And also, it has been constantly argued here by me (and Filc also), that there are economic disincentives to simply ignore the benefits of legitimacy. Yet you constantly dismiss such economic reasoning as Rothbard assumptions or whatever.
He first implied it and then finally said it explicitly. See the quote I provided in response to him above.
Good point. In the misty past of any state, you are likely to find some warlord or chieftain with his cadre terrifying some group of serfs. Take the landholders of the Roman Latifundia and the tribes of warlike barbarians coalescing into the modern states of western Europe, for example.
I would agree with that.
You just said that wasn’t your position.
Never mind…
The above is a circular fallacy until you can prove why it is such. We actually avoided (or attempted to avoid) the fallacy by providing an argument to demonstrate why the assumption is false. In fact, it is an argument that you apparently accept for other type of institutions, curiously for the State. So in addition to circularity, you also engage in double standards…
Now either you address these fallacies without engaging in just more fallacies, or you don’t, in which case we go on with our lives.
You really get to us eh? Then you follow up with calling us nutty.
It’s the other way around, you hate being pinned down.
Ahh yes good catch. I knew he implied it, but thought he was trying to weasel out of it.
Can you please cite evidence for the axiom,
“Agression will always be a less efficient means than trade, regardless of the desired end”
Unless, you are making a different argument.
This is EXACTLY what I am talking about, and why I was banging my head against the wall yesterday…
Where?
Please quote me so I can address the specific passages you are referring to. I don’t think I’ve committed the fallacies you mentioned, and I would like to clear up any misunderstandings.
No, I was referring to E.R. Olovetto specifically. That’s what “Olly” meant.
And this makes me a nut, because I don’t have the presumption of knowing “truth”?
LOL, do you realize how silly you seem? What’s next, another thread dedicated to making me look stupid/contradictory/trollish/stubborn/etc.? You could just resurrect this one.
The answer is jumping out at you on the screen.
Trade vs theft.
- In trade both parties gain. Overall wealth has improved.
- In Theft only one party gains, by comparison we cannot say that overall wealth has improved like it did with the previous example of mutual exchange
There is your answer. This is simple reasoning, what exactly do you want us to cite?
I can also attribute the evidence of the existence of markets worldwide. The entire world revolves around markets and exchange, even with the installment of various market obstructions like government, the market continues on irregardless. Exchange is generally preferred, as both parties win. Theres your answer as to why it’s more efficient.
This is a fairly standard Austrian position.
The way you worded that statement, and the fact that you mentioned it at all hints otherwise.
Ahh the thread where try to conflate divine morals with property, as if one has anything to do with the other. Whats the point of this statemnet anyways? If you want to resurrect that thread by all means go ahead, I encourage you to. But it’s not relevant here. I remember right you were trying to dismiss property because you thought it had something to do with moral rights. A thought you have never been able to clarify. But again, whats that got to do with this thread?
filc,
I get what you are saying (finally), and I agree that if the desired end is to increase overall wealth, then what you are saying is correct.
But…
I cannot say with any certainty what our hypothetical warlord’s desired ends are, so I cannot say which means are most efficient for him to persue. So your reasoning, although solid IMHO, does not explain the specific axiom I had questioned,
“Agression will always be a less efficient means than trade, regardless of the desired end.”
This is a fairly standard praxeological position. : P
Sorry I hurt your feelings. I didn’t mean to imply your were nuts, just that I seem to be getting under your skin.
It was a joke recalling the fact that this isn’t the only thread you’ve been involved in that has derailed into “trying to prove Jackson LaRose is a twat”-ville. Mods, I swear I don’t want it to happen, it just does.
Do you accept this position or not? If not why?
You didn’t heh. If you read the dialogue I was implying that it’s the other way around. Remember?
And I’ve told you before it’s difficult to read sarcasm on a web forum. I didn’t read it as a joke and I still don’t. I don’t hear any tone of voice other then whats in my head when I read it. I still don’t think it was a joke, I think your just saying it was a joke to weasel out of it. If you don’t like that don’t make jokes without it being obvious. Your on a web forum dude. We can’t read what your intent is. Your sarcasm has gotten you in trouble before.
And you still have not demonstrated as to why the economic benefit of legitimacy applies to the State and not to the warlord, or what should be even easier to grasp, to a private defense agency initially instituted as such in a free market. - Double Standard
LOL, I know you don’t want to hear it, but again, the pronouns are killing me. Which position?
OK, lemme 'splain:
Here, I am suggesting you may start a thread dedicated to flaming me.
Here, I am harking back to your first flame thread, and comically suggesting you continue to use this one (even though it started on a completely different subject), rather than start a new flame thread. Better?
I would like to remind both sides that the questioning of other members’ motives, character, etc, (which includes whether someone is being over-sensitive or not, or whether someone is trying to “weasel” out of anything) belongs only in the Member Issues Forum. Please keep the “meta-arguments” there, and reserve the front page space for directly topical arguments. Thank you.
I think the economic benefit of legitimacy could be applied to warlords, if they had the means to attain legitimacy in the eyes of their subjects. Some have successfully done this in the past, and as a result expanded their holdings, eventually becoming many of the states we see today.
PDA’s may be viewed as legitimate in our theoretical society, I cannot say. It would have to depend on the ideological leanings of the populace in question.
Look I need you to be able to follow your own dialogue, I’m not going to go requote your last 5 posts just to help you stay on track. If you can’t do that this won’t progress.
Still don’t get it. I don’t see how it can obviously seen as a joke sorry.
Grayson,
Sorry, dude
- **Ron Burgundy:** *(on the fight between local anchormen)* Boy, that escalated quickly. I mean, that really got out of hand fast!
- **Champ Kind:** It jumped up a notch.
- **Ron Burgundy:** *[surprised]* It did, didn't it?
- **Brick Tamland:** Yeah, I stabbed a man in the heart.
- **Ron Burgundy:** I saw that! Brick killed a guy! Did you throw a trident?
- **Brick Tamland:** Yeah, there were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident.
- **Ron Burgundy:** Brick, I've been meaning to talk to you about that. You should probably find yourself a safehouse or a relative close by. Lay low for a while, because you're probably wanted for murder.