Yes, thanks for “solving” this dilemma for us. I think I’ll stick to what Danny and I said, and choose to see your rants for what they are: repeat trolling and flaming.
-Jon
It’s not blaming or excuse-making. It’s called an explanation. One was asked for. One was given. It was pointed out that the original question was incoherent as stated. Max is being typically silly, rude and disingenuous in criticizing people for pointing out the the incoherence of the OP’s question. He’s just pushing his agenda. Asking why the state has been successful and libertarians unsuccessful, without the OP’s mistake of implying the state arose on the free market via immaculate conception (a la Nozick), would be a coherent and important question.
LOL What a rebel. Please, he can barely comprehend the positions he’s criticizing. He’s a glorified troll/flamer. He’s only the “underdog” in virtue of his intellectual deficiencies, much like Nathyn, another “underdog” who got his ass handed to him, every single time.
-Jon
The state didn’t arise on any market. It’s not a business. Market competition is not the only mode of competition.
There was no question about free markets. The OP never brought up free markets. What is the problem acknowledging that?
I don’t want to get into a flamewar, so the rest… whatever…
Read his post again. It’s either implied or he [the person who posed the questoin to him rather] has a fundamental misunderstanding of Austrian economics, confusing the market we have now with a free market. Either way the question was incoherent.
In any event, as I said, the state did not arise on any market. Moreover, the Austrian School of Economics is not competing with other schools of economic thought on a free market. The majority of schools and curriculums are state controlled and funded; they are not businesses. They are state factories for mass producing loyal subjects trained by other loyal subjects. Moreover, we’re not talking about competing businesses here, but competing schools of thought. Not all competition takes place on the market.
I thought the question was perfectly coherent, so much so, I could answer it without trying to play the “big mean state has advantage” approach.
I have no idea what the point of this ^^ is.
Is it your understanding that the Mises Institute exists to promote Austrian Economics, not just in a future theoretical free market, but also in today’s substantially less than free market. Yes or no?
There is no market in ideas. Ideas are not goods, however Person would like.
I don’t know how to properly explain this, but ideas lack scarcity, however our capacity to hold and embrace different ideas is limited (or scarce).
For example, it’s not possible to be a statist anarchist. Yes, I know that there are confused people this may not apply to!
'Loser talk" is when you find yourself losing in anything and instead of focusing on what you are doing wrong all you can do is complain about what the other guy is doing right or some unfair advantage. It’s like blaming the ref in a football game. From my point of view, intrinsicly implied in the question of why we are losing is how do we win? Unless of course you have no interest in winning. I think the original poster was looking for some insight into that and most of the responses were excuses for failure.
Contrary to most of the subsequent responses I wasn’t trying to call anyone specifically a loser just that this type of thinking is what continues the cycle of losing. I would throw the notion that there is no market for ideas into this category as well. Another Library Libertarian cop-out, because if there is no market for ideas then we can’t blame our own failings on the acceptance of the marketplace. Sooner or later if your getting beat you have to accept the fact that it is because the other guy is beating you and you either change what you are doing or you should expect to keep getting beat.
Max, you might find this worthwhile?: http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/2008/07/pitch-first-draft.html
That is more in line with what the poster was looking for. I am not a believer in the convince the masses approach myself but I think that is the type of constructive response the poster was looking for. At least you are willing to look critically at the actions in the freedom movement.
Basically I believe the masses have to be led and not educated to creating a free society. I believe all people naturally want freedom and by human nature the NAP policy is normal. What the masses lack is an alternative to the state that they can embrace. The state does accomplish some very basic functions and until we can provide those functions superior to the state the masses will never accept the idea of a stateless society.
Well I do think you’re right to an extent in thinking that social change requires some leadership, but I don’t see any need for that leadership to be adversarial, replacing “their” leaders with ours; I’m hoping to educate existing and future leaders to understand why our ideas are better. That can be accomplished through discussion and learning, though perhaps the step of actually convincing the general public would need to be accomplished through other means.