Like you’ve read anything by Charles Fourier.
What has lead to prosperity: a world with monopolistic government. What is completely untested (don’t bother responding something about medieval Ireland here for the industrial world has different demands than a medieval agrarian one): a world with PDAs. Furthermore, the best solution is that which we know the worst-case scenario for, and therefore it is monopolistic government.
Its not about making men behave, it is about punishing, and removing from society men who do not behave.
You’ve really got to put forth a rational argument before I “ponder over” your fallacies.
government has been tested - it failed the test. It’s a complete and utter failure. Upon it’s very foundation arises only coercion. Sure humans coerce and don’t coerce, so, let’s do as you say, but not as you say (yes your own self-contradiction), “…it is about punishing, and removing from society men (I’ll add women) who do not behave.” Individuals in government - that means you too. They are not above the law. The truth, as history shows, is emerging. Liberty is more prevalent than ever before, and it is once again being suppressed into a pessimistic age where a growing number of people doubt their very free-will. As you may go on and argue how slavery is good, that doublethink of yours, consider this discussion over. I’m simply asserting a point.
You are completely divorced from reality, are you? The governments of the Western world are overall successes: despite all their flaws, they have cultivated, and allowed the flowering of an era of world capitalism where the furthering of the division of labor has brought forth an era of hitherto unknown prosperity.
Government absolutely is all about the use of coercion, and there is absolutely no contradiction in my statement. Nor is there anything wrong with coercion at all, it is a fact of life that certain behaviors need to be outlawed in order to discourage them, and to remove those who continue to partake the the behavior. In fact, the basis of justice is the preservation of social cooperation, and coercion is necessary in preserving it.
Of course not, you state an obvious fact.
All philosophy of histories are nothing but strange pseudo-religions, yours is no exception.
And it is wrong.
lol. No it’s not. The proof is on you to prove your advocation of positive assertions and actions such as a government; whereas the innocence is within me as my advocation of and action of refraining from initiating aggression is the very definition of.
good night
HA HA!
…Apologista
Too bad correlation is not causation no ? So, drop the lie that prosperity was caused by government. Oh and do acknowledge the fact that wars and disruption of the economy ARE caused by government.
Seriously, who are you ? You sound like an ignorant public employee praising his political masters. You could be a union teacher whining that if it wasn’t for gov’t provided schools children would never learn to read, or similar nonsense.
Indeed I won’t because I think that medieval ireland as an example of a free society is total nonsense.
Sonny, there were no fallacies in my posts.
So, now explain how government, a bunch of thieves and murderers, enables civilization ?
Isn’t it a joke that a moderator in this forum would assert such beyond-stupid lies ?
+1
Because everyone knows that one of the primary requirements of joining this forum, let alone being a mod, is that you must be an anarchist.
You know better than to bring his mod tag into it. Lam being a mod doesn’t mean anything beyond the fact that he is trusted to help maintain the community on a technical level. It certainly doesn’t convey any ideological authority, and you should stop trying to use it against him, because it is hard to find people who actually show up and help out on a regular basis.
Well, if all a mod does is remove spam and similar tasks, I fail to see why mods have a mod tag at all…
I honestly thought that mods were people who had some basic understanding of political theory which would enable them to, well, ‘moderate’ discussions - but Lam shows that it’s possible to be a mod and fail to grasp political theory…
I think the issue is “intellectual dishonesty” or ignorance more than anything. I can think of another mod with ~100 posts who somehow got the honorific and fits the bill as well. This isn’t my turf and I agree with LS that there is more to it than ideology (delete spam/whatever). Everyone here is on a rather loose leash though and I personally find it annoying that some people like alimentarius spam stupid threads about topics I gave him answers to a month ago. You could consolidated repeated fallacies like the Bill Gates PDA one and do more good than harm. I would post more if there was less garbage and I didn’t have to dig for worthy topics.
If you can’t control what threads you read, why would you expect alimentarius to control what he posts?
I don’t find it annoying because thousands of non-libertarian readers have an opportunity to learn from them. I participate here to help further libertarian ideas and the Mises Institute at large. My own petty biases and themes can be taken out on my own website.
If you think Lam is being intellectually dishonest, prove it. You don’t need to swing below the belt at his mod status.
So you would post more if there were more worthy topics, but you won’t post worthy topics because you are waiting for someone else to do it.
God, I love libertarians. Always waiting for someone else to change the world.
Actually the primary requirement is a myspace page with glitter and a vast knowledge of TV contextual humor.
How about I play your little game: lol. No it’s not. The proof is on you to prove your advocation of positive assertions and actions such as anarchy. Don’t play dumb: we are both making positive assertions here, and honestly, if you want to divorce yourself from reality and proclaim that the entire Western judicial tradition is an utter failure, so be it - I’m not going to try and convince you otherwise. Call me lazy, and all the other names up your Rothbardian book of rhetoric, but I don’t care for you are advocating an opinion that is at odds with the entire tradition of Austrian economics minus Rothbard, and his clique.
Self-ownership does not exist, and the non-aggression principle is nothing but an illusion. For one thing, as Brainpolice has constantly stated, a man is his body, he does not own it; furthermore, Edward Feser has completely demolished the Rothbardian concept of self-ownership several time - here, I was disappointed by the article myself for despite the fact it was the “Hayek” Memorial Lecture, it is certainly sounded more like the Rothbard Memorial Lecture.
Okay.
I said an overall success, I have never once stated that the state has not unleashed destruction, so how about we don’t indulge in the quicky, easy, yet also intellectually dishonest straw men.
And who are you? If you want to condemn me, feel free to burn the books of Mises, and Hayek along with me - I’ve learned my anti-Rothbardian positions directly from those two.
Of course there is: your entire first response to me is one massive straw man.
I doubt you’ve ever read anything about ancient civilization - without their governments, there would not have been ancient civilizations. In fact, this is reflected in the languages of the ancients: notice how in ancient languages there are no separate words for “Society”, and “State” - rather the two are understood as the same word, because in those days there was not civilization without a arbiter of justice. Again, Juan, you reveal the fact that you have never looked outside of the anarcho-capitalist box; rather, everything for you is in black, and white - you have yet to understand the fact that the world is gray: organizations that can unleash such destruction like the state have also provided necessary in the development of civilization itself.
Juan, if I could pass on some knowledge that I have acquired the last few days [ this of course being solely a suggestion ]: Don’t get pulled down into petty arguments on the forums. I think I am beginning to realize why the academics of the Institute rarely come onto this forum. It is just composed of petty squabbles concerning time wasting topics. May I suggest expanding your knowledge through good academic works and just carry on the battle of ideas through academic articles and academic circles. Do you not see that these forums are really fueled by a ‘I’m right and your wrong, you can’t show any argument against me that will change my mind’ mentality? Here is a good article on the LRC by Gary North which I see as a good evaluation of what happens here too. I have grown envious of Nitroaddict who keeps a playful attitude in the forums and that is something I think that should be emulated. This is of course all a suggestion but maybe you will see truth in it and maybe find some peace here. Time will tell I guess.
No straw men. All you did was lie about the allegedly achievements of government and forget to mention all the destruction government caused. So let me set the record straight, again :
-
Wars, slavery, plunder, etc. : caused by government
-
Economic progress and respect for individual rights : something that exists DESPITE government.
I’ve no problems with totally dismissing Mises’ and Hayek’s views on government. Specially Hayek’s. Your appeal to authority fails. And as I said a couple of times, so called anarcho capitalism is as old as Molinari - 1849.
So, you are not against ‘anarcho-capitalism’ you are against classical liberalism.
Should I laugh or cry ? That was a perfectly content-free paragraph - well, not really content free but full of conservative nonsense. Now would you be so kind as to
I do agree it’s a waste of time in a way…
But why should people like Lam get away with his statist propaganda ?
What’s the point of a libertarian forum where people get to post any sort of nonsense that goes unchallenged ?
Because the only way you will beat him, is if you are willing to waste more of your time than him. It’s strictly a battle of attrition, in which the winner, is really the loser.