But i see no reason for the mises institute or austrian economics to associate with such information. I did not come here to discuss that sort of information.
In other words:
#1 OP concots a wild and ridiculous theory (that there are “many” “conspiracy nuts” on the Mises Forums, “conspiracy nuts” being people who “immediately pronounce on every happening- 9/11,7/7 the klilling of Bin laden, Obama’s brith cerificate”).
#2 OP posts his wild and ridiculous theory on the Mises Forums.
#3 OP complains about there being people who post wild and ridiculous stuff on the Mises Forums.
I suggest OP can contribute to the solution of his problem by posting less.
Take the water fluoridation as an example, you pointed out that conspiracy theorists think that there is a global conspiracy to put a poison in the water. In reality water fluoridation is a serious topic, where countries have banned it (1)(2) and books have been written on the subject etc. But thinking that there is a global concerted effort to poison everyone is a step to far.
I think we are probably in agreement. Theres are real issues relateed to fluoridation, just as there are real issues with the state using fear of ‘terrorism’ to justify all sorts of horrific actions. However the conspiracy nuts go beyond this legitimate concerns, and try to paint all sorts of malicious motives where there arent necessarly any.
I think the problem is they’ve come to the view that every supporter of the state must be evil incarnate, rather than being well intentioned but horrifically misguided(as I think most state-supporters are).
The root problem is a reduction or complete absence of liability for one’s decisions as a part of the State apparatus. The water chief in your district will never be named in a lawsuit - let alone lose a lawsuit if he were named - for fluoridating your water. Hence, there are no costs to making the wrong decision and the wrong decision is frequently made (pro-fluoridation). Fluoridating the water was state of the art 60 or 70 years ago and it was thought the harmful effects of ingesting very small amounts of fluoride were negligible by comparison to the benefits to tooth enamel. Turns out that the benefits are not nearly as high as originally thought (and sometimes fluoridation actually erodes tooth enamel in children) while the costs are also much higher than thought. The government’s water monopolies, however, enjoy the same legal immunity as almost every other government entity and, predictably, lag decades behind the state of the art.
People regularly propose that government solves problems in the free market where private individuals do not take into account the costs of their actions on others when precisely the opposite is the case. By granting legal immunity and monopoly status on government agencies, you are ensuring abuse and irresponsible behavior. If water suppliers were completely private companies with full legal liability for their actions, they would be a damn sight more careful in what goes into the water since any customer may successfully bring a tort suit against them … and the water company delivers the evidence against itself to its customers every day!
Clayton -
One of the requirements for being being libertarian is having a low concern for the opinions of others. “Conspiracy nuts” obviously satisfy that criterion.
Zing!
The government is you, don’t you know.
Honestly I don’t really think there actually are that many conspiracy theorists. I find it hard to believe that many people are that crazy. I think it’s some kind of conspiracy.
Perhaps AaronBurr is a fan of Cass Sunstein, who ironically has advocated for a government conspiracy to discredit theories about government conspiracies.
Autolykos-
Haha nice. My question is, why are there so few? It seems to me that you’re a little weird if you’re not a little paranoid about the government.
Everybody knows that the government is built on 100% pure good intentions.
WHo are they?