Statists and Critical Thinking

[MaikU]

I can understand Stephan, but to me, market has much broader meaning than just economics. It means relationship between humans. State is a part of a market too. But that’s a violent market without principles (except might makes right).

So when a libertarians say that markets can solve anything it means (as I understand, or as I would myself imply) that humans will find the solution somehow, because not finding that could mean.. welll… extinction. And we did pretty damn well for past some millions of years, don’t we? We are here.

[Neodoxy]

@Stephen

Having faith in the market is far more intelligible, especially because of the fact that they understand how the market process works. It makes sense the way that most libertarians have “faith” in the market in the same way that ecologists have faith in photosynthesis. You could say that photosynthesis is the ecologists’ god, but it’s irrelevant because that doesn’t make it any less true, but with most statists they have no idea how it works and it’s meaningless.

Most libertarians do not understand how the market works. They just have faith that it does work. Just as the majority of statists don’t understand how the state works, they just have faith that it does work. In both cases, from the pov of the believer, the institution is some black box with mystical, magical powers.

Whilst I believe that most libertarians are not masters on the market process I do think that the majority of libertarians have a good understanding of how it works, much more so than statists understanding the exact method/reprecussions upon the areas in which it acts. As has been said before people are automatically indoctrinated into statism, with libertarianism one must find some solid arguments before one will adopt.

[JoshE]

I’ve only been on these forums a short time and have noticed quite a few people who articulate their arguments very well.

Being a free Internet forum, there is some noise I suppose. Why on earth would you choose to focus on that when there are gems all about?

[Charles_Anthony]

@MaikU

…is a bad thing. That needs a proof too.

Nothing can be proven to be a bad thing. Good and bad are completely personal preferences.

Part of the statist identity is pretending things or actions are universally good or bad for people.

[DD5]

@Stephen

Btw. Just because property rights do not originate from the market, it does not follow that they originate from the state

Are you intentionally being vague and mysterious or are you going to enlighten us all about a third possible type of interpersonal exchange other then voluntary/contractual (the market) or hegemonic/compulsive(the State)?

[Stephen_Forde]

Both types of social orders are defined in terms of certain property rights regimes. Both types of social orders logically presuppose a particular set of property norms. What you are doing is putting the logical subsequent before the antecedent.

Your question totally misses the point.

[Lilburne]

DD5,

A market is a network of title exchanges. To say that property rights emerge on the market would be to say that titles originate from title-exchange networks, which is obviously circular nonsense. It should be obvious that this is not to imply they arise from the state either. They arise from non-market (non-title-exchange), non-state actions and customs.

[John_James]

@Stephen

[For many libertarians,] the market is their god. It can produce anything. It’s the alpha and omega.

I have never in my life heard anyone suggest that.

[DD5]

@Daniel James Sanchez

To say that property rights emerge on the market would be to say that titles originate from title-exchange networks, which is obviously circular nonsense.

I agre but I didn’t say that or didn’t mean to say that. I said they do not originate in the state. Granted he did not mean they originate in the State as I thought he meant, however, still one cannot logically come before the other as you seem to apply also. Property rights and the market are not separate distinct things where one can come before the other as implied in the comment I responded to and by you. What does this mean for example:

They arise from non-market (non-title-exchange), non-state actions and customs.

If they arise from interpersonal actions, then there are already only one of two possibilities for these actions: voluntary/contractual or hegemonic/compulsory. There is no 3rd way. Any interpersonal action that does not involve the latter already implies the existence of the former, no matter how primitive this market may be.

[z1235]

DD5, a title theory/premise is necessary for the very definitions of “voluntary” and “hegemonic”. The market cannot create the conditions out of which it arises. The market (voluntary exchange) cannot provide the definition for “voluntary”.

[DD5]

@z1235

DD5, a title theory/premise is necessary for the very definitions of “voluntary” and “hegemonic”. The market cannot create the conditions out of which it arises. The market (voluntary exchange) cannot provide the definition for “voluntary”.

Z, we’re not talking about premises in a logical argument. We’re talking about actual living and breathing institutions. The institions of property rights cannot arise before the market, because it is the market. That’s all I’m claiming.

[Jack_Roberts]

@Stephen

As far as I can tell, this whole thread is just a self-congratulatory pat on the back. Most Ancaps are in the same boat as statists and know very little outside of their school of thought, which they also don’t know in depth. They are true believers. For them, their ideology is largely doctrine and dogma. They accept the propositions of their school on faith alone, and don’t bother to do heavy reading to develop proper understanding. The majority of Ancaps are just as dull and unthinking as the majority of statists.

That is just incorrect. True believers? doctrine and dogma? faith? no proper understanding? What a load of rubbish, show me one ancap that acts in this way? I think when it comes to most statists one of their biggest problems is that they do not question any of it. To be a statist is to just go a long with it, the complete opposite is what an an cap is. You can not be dull and unthinking (if such a thing exists) and be ancap, because it requires time and effort to come to understanding. Most apathetic people are statists, most libertarians are statists.

There are whole threads asking how to respond to statist argument ‘X’? Their more interested in learning the correct libertarian oneliners than they are in actually understanding the structure of theorems leading up to an exact proof or refutation. They have no appreciation of the sciences they are debating. Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalism/ect. are just labels to be worn on their sleaves.

Those threads exists not because an caps are a part of some ideology cult. But because the statists are so difficult to have rational conversations with, that people need advice on how best to approach them.

[Stephen_Forde]

I’m not really sure how to respond. I could name some who I think act this way, but it would be way too rude and undeserved. I have no hard factual evidence to offer. This is all just my perception really.

But so is the opinion that statists are less able to think critically and are more apathetic.

None of us can read ppl’s minds. I just know that some ppl adopt political positions because they believe they will lead to a better world and others because it justifies their resentment, righteous indignation, or self pity, or it gives them a sense of purpose, or it gives them a sense of community, or fulfills some other psychological need.

There’s nothing exceptional about libertarians, other than that they happen to be right about some facts of political economy.