So you’ll only debate those who already agree with you. Cool.
"Keep digging that hole."
Your constant dodges of actually engaging in a discussion by putting forward your views and trying to defend them - reeks of cowardice.
If you’re going to bother to post, how about you “man up” - did you in fact write a blog post after you came here & made a thread requesting sources on STV? How about you go back to that thread and post your “findings”?
So he’s demeaned us capitalists to animals who cannot speak languages. Arrogance like this appalling.
Obviously he can talk crap, but we cannot talk to him.
You know you wouldn’t be the only leftist to post here if you start a discussion. There are some frequent posters here who aren’t capitalist. Like our friend Epicurus, what a well mannered poster.
Oh man, that would be really entertaining.
“but the other way around”
It happens, they normally just fall for silly “exploitation, wage slavery!” arguments.
No, many people are familiar with basic objective value theories, though they tend to conflate them all. Here are the basic ways to deal with objective theories of value:
Objective theories of value are usually deduced from an incorrect premise, namely that everything stems from labor. They ignore the indubitable fact that the factors of production are independently barren (they are co-dependent). In other words, labor produces nothing without nature and capital, and capital produces nothing without nature and labor. The exaltation of labor, therefore, is entirely arbitrary (they may as well say that value comes from the fruitfulness of nature or human ingenuity; all would be equally incorrect). Of course, you can take the easy route and just show that objective theories of value cannot be empirically substantiated (capital intensive goods, which use less labor during the process of production, usually, if not always, demand higher market prices relative to labor intensive goods, and physically identical goods often demand different market prices).
Another common objection to OTV, is that simply producing a product doesn’t mean that it will demand a market price, and that individuals don’t care about the degree of labor that was used in the process of production (which is why most of them use Marx’s version of the LTV, which, ironically enough, doesn’t even attempt to explain price formation within the market, and conflates value with market processes and competition). But the biggest problem is that supporters of objective theories of value merely confuse causality.
From the blog on property rights:
The contract is not valid… The child never agreed to it. However, the landlord never agreed to house the child either, so there is no “consensual” resolution to this problem. So Libertarians appeal to property rights, say that the landlord has no duty to house the child, and so he may do the bare minimum necessary to evict.
On moral grounds, being born doesn’t give me the right to attack other people to get what I want/need.
On utilitarian grounds, it should be obvious that if being born gave you positive rights, I could just sneak into your house, have a baby there, and then you have to deal with it. In short, it rewards reckless behavior. It also discourages entrepreneurship, since property owners are now having their capital siphoned off by this positive right, impacting their ability to provide services to other members of society, like tenants.
Whats more is that this parable does not even demonstrate a case against all property rights, only property rights when they have certain outcomes. So you still haven’t demonstrated that farmer john doesn’t “own” his crops, or that I shouldn’t be able to trade my pizza for john’s hamburger.
So basically this argument against property rights presupposes that the child has property rights to the apartment… Way to disprove property rights! You’re only pointing out that “hey, libertarians believe in X! well what if Bob’s X and Jill’s X come into conflict? ZOMG PHILOSOPHY DESTROYED”. But all rights can come into conflict, so you either don’t believe in any rights at all, or don’t believe in anything that might conflict with itself, which probably means your political philosophy should be invalidated as well.
So, there’s the historical distinction that the landowner had homesteaded or traded for his real estate, while the government basically came and killed a ton of indians and abridged the property rights of every american. Not very libertarian… The landlord also cannot FORCE the child to stay in the tenement against his will, and can only do the bare minimum to evict him. Your entire argument proceeded without making the distinction between aggression and coercion, which is pretty crazy because the NAP is the foundation of libertarianism.
So what can the land-lord own? (By the way, SERIOUS libertarians don’t think you can own land. You can only own use of resources via homesteading or title transfer) Can he own himself at least? What if the lady had a contract with the baker, doctor, and auto mechanic? Do all these contracts automatically pass to the child? If so, does the child not have to pay for them? This is absurd.
Leftists often make fun of libertarians because they think there’s a leap-in-logic from using something to excluding others from it. This possession theory is even more ludicrous because it supposes there is a metaphysical link between parents and their children by making an argument from emotion. Fail…
To save some time and energy for those who might listen, Tremblay is a troll even on his own blog who prefers to insult others and repeat himself rather than address the arguments, even when dealing with those who are sympathetic to his position or at least not hardcore anarcho-capitalists. He’s not someone worth talking to if you’re interested in productive conversations. He might be someone worth sharpening your arguments on, or he might be worth debunking in order to protect the intellectually unarmed, but nothing like a productive dialogue will result.
Some people, however, seem to enjoy arguing for its own sake, and to those of you, well, have fun.
Actually, the entry on STV that I wrote after coming here will be published on the 15th (I write entries in advance, which is why there was a long delay). I hope you’ll like it, but probably not. To be honest, it is tedious to have to remind you again and again that one of the most fundamental features of your worldview is so hopelessly wrong, and I am not planning to write more on this topic afterwards.
I am not here to be “well mannered.” I do not associate with Misesians. The only reason I came here was to laugh at your reactions about an entry I published more than a year and a half ago. I’ve written plenty since against "ancap"ism and capitalist pseudo-economics, but it seems this is the only thing that has attracted your attention. But what should I expect, right?
“So you’ll only debate those who already agree with you. Cool.”
Actually, I have debated capitalists before on my blog (in fact just recently I posted a criticism of a pamphlet against LTV from the International Society for Individual Liberty, a right-wing organization), so even on that count you’d be wrong. But in general, I debate people who are sincere seekers for the truth. There is no truth in Misesian "ancap"ism: it is a vacuous ideology. I know, I was one, and I’m quite ashamed I fell for it. Fortunately, I woke up eventually.
Francois, what’s the biggest difference between the Austrian School of Economics and every other school?
How many words do you think you’ve written on your blog overall?
Cool, thanks for stopping by.
Can you just quickly answer these questions, since our theory of value is so “hopelessly wong.”
- Why is a 500 dollar bill freely exchanged for large plasma screen tvs? The former clearly requires more labor for its production.
- Why does the price of a bottle of wine appreciate over time?
- Why do physically identical goods often demand different market prices, even within close geographical areas? For example, why does a bottle of beer cost so much more at a NYC night club than it does at the local gas station, even though they were produced in the very same factory with the very same production methods?
- Can you explain to me why capital intensive goods often, if not always, demand higher market prices relative to labor intensive goods?
- Are the factors of production independently barren, or can capital, nature, and labor produce things on their own?
If you cannot answer all of my questions then I will consider it to be a concession, and must ask you to go back to your blog and apologize for regurgitating complete nonsense to all of your clueless readers.
One more question.
Francois Tremblay; do you still believe the things you wrote in your book ‘but who will build the roads?’ or is that from before your recent conversion?
So you’re not going to defend your critique of property rights?
You should post a link to this thread on your blog so your readers can see how you deal with criticism.
Good questions. 
My favorite tends to go along these lines:
Are things produced because people find these things valuable? Or are things valuable because they have been produced?
I think a lot of the quotes are a little misguided and some are pretty terrible things to say (although who knows if the posters really took those views or were just being antagonistic for the sake of it.) But some of them don’t look all that wrong to me.
“There’s a good reason the poor are poor, they’re less intelligent than the wealthy.”
This, for example, seems pretty reasonable to me. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen correlations (yes, I know that doesn’t mean much, but it does suggest some relation) between income and intelligence. In fact, it seems pretty obvious that those with higher IQs will pursue more education, build more human capital and simply be more productive, all the more so in the modern economy.
A very quick look on Google Scholar already suggested this:
And again,
It’s necessary to remove bad elements from a movement. Which is exactly what the libertarian movement should be doing to non Austrians and the likes of Molyneux. Lenin was exactly right in this regard.
I’m not so sure about non Austrians, but I think libertarians should be a lot more careful about who they associate themselves with. Nuts like Molyneux and the teabaggers are only going to give libertarians (many of whom are entirely reasonable) a bad rep.
As such, it follows that legitimacy is derived from the claim that the government can help the poor. The poor buy into this as a result of moral and intellectual weakness
Once again, I wouldn’t put it like this and I think it’s stated a little forcefully as it is. But, there’s certainly some truth in the idea that morality and norms can have political impacts. In days bygone and in some cultures and subcultures the idea of accepting government aid is frowned upon and those that do accept aid are shunned. That said, in most places accepting government aid is just a rational response to the incentives facing most people (whether it be rich or poor who accept said aid).
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no anarcho capitalist. But if libertarian anarchism is unrealistic, left anarchism is a dream, presumably thought up during the economics classes these kids definitely slept though.
But in general, I debate people who are sincere seekers for the truth. There is no truth in Misesian "ancap"ism: it is a vacuous ideology. I know, I was one, and I’m quite ashamed I fell for it. Fortunately, I woke up eventually.
I can imagine that you could write a good paper about this. I imagine a title and abstract along the lines of
I’m pretty sure the paper would be a huge hit, definitely landing you tenure at a top university. Theoretically rigorous and empirically clever, all one can ask for really…
-
Any quotes are not representative of the Mises crowd or even an-caps as a whole.
-
I don’t completely agree with Francois or even agree with him on much but I think sometimes embarrassing things are said on here.I’ve noticed it for a while.Examples are knee jerk opposition to environmentalism and knee jerk pro-corporation bias.
-
It’s true enough not all commenters here are libertarian.
Now I’d like to comment on the quotes.
“There’s a good reason the poor are poor, they’re less intelligent than the wealthy.”
I disagree.
ignores causes of poverty:- number 1 being the state,number 2 being the state creating incentives to be poor.
“As such, it follows that legitimacy is derived from the claim that the government can help the poor. The poor buy into this as a result of moral and intellectual weakness.”
to some extent this is true but not just of the poor but of most people.
“Nonetheless we do favour individuals with authority, in the form of a natural elite.”
not in disagreement.
“If the parents wish to use force, then so be it. The child consents by continuing to live off his parents.”
Un-libertarian pure and simple.Sounds more like reactionary conservatism.
“Libertarianism doesn’t support equal negative rights, a child does not have the same rights as an adult.”
As above.This is not a libertarian position.
“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.”
As Above.Sounds more like Ayn Rand than a well read LVM libertarian.
“These people (tribal or less developed cultures) simply aren’t capable of rational argumentation, and therefore have no rights, whether this is biological or cultural makes no differences.”
same as above.
“The fact is they often cannot be brought within the division 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 free to be homesteaded.”
same as above.Way to support statism.
“People incapable of moral choice must either abide by the decisions of those who are or they must be removed from free society.”
Who exactly is incapable of moral choice?
“Against people who have no law, the initiation of force is fully justified.”
Agree but with the qualification that only IF they commit Aggression against innocent persons or their property.
“It was not wrong for the spanish to overthrow an empire that literally fed on its slaves in religious rituals and replace it with its much milder form of serfdom.”
Not wrong but Disagree with the spirit of this.It’s not either/or.Both were oppressive.
“Childish rejection of a natural order and authority isn’t the opposite to subservience. It’s a bad trait that needs to be kept down until the youth have matured sufficiently.”
To some extent this is true.However this should not be taken to mean blin obedience to authority which is the staple of reactionary conservatism even extreme cultural conservatism.
“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.”
Not must but might and that’s not to say a private ruler will be just.
“Anarcho capitalism and anarchism are synonomous. Anything that can’t be subsumed under anarcho capitalism, is internally inconsistant, and needs to be thrown out.”
Disagree.
“So long as government commands a monopoly over all land, the closed border position is defensible.”
Again Unlibertarian.I don’t think this is a hard topic really.Closed borders violates freedom of association.Open borders does not.though other laws do.
“It is only reasonable to expect the state to fulfill its duties as a land owner.”
???why? you could say the same about it’s ‘duty’ to the third world.
“The only system that would have no borders would be a world government.”
doubt it.
“Seeing as towns would be owned by single entrepreneurs…”
-
I hope this never comes about.
-
This is so unlikely to occur due to competition and how long it would take to homestead a whole town.
“Why wouldn’t people sell their land to a single entrepreneur? The have no interest in owning land, only in being able to lease it from some owner.”
???
“There’s nothing new about left-libertarians. They are still the same anti-capitalist who hated big business when Lenin promised to keep control of the commanding heights of the economy.”
-
Conflating state communism and left-libertarianism is a straw man.
-
Left-libs oppose corporations because they are state privileged not because of leninist/marxist/communist reasons generally.
-
this is typical of knee jerk opposition to left-libs.
“Anybody can benefit from the state and anybody can become a part of it.”
true.
“It’s necessary to remove bad elements from a movement. Which is exactly what the libertarian movement should be doing to non Austrians and the likes of Molyneux. Lenin was exactly right in this regard.”
Remove? not sure.Denounce yes.
“Opposition to the family and church sounds somewhat Marxist to me, any libertarian society will be founded upon those two institutions so in a sense yes, one does need to be a cultural conservative to be a libertarian.”
-
well opposition to church and family is to be fair.
-
Cultural conservatism = libertarian and vice versa does not follow.
“The state by it’s very nature is egalitarian in the widest sense of the word.”
So absurd.
What is egalitarian about one group claiming the right to control everyone else? or steal and ban everyone else doing it?
“The only unifying principle of a secular, multicultural society is the democratic state.”
Not sure what this is supposed to mean.
I assume they are implying secular/multicultural societies would be divided minus the state.
Does not follow.Sounds reactionary again.
“Feudalism is actually an entirely appropriate model for anarchist society, and my prediction is it’s coming whether the anarchists like it or not.”
“A system of feudal holdings all competing with each other for human and fiscal capital stacks up pretty good against a system whereby the parasitic majority lives off the productive minority.”
comments like /\ make me embarrassed to be libertarian.
- Why is a 500 dollar bill freely exchanged for large plasma screen tvs? The former clearly requires more labor for its production.
Apparently Misesians do not understand the concept of currency. Weird.
This super-naive approach doesn’t even make sense for STV though… why would people demand little green pieces of paper so much unless they were currency? Well, I can’t expect a Misesian to be coherent.
- Why does the price of a bottle of wine appreciate over time?
Apparently Misesians don’t understand the cost of storing something, or the concept of use value either. Which is kinda weird, because the latter is what they always talk about. Maybe the brain of the Misesian is compartimentalized.
- Why do physically identical goods often demand different market prices, even within close geographical areas? For example, why does a bottle of beer cost so much more at a NYC night club than it does at the local gas station, even though they were produced in the very same factory with the very same production methods?
Apparently Misesians don’t understand power relations and profit-seeking either. Funny, you’d think that would be the one area they’d be the most conversent in, but go figure.
Yep, this is about the level of discourse of Misesians. Actually, it’s a little higher, since you didn’t bring up the mudpile argument. Good job.
No one can be that dumb.
Because asking questions in order to expose absurdities is evidence of a lack of understanding.
Good one. Do come again.