Vanilla may be sweet, but it is very much a cold dessert.
I have no idea what you are talking about. Worse, I think you may not have an idea of what you are talking about.
Eric doesn’t think the state is a protection racket.
And your point is?
Sounds like feelgood mindless bullshit to me. There is no such thing as a taxpayer.
I don’t care about your beliefs. The rationale for your core belief system is what we are looking at. You surely believe all sorts of nonsense. The question here, which you have tried to answer many times, is why you believe it.
I guess I will post this again, as you only adressed one scentence in it.
"For starters, look at Somalia. In fact, Somaliland, the portion of somalia that is the most prosperous, is also the portion of the country with the closest thing to a functioning government. There are other historical examples [look at how the citrus farmers of sicily were treated by the mafia]. I mentioned one earlyer in my post.
Also, people have long term plans built around todays government. Such a gigantic change would surely cause panic. I don’t see how the stock market and the financial system in general wouldn’t collapse, given that the governemnt plays important roles in both these sectors. People have their retirement funds tied with the governemnt. There are many other examples. I just don’t envision a smooth transition to a well functioning market."
People had long term plans built around slavery, flat earth and Zeus living on Mount Olympus. What does that have to do with anything? Are people entitled to their erroneous plans based on flawed and irrational premises?
The government is a much larger and more influential institution. It currently plays a very influential role in the economy.
Nonsense. Markets only require that private property be respected. Two individuals trading voluntarily don’t require a 3rd party using force to create a market transaction. One is truly a Philistine if they would believe that the market works because someone is threatening others with a club,
What so you don’t think some entity has to enforce property rights? I maintian my claim that property rights need to be enforced for markets to function properly.
Who defines what a reasonable extent is.
I don’t have some specific point. But the fact is that markets require property rights to exist to some extent in order to emerge. We currently have widespread markets, which suggests that property rights exist. So this is proof that property rights can coexist with a government.
Then go smoke a joint outside a police station in broad daylight, or stop filing your taxes, and then I will believe that is really what you think.
How does this prove that the state owns me?
Do you or do you not own yourself? I need to know who I am talking to before I can answer this question.
Sure, I own myself. I am curious to know how you get from this to property rights, since it seems like your entire argument rests on this.
Who can disagree with property rights, without having the property rights to disagree?
Can you rephrase this?
And what is consequentialism?
Come on…
Post it until you are blue in the face. It’s complete bullshit and doesn’t address any of my arguments.
And? You keep avoiding my arguments Eric. Why?
That is what I wrote.
Maintain whatever you like. Now prove it.
So you are making a claim to reasonable, without being able to define it. And I am the one with an irrational argument?
We don’t have widespread markets, we have people pretending they are participating in markets. It is a delusion. People do not own their money, they cannot choose their money, and are subject to thousands of regulations and taxes. Less than a fraction of any given transaction is actually free, the markets are simply a rigged game with predefined outcomes.
Don’t confuse owning a copy of Windows 7 with being Bill Gates.
You can explain to us how it is illegal for you to do anything with your body, which of course implies that you are not the legitimate owner of your body in the eyes of the state.
My argument doesn’t rest on property rights at all. But that said, if you own yourself, I think you just established property rights for me.
If property rights don’t exist, then how can anyone make a claim? How are they interacting with the physical world? Are your posts illegitimate because you hijacked another’s body?
I’ve made it clear that I believe Consequentialism is bullshit, and I would like you to define it so I can be sure my opinion of it applies here.
What is Consequentialism?
How so?
I’d like to point out that the majority, if not all, of the 3rd worlds markets and micro markets amongst communities exist quite productively absent enforcement.
More astounding is the fact that even in 1st world countries most police agencies do not specialize and in many cases neglect the protection of property between individuals. The USA alone has enough empirical evidence to shut Eric’s arguments down entirely.
I have no idea how Eric will prove such a claim when there are no praxeological dependencies of enforcement out there. Logically I don’t even how you can come to that conclusion unless your extremely confused about what markets are.
Simple fallacy of composition Z.
LS, what is the “uhm, no” refering to? Are you denying: (1) that vaccines and chemoterapy are cell-killing cell-protectors, or (2) that they are contradictions in terms? What composition is fallacious?
filc, I don’t understand your emotional response. I’ve implied nothing of that sort.
I guess I don’t understand how your analogy is valid then.
Can you properly assess my emotional condition on a web forum to adequately make such a statement?
lolz…
Yes. No. (1).
Which part about chemotherapy are you denying, that it is: (1a) cell-killing or (1b) cell-protecting?
Just confirming on (2), so you agree that chemotherapy is a contradiction in terms?
How is the composition of (1) fallacious? I have a feeling you could have anticipated these questions and maybe charitably added your explanations to your two-word reply from the outset. Just saying.