So Rothbard is okay with taking government money?

Economics Economics Questions
,
101

A follow up on my last post. This is a personal observation and tainted by bias, but it seems to me that people who play the “What if?” game are generally trying to avoid a conclusion, rather than challenge a premise. It’s a clever sort of rhetoric, if one continues to ask questions, one doesn’t have to establish a position.

Do you feel that I am playing a “what if” game? I thought my position on the matter was fairly clear that stealing from the state expediates it’s collapse which thereby expediates the formation of a superior (e.g.: more efficient, optimal, faster technological growth, higher average qualtiy of life) system.

I also felt that my argument against your position did not contain any “what if” scenarios, it was all based on what currently exists (i.e.: reality).

102

DD5, you’re back to trying to solve a bunch of problems, including ones that cannot be solved at all, and thus rendering any solution impossible.

That’s not the argument I am pushing, and you know that. I am becoming tired of you restating an argument I have no interest in having with you.

Me: This is a dog.

You: Yeah, but it is not a cat. That dog doesn’t represent all pets.

Me: I wasn’t talking about all pets or cats. I just said this is a dog.

You: Sure, but it isn’t the appropriate symbol of a pet, because it isn’t like other types of pets, and it can’t function as a pet for everyone.

Me: …

103

If the shoe fits … If not …

Which is opinion and nothing more. I would argue that you can’t steal from the state, the state doesn’t own anything. When you take from the state, you take from the people it loots. The state owns nothing and creates nothing. And any notion that screwing everyone over to collapse the state to replace it with something else sounds like science fiction. It sounds like Marxism. People have to want to withdraw consent because they see the state for what it is. They aren’t going to dissolve the state when it collapses and replace it with something better. This has never (to my knowledge) happened in human history. Not to mention what it says about so-called libertarians who would become net tax consumers to achieve a libertarian society, and the sorts of perverse incentives they are trying to utilize.

Arguing about reality again. Yawn.

104

Please do that. I didn’t find anything worth replying to in the rest of this post.

105

@liberty student

Just because you are intimately familiar with the List of fallacies doesn’t mean you should use them to argue your point.

Which is opinion and nothing more.

Agreed.

I would argue that you can’t steal from the state, the state doesn’t own anything.

A reasonable statement.

The state owns nothing and creates nothing.

Also a reasonable statement.

And any notion that screwing everyone over to collapse the state to replace it with something else sounds like science fiction.

This point needs to be argued more, with logic and not appeal to ridicule.

It sounds like Marxism.

You will need to back this up with something. As it stands it is an Incomplete comparison.

People have to want to withdraw consent because they see the state for what it is. They aren’t going to dissolve the state when it collapses and replace it with something better.

A point worth arguing. My position is based on the assumption that a collapse will allow people to see the state for what it is (a failure). However, this is obviously an opinion and one worth debating.

This has never (to my knowledge) happened in human history.

Appeal to tradition.

Not to mention what it says about so-called libertarians who would become net tax consumers to achieve a libertarian society, and the sorts of perverse incentives they are trying to utilize.

Red herring and tu quoque.

Arguing about reality again. Yawn.

Appeal to ridicule.

I didn’t find anything worth replying to in the rest of this post.

Appeal to ridicule.

106

I don’t think it’s the argument you’re pushing. It is an argument pushed by one or two others here who think that it can be reconciled with your position. The intention was to show that those two positions are not compatible.

107

At least, from when, and where, I entered the discussion that was exactly the argument that was being pushed. Hence my response. I think you were/are looking for something to latch onto.

108

The following [below] isn’t an argument but a personal opinion:

It is true, to milk the State to death is a silly idea. However, everyone must simply do what he can. Nothing more.

Even the die hard libertarian who has been taxed to his teeth all his life, and who refuses Social Security entitlement, must get on the government road and shower in government supplied water. Nobody can live off the grid completely and neither is it desirable since that would mean ineffective libertarians due to them being totally disconnected from society.

109

Why don’t you read more carefully what I responded to. LS said it was not the argument he was pushing. I agreed!

So what are you now.., disagreeing with LS about what he says he was not pushing?

110

Perhaps we are approaching this problem from the wrong end. So far a lot of the discussion seems to be centered around arguments stating that milking the state is good (and why it’s good) and the counter arguments are simply refuting the logic of the original arguments.

What is the argument for the position that milking the state is bad? What negative effects will milking the government have? Who will be hurt by this? How do the effects add together?

I can see some validity to the argument that milking the state doesn’t have a net positive effect, but that doesn’t mean that milking the state necessarily has a detrimental effect on society, the economy, etc. It could be net equal, or it could still be net positive (but minorly so).

111

See, I’m not one of these folk. I think everyone has to answer their conscience. I don’t believe in movement libertarianism and I don’t think that libertarians are supposed to be “effective” as though they were soldiers in a war.

No one HAS to get on government roads or use government water. It is a choice we make. Yes, the alternative is pretty bad, but there are alternatives. We always have choices. Our choices reflect our value scales. The state distorts our value scales, and buying into the idea of the corrupted libertarian who got a public school education is not only self-defeating, I have seen it lead to misery and a loss of joy for this world.

I personally, won’t let the state take that from me. The consequences of statism are a lot bigger than compromising my radicalism by limiting my travel vectors.

112

I’m not arguing with you. You haven’t made an argument yet.

I don’t need to back it up. You need to understand Marxism.

If you’re going to accuse me of logical fallacies, learn to identify them. Talking about history doesn’t mean I made an appeal to tradition.

Please, take the logician training wheels off before you’re ready to go around the block with me.

Again, learn logic before you accuse me of fallacies.

And more of the same …

113

I’m not arguing with you. You haven’t made an argument yet.

I disagree. I provided an argument here, as defined by Wikipedia (if you would prefer a different source for the definition of an argument I am open to suggestions): https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/so-rothbard-is-okay-with-taking-government-money/17809/95

You proceeded to choose to abstain from arguing against me as stated in your reply, “I am not making an argument based on this distinction.” Please note that in your reply you did not refuted the logic of my premises nor the logic of my conclusion. You simply abstained from countering my argument and instead chose to claim that my argument as a whole was not an argument at all (even though it clearly meets the definition of a deductive argument).

After abstaining from arguing against my argument you proceeded to supply a conclusion against my word choice (not against the logic of my argument) without any premise to back it up in what seems to be an attempt at a counter argument, “The ‘effective’ […] argument is not an argument.”

You proceeded to follow it up with a statement that again contains a conclusion without a premise, “In fact, it’s an attempt at an emotional appeal or confusion resulting from haphazardously applying a reductio.” Not to mention your attempt at claiming my use of reductio, a perfectly valid form of argument, was somehow invalid (again, without any supporting premises).

So, I have clearly made an argument as commonly defined and you have chosen to abstain from arguing against it ether by arguing against my premises, arguing against my conclusion, or arguing against a logical fallacy I have made. None of your responses to me following that have addressed my argument as put forth in the above link (though one of them did bring up a potentially good argument point related to the original topic, even though it was not directly related to my argument about effective title vs technical title).

Now, let’s assume that you are in agreement with my argument that state wealth effectively has no title (I can only assume since you chose to abstain from arguing the point). Then we will fall back to my previous argument at https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/so-rothbard-is-okay-with-taking-government-money/17809. Now we can go back to the one valid point you had that I mentioned above, “People have to want to withdraw consent because they see the state for what it is. They aren’t going to dissolve the state when it collapses and replace it with something better.” And look, we have a debate (two inductive arguments)! I’m glad all your red herrings throughout the intervening 5 pages bought you enough time to come up with an argument. :slight_smile: I postulate that collapse expedites migration to anarchy and you postulate that collapse does not expedite migration to anarchy. From here it seems that both of us should put forth any premises we may have in order to support our conclusions and try to figure out which circumstance is most likely.

I can see some validity in your induction that collapse may not encourage people to drift toward anarchy, so let us instead address the original discussion from another angle, as put forth here: https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/so-rothbard-is-okay-with-taking-government-money/17809

From here I am going to show you how you are committing several fallacies in this discussion. I have seen you use this particular red herring in many of your other posts and it seems that a “taste of your own medicine” is warranted (and somewhat enjoyable for me). I fully admit ahead of time that this is a sort of red herring in itself (as I just stated in the previous sentence), though contrary to the definition of a red herring my hope is that the primary argument can stay on track despite the following.

I don’t need to back it up. You need to understand Marxism.

Demanding negative proof.

If you’re going to accuse me of logical fallacies, learn to identify them. Talking about history doesn’t mean I made an appeal to tradition.

As usual, I am going to use the Wikipedia definition of the appeal to tradition here, if you prefer another source please let me know. “The appeal takes the form of “this is right because we’ve always done it this way.”” Your argument rests on the supposition that because something occurred in the past it will therefore always occur in the future. The appeal to tradition best fits the bill of using history in place of logic in an argument. That being said, I can see how the fallacy doesn’t fit perfectly and perhaps there is a better one that you could suggest (you know them better than I). None the less, your argument is still a fallacy since just because something has not yet occurred doesn’t mean it can not occur. A simple example is claiming that no human can circumnavigate the globe because no human has circumnavigated the globe (pre Magellan).

Please, take the logician training wheels off before you’re ready to go around the block with me.

I have to learn to use these $5 fallacy words somewhere and you are a really easy target.

Again, learn logic before you accuse me of fallacies.

Ad hominem. And entirely unrelated to the quote above it, “Red herring and tu quoque.”

And more of the same …

This one is a special kind of recursive fallacy where you respond to a claim of appeal to ridicule with none other than another appeal to ridicule! This particular one made me smile.

114

I don’t consider taking money from the state to be stealing. I have never voted in my life, so you can’t say that I appointed them to steal in my name. I have never in my life pointed at the state and said - this is solution to our problems, so you can’t say that I endorse or endorsed state as necessary.

Everything non-consensual is bad. But I don’t see how taking money from the state is non-consensual. If you have a problem with me taking money from the state, maybe you should not give it any from the very beginning? Then you will say - a-ha, but when I do that they will put me in a cage. Then I say - then you have no quarrel with me but with the state and its supporters. I’m taking advantage of the state - i’m not supporting it ( in any voluntary way anyway).

I did not?

I don’t think banksters or anyone for that matter that is using the state to their advantage is doing anything wrong. If you want to blame anyone blame people that believe state is necessary and that they uphold it.

115

Let my try again.

I’m using the state because I have no choice. It’s a violent monopoly by definition on many things. When I have never voted and never endorsed state in my life how can you say such things?

So using the roads is not theft but using social security is? How so? IMO theft is done on a state level and some form of crime might be committed when you support state voluntarily so it can do that. But that is just my opinion. I don’t support the state in any voluntary way. I don’t consider taking from the state as supporting it (in fact I consider it a good way to show how inneficient and fraudulent it is when it bankrupts).

116

Micah, I skimmed your latest post, and you’re still misusing logical fallacies, not to mention, it’s simply too long to read.

117

I got this impression from this post of yours

You claim to take from government as much as you can. But we both know government owns nothing. You’re simply help increase the misery on others, using the government as the intermediary. A austro-libertarian understanding of state power understands that the government will change when the people change, however instead of educating your fellow man, you are trying to reduce his prosperity.

My point, is that if you are an ancap, and if you believe that non-aggression is the best way to order a society, then this seems counter-productive to that position. It seems to me that you might want to change the state through market action as that would be consistent with ancap.

118

I went back, and re-read things 3 times. On all 3 occasions I came to 3 different realizations due to poor communication and bad useage of the quoting system. I have finally come to the conclusion that you were indeed directing your response at LS. Which normally imply’s some type of expectation that LS is responsible for respnding. What confuses me is as follows.

Given the way your directing these questions @ LS, when it’s not his position, I think it’s fair to state that your easily misunderstood here. In fact LS had to clarify.

LS is not responsible for defending the positions of others.

So instead of getting all bent out of shape with me take some healthy criticism. Consider improving the structure of your responses so as to better follow your points. If your issue is with one or two others here(Who?) who think they can reconcile their position with LS, then make it clear that your addressing them.

The method you used above made it seem like you were addressing LS. And to be frank, I am still confused as to what you are trying to accomplish.

119

However it is equally fallacious to imply that it is yours to take. Some of it is yours to be sure, but you need to find that out(Hence the prior discussion). Just ad-hoc exploiting the state for self benefit isn’t necessarily a way of getting back what was rightfully yours. It’s more likely that your geting a portion of someone else’s share, and your perpetuating and justifying the state in the process.

That’s true in a strictly technical sense, but it overlooks the practical impossibility. Take, for example, driving on government highways. It’s possible that some drive on them more than they pay in taxes, while others less so. Those who drive more are being subsidized by other taxpayers, i.e. unjustly using other peoples money. The problem is we don’t know when use begins to exceed payment because distance driven on a road is not a direct cost for anyone; there are no prices. Likewise, we do not know how much I am justified in taking from the government in general because there are no market prices for government services/goods. Practically speaking, we have to treat government resources as unowned. That is, once the government takes the citizens money, it is no longer possible to identify a just owner, so it is better that someone other than the government, especially a libertarian, have the money. All this does is make the best of a bad situation, practically speaking.

120

You’re simply help increase the misery on others, using the government as the intermediary.

This assumes that the government will take less if a minority (the anarchists) of the people it rules over demand less of it. I believe that the government will take as much as it is able to, regardless of how much is asked for by people looking for handouts. That is, if 100,000 people stop accepting handouts I do not believe this will influence the amount of money the state demands from the population in any way.

A austro-libertarian understanding of state power understands that the government will change when the people change, however instead of educating your fellow man, you are trying to reduce his prosperity.

This assumes that accepting a handout results in one educating his fellow man less. If I accept handouts from the government this gives me more resources with which to educate my fellow man, not less. If you are appealing to the concept “teach by example”, this only applies if those around me know about my acceptance of handouts. If I accept the handouts silently I can still educate people about the flaws of the state.

if you are an ancap, and if you believe that non-aggression is the best way to order a society, then this seems counter-productive to that position.

This conclusion relies on the previous premises and because I don’t agree with the premises (as shown above) I similarly don’t agree with the conclusion. I am arguing that accepting handouts has no effect on how society is ordered and I see it the same as I see mining for gold, running a solar panel or claiming any other kind of previously unclaimed property.

It seems to me that you might want to change the state through market action as that would be consistent with ancap.

I agree that changing the state through education and market action is ideal.