I’m not in the mood. Go find someone else to play semantic emotional games with Juan.
Translation : you know that your argument “it’s OK – everybody does it” is rubbish.
Translation: I think someone has hacked my server, and you’re a big time waster. If I have to come back later and own you again (for what will be what, the 1,000th time?) I’ll do so. Your mindless, meandering arguments are self-serving, and ultimately, pointless. Right now, I don’t have the time to indulge your intellectual and emotional immaturity.
I think that the morality and the logistics of this event aren’t very problematic. Some will denounce me for stupidity but I believe that if A asks B to steal for A then only A is responsible for theft and that C who works (as an employee without any connection to lobbying) for A is alright as is D who shops at A’s store. Truly the entrepreneurs who steal from people are probably limited to a handful. Does anyone else think this?
Its a contextual question. If it can be proved, in a free-market court, that their wealth is the result of an act of aggression, then it would be justifiable to claim it as restitution. I’m pretty sure that Rothbard discusses it somewhere (I’ll post a link later if I find where). I think that such a “redistribution” is actually essential to the success of a free society; without it, removing the state still leaves us with the corporate/plutocratic element of the ruling class intact and still in positions of power.
If the business was actively working with the government in establishing a monopoly (and it wasn’t simply the outcome of the government’s policy) I dont see how you could say the business has legitimate ownership of it’s wealth.
How could it be fairly redistributed though?
Cheers. A link would be great.
That’s a good point…
and who would do the redistributing?
First, this was never my argument. I suggest you take a course in comprehension. My point is, everyone does it, everyone is guilty. You can’t kick and scream like a little baby about the evil Walmart, while you buy your diapers and formula from them because it is on sale.
Principle and integrity count for something. If you hate big business, boycott them. There’s nothing worse than a hypocrite.
Why is this any different than Walmart? Walmart sells guns. It sells chemicals. It sells propaganda. You may feel a military contractor or arms dealer has less value than the person who provides your diapers, but in my society, we like our baby bottoms covered, and our rifles loaded. We like our PDA, and their competitor.
You’re trying to create false arguments based on emotion. The only question is, if the state benefits a business (intended or unintended) then if you use that business as a consumer, or a supplier to profit yourself (exchange) are you also receiving the benefit of state intervention?
Instead of singling out one business or one industry, maybe you could work on an idea or philosophy that could be applied consistently. Because that is the failing of left and right ideologies. What they believe only works some of the time. It’s my belief that libertarians strive for more than that.
Everyone does what ? Lobby the government for privileges ?
Let’s see. There are places where phone companies are ‘private’ territorial monopolies. Do you think that people who choose to be customers of the phone company are as guilty as the owners who profit from their ‘legal’ privilege ? What crime have the consumers committed exactly ?
Are you asking why the military and its contractors, which are 100% funded by taxes and whose job is killing people, are any different than Walmart ? Are you serious ?
Do you mind showing how that applies to consumers using state granted monopolies ? (hint : it doesn’t).
What is inconsistent about pointing out that people who didn’t acquire their property by voluntary exchange don’t really own it ?
Thank you.
Thanks indeed. I disagree with the article, it seems to be more radical propaganda from Rothbard that glosses over the individual steps needed to make sure it doesn’t become a collectivist exercise. Still, food for thought, and a very nice blog.
I found the FAQ worth reading.
No. Everyone provides support to the system of theft and confiscation, directly or indirectly.
Again, you’re asking me to equalize the crime. That is not my position. Please see previous posts.
Perhaps, accessory?
No. Still struggling with comprehension?
Mostly.
You’re arguing against free will Juan. I have won this discussion every time. No one has a right to a telephone. No one has a right to hydro-electric power. People participate instead of revolt. And it is a conscious decision. They choose to go along with the state rather than resist it.
You should read Wombie’s link above.
Now, I would like to know, what is inconsistent about pointing out that people who make use of stolen services, encourage and create a market/profit for the theft of such goods?
The thing is, you’re dodging the question(you did it twice) because you know you can’t provide a coherent answer.
Are you joking ? I’ve a deal for you : you either do what I tell you, or I’ll shoot you. You are ‘free’ to choose. Oh, and you’re a criminal, just like me. You know, after all, I now realize it’s always the victim’s fault – no victim, no crime – so surely the victim is to blame.
No, you’re trying to use a bogus definition of free will in order to render the concept of coercion meaningless.
Oh, it’s perfectly OK to blame the victims and complain that the honest monopoly ‘entrepreneurs’ are being singled out unfairly.
I’m avoiding answering the question because you are trying to shift the argument. In my mind, the less guilty don’t get to point the finger at the more guilty for the same crime, so it is absolutely irrelevant whether or not they are more, less or the same in guilt. Wrong is not made right by someone else being more wrong.
No. When I make a joke, I will write, “Juan, this is a joke.”
Why are you babbling like an idiot? Are you trying to promote that coercion negates free will? In that case, the state or coercer would always win. No one would ever resist. No revolutions would be staged. Statism and evil has won. Go home and sleep off dreams of liberty.
[8-)]
But how can you call ML a government thug because he was a soldier, then on the other hand claim that he was a victim of the military establishment? Are Haliburton employees victims? KBR stockholders? What about the company that caters to the Boeing employees during their meal breaks? If ostracism is a libertarian way of dealing with the bad and disreputable, why are these people pardoned for providing aid and comfort to the statists, their supporters, their suppliers, their clients and their shareholders?
The problem with making dumb posts, is that if I give you enough rope, you will hang yourself with hypocrisy and contradiction.
Your definitions are narrow because you are pursuing an agenda, not a principle or set of principles.
PS, if you scrunch up your response, I am done discussing. Learn how to make line breaks like the rest of the humans.
So I’m babbling nonsense ? Try to think before writing. You said :
If it is the same crime then there can be no different levels of guilt. Can you understand that ? Same crime, same guilt.
However, forcing a monopoly on customers is not the same thing (or crime) as using the services provided by the monopoly. Of course, your ‘argument’ relies on denying this fact – that’s why you refuse to admit that monopoly owners are not in the same category as monopoly customers.
You still don’t know what coercion means. I suggest you also look up in the dictionary ‘reductio-ad-absurdum’.
When did I ever say that soldiers are victims of the military establishment ? They are thugs and THEY are the military establishment. Taxpayers and the people they kill are the victims. Is that so hard to grasp ?
I don’t know. What do you think is the answer for that question ?
Where’s the dumb post ? All I said is that people who earn money thanks to government privileges or outright theft (taxation) don’t have a legitimate title to it. What’s dumb about that ?
Hypocrisy ? Do you mean I work for Halliburton while I rant against them ? Or maybe I’m a hypocrite because I use public roads and the internet (which I pay for) ?
Learn how to use notepad, copy and paste – it’s not that hard. (the line breaks are missing because of a bug in the forum’s software).
Your mistake is thinking that I have any interest in continuing to pursue another useless, mindless, self-serving debate with you.
You are wrong on that count. Have a nice day.
Morally yes they should. if you can separate their actions and wealth from those unknowingly involved in proxy, I’d be for it on a pure moral plane. Pragmatically not a chance in hell.