’s hammering on this beyond trying to draw focus away from exposing his inconsistencies. shrug
Uh you faulted my support for Machiavelli because I said it was practical and how the knowledge in the Prince has served me well?
Are you feigning confusion/amnesia just to irritate me? Scroll up.
I don’t even know what you’re trying to say here tbh.
You: “I like machiavelli because it helps me be practical”
Me: “You don’t ever use it in real life. Therefore, it is not practical”
But I do use it in real life. I use it when I talk to people, when I read the news, when I interpret political events when I plan for the future.
But your interpretation and ideas about the world have no significant impact on them. Just like mine don’t.
Beyond not keeping your money in dollars, and possibly fleeing the country if it becomes to oppressive, I don’t know what you can do. You’re not a policy maker.
God, the Prince isn’t just about public policy. It can interpreted that way but when I read it, I see advice on how to live one’s life. Never be too good or too bad. If you can, be loved or feared but avoid hatred. Don’t trust mercenaries etc. It’s all good advice.
sigh if you find it that compelling go for it.
Its just that the Prince has so many power-problems to deal with, while in our day to day lives there’s no real power struggle, or at least nothing you can do about it. Even if it is good advice, it won’t make very much difference in anyone’s life. Although I hope your ju jitsu lessons pay off.
Jiu Jitsu is also about strategy. Same ideas.
And I see a power struggle every day.