Because this is a ‘de facto’ radical libertarian forum and because one can’t get rid of politics when discussing political economy.
And frankly your positions sound slanted as well, but slanted against libertarianism. Maybe you are trying to be as ‘wertfrei’ as possible and failing in doing so…or maybe wertfreiheit is not what you think it is.
This is just rambling. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.
Please be serious.
Morality is based on analysis of action, not intent.
A logical fallacy based on negative proof.
But I want to be clear here. You believe the public sector is superior to the market in the provision of services?
On a site that promotes the Austrian conception of liberty, I expect libertarianism to be a factor in discussion. If you want somewhere that no one judges parasitism or pats everyone on the back for being such brilliant state sponsored intellectuals, I am sure there are sites for that. If you don’t like libertarian analysis, I recommend not having public discussions on a libertarian website.
Because you endorse funding by political force.
Sure you do. That’s where your funding comes from, and surely you care about that, right?
I’m pretty fixated on who is threatening me, controlling me and ripping me off. And the apologists for such.
Are you, or are you not?
It’s not possible to divorce these discussions from theories of human action.
It’s because we’re not parasites, and we oppose parsitism. if you generated an income by voluntary exchange, then you too might feel the same way when someone confiscates your life (time/labour) for their own sustenance and ends, while offering some holier and smarter than thou justification why their use of the fruits of YOUR labour is superior to your own.
So it’s no surprise you don’t understand. If you’re state funded, and pay taxes, it is just a rebate on the stolen goods you receive. It’s moving state money from the left hand to the right hand, and nudge nudge wink wink insisting you are paying your “fair share” too, just like all of us working class losers.
I’m giving you the truth. You want to compartmentalize conversations from context and inconvenient truths. The truth doesn’t exist within limits.
Tu ne cede malis hombre. Seems to me that as long as AE gets co-opted by the state, it will go nowhere. Radical libertarianism is driving the promulgation of AE and Austrian ideas. And most certainly (but perhaps irrelevant to you) private funding for AE.
Petty ad hominem.
…I said, it would be a good started. Often enough people act against their own interest.
You can’t say this for sure. I often catch Rothbard and Hoppe saying that the demands of intellectuals is low on the free market, but that’s nothing more than a baseless assertion.
Look you can’t say that mainstream academics are parasites without a value judgement on behalf of other individuals., for me, they’re most certainly not parasites. I greatly value science, especially economic science, so for me state subsidies to economists are wonderful. In fact, there is no way you can say that the current distribution of resources with regard to academia is not exactly as it would be if the state did not exist.
Also, AE would not exist without the state.
lovely trolling =]
In the long run, we’re all trolls.
Whatever you say Nitro…
A libertarian revolution is a proletarianr evolution insofar that it speeds the upward mobility of the proletariat and helps them become bourgeoisie.
challenge to Giles.
read this http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north240.html
noting any errors you see.
and then read the article a second time swapping out music for ‘economic knowledge’ and composer for ‘economics professor’ and the like
and please report back how contented you are with your old arguments
Yes I can. I supplied a source.
If they get their resources and wages through taxation (all varieties) then they are parasites. There is no difference between a military contractor and a publicly funded research project. They both gain their funding outside the market via privilege, and they both claim that such a funding scheme is necessary to provide so-called public goods.
This is basic Hoppean class analysis which I believe has a place here at LvMI.
If you valued economic science, you wouldn’t think subsidies are wonderful. You would see them (outside the moral argument) as inefficient or at the least, untested. What I surmise you value, is the privilege you can receive as a student and later scientist, if the public pays for your work, without having to prove the worth of said work, or your capacity to carry it out, in a market atmosphere.
That’s the thrust of all state subsidy. To compromise capitalists, scientists, educators, social workers, by offering them an opportunity to operate without competition in the so-called “public interest”.
Negative proof fallacy.
And again.
Funny how in one breath you can claim no one can know, and then a mere sentence later, claim perfect knowledge for yourself. What is funny, is not that you’re contradicting yourself, but that you were actually wrong on both statements.
Mainstream academics are not voluntarily paid, they are subsidized by the state - they are parasites - it’s a fact - not a value judgement.
but facts are facts. Your failure to see facts, or your denial of them, is irrelevant.
LOL. You keep calling pathetic state propaganda ‘science’…
So ? It doesn’t change the fact that the cranks you call economists are parasites created by subsidies. As to the claim that you find stealing to pay for subsidies to be wonderful, well, it’s great. It shows your true colors.
Or at least zombies.
What is being discussed here is whether or not a possible libertarian revolution would possibily mimick a proletariat revolution. This need not involve the correctness of libertarian teachings,or even a discussion about libertarian doctrines, only whether such a revolution would possibly take on the form of a class struggle. So, shall we get back on topic, here?
So it is only a priori if it is correct?
To make an a priori statement one must at least have some empiricism or experience. Therefore common sense can be a priori for a priori is not prediction based on a life of sensory depravation.
And we are incapable of understanding our current state of affairs?
Tell that to Mises who predicted the Great Depression and Peter Schiff who predicted the housing bubble.
On a side note I would just like to make two comments:
Why is it that everyone I talk to suddenly turns into a nihilist when we get to the basis of logic?
Giles has certainly fallen to the sway of statism, then again remembering his posts before…did he really fall?
I’m not sure how one can discuss a libertarian revolution without libertarian teachings or doctrines.
Libertarian class theory is based on the concept of parasitism. The Libertarian proletariat are the net tax producers, and the bourgeoisie are the net tax consumers. What separates them is not capital (as the net producers are the ones capable of creating capital) but social and political privilege which can only be manufactured through a monopoly on the use of force (law and justice).
I have to disagree with Kaju about upward mobility. A libertarian revolution is the replacement of privilege with exclusion and individualism. As I see it, an end to the notion of a social ladder. A proletariat revolution is the replacement of privilege and exclusion with collectivism.
I don’t see many commonalities with left-socialist, left-anarchist notions of revolution and libertarian revolution.
The class lines are almost drawn in reverse, because left-socialism is based on an anachronism, and totally obselete in the face of modern social democracy.
Really? Roderick Long hasn’t convinced you there is things that we can learn from anti-authoritarian socialists? [ I am not speaking of economics ]
It is your super-power.
I don’t think Giles was ever a libertarian, folks just assumed because he was into Hoppe he would be sympathetic to ancap. He’s always been pro-privilege and pro-state, he’s just more obvious about it now. And I don’t have a problem with that (as internet discussion), so long as people are honest about it, and acknowledge they view privilege as legit, instead of beating around the bush, trying to obfuscate a penetrating analysis into the legitimacy of those claims for monopoly and privilege.
Giles is clear, he likes when the state steals to provide things he likes. He thinks this is not only good, but economically sound.
Which is why prior to my last leave, I had stopped acknowledging him altogether, because that is largely what I do with the supporters and officials of my state.
you cant say socialist in a question and then demand an answer that does not mention economics, no fair!
Some super power. I seem to attract them like a magnet.
I concur with your assessment.