Likewise, when I claim that the farming on your land is creating edge effects which destroy the biodiversity on my land... So in other words, you have some use of your land that requires the use of my land? You have no right to that anymore than I have the right to build my grain silo on your land. Unless I'm directly damaging your land through some sort of border crossing, you've got no justification to tell me what I can and cannot do with my land. By the way, can't you make your point without calling others stupid or do you always insult people that disagree with you? Obviously, you don't understand what edge effects are. It's a very specific term. Thank you so much for reinforcing the point I have been stressing for the past week. I have repeatedly stated that individuals like you are not qualified to apply a political ideology to real world problems because you can't take your nose out of your political ideology book and learn about processes external to political ideologies. But please don't be insulted by this revelation. Edge effects are not part of a political ideology. They're part of ecosystems, which is a subject learned by studying ecology and biology. |
|
|
|
|
Actually, the government does not take stuff from people involuntarily. At least as far as I can tell - there probably are a few very small situations when it does.
The government only takes money from individuals who voluntarily enter into an agreement to pay the tax. Examples:
- You only pay income tax when you have voluntarily decided that you want income above a certain threshold. I will admit that social security is an example of one of those things that you must pay regardless of how much you earn, but interestingly enough, it will actually pay you more than you pay in, if you don't voluntarily decide to earn more than a certain amount.
- Sales tax: if you voluntarily choose to consume excessively and have voluntarily chosen to live in state which charges sales tax, then you have voluntarily agreed to pay the sales tax. There are states which charge no sales tax.
- Property tax: you have voluntarily agreed to this by deciding to enter into an agreement where you purchase property. You can rent.
- Gasoline tax: if you're buying gas, then you're almost certainly driving a car, and that absolutely means you're using roads. Ride a bicycle or take a bus, and not only do you get free use of the roads, but you don't have to pay taxes to do so. Furthermore, no government has ever attempted to levy a sales tax on someone who chooses to buy a secondhand bike.
- Voluntarily deciding to live in a certain nation, and thus pay its taxes. You are free to leave.
|
|
|
|
|
Seriously. I'm not sure whether this forum mimics that video, or that video mimics this forum.
The guy wearing the bad tie - his argument falls apart when he talks about him delegating (or not being able to delegate) the rights to the senator's house in Hawaii. He thinks he's made such a score there, but can't see the fallacy of his thinking.
What's wrong with his argument? He totally misses (probably deliberately) that there is a difference between him alone deciding that others can use the senator's house, and the people voting on a law that would allow others to use the senator's house. It's a sad little attempt at contrived logic by a pseudo fruitcake who feels disenfranchised from society's decision to create governments.
He's free to defect.
|
|
|
|
Its bad that the economy isn't producing enough jobs for everyone. And its safe to say that this could go on for a long time. But social collapse is a very rare event. Iraq in 2003 is the only modern example I can think of. Our societies will be just fine - what's at issue is how to make them better.
I think there are some worrying Malthusian issues. we have a problem that money disguises the true workings of the economy - energy supplies are low, yet the markets think further investment in old sources is most profitable. Unfortunately, our political economy remains governed on market principles - next 10 years, things can only get worse. Unless we see a strong turn towards towards a greater focus on resources rather than currency. Yes. It's called steady state economics, otherwise known as ecological economics. |
|
|
|
I'm only allowed to use violence as proportional response to you. If you steal my shirt, I can take it back. If you fight me, I can fight back.
Really? Because although you use the NAP court, how do you know I don't use the NNNAP court? The non-non-non-aggression-principle court? The Not Necessarily Non Aggression Principle Court. If your claim against me hinges on NAP, obviously I'm going to select a NNNAP court. Likewise, when I claim that the farming on your land is creating edge effects which destroy the biodiversity on my land, you're obviously going to hire the WTDTERBAIWTPWTOI court. WTDTERBAIWTPWTOI stands for "We're too dumb to even recognize biodiversity as important. We thought pollution was the only issue". |
|
|
|
I'm only allowed to use violence as proportional response to you. If you steal my shirt, I can take it back. If you fight me, I can fight back.
Really? Because although you use the NAP court, how do you know I don't use the NNNAP court? |
|
|
|
Until about a half a year ago, I was a liberal democrat. Then I started to think I was a libertarian, then an anarchist. Now, I've realized that I can't define it because what I want for myself is different than what I want for others.
(Not previously, but nowadays) I go to great lengths to preserve my individual liberty and pretty much don't think about laws or society in general. I simply do what I'm going to do and interact with people in a manner consistent with my own morals, and I consider law only in terms of the hassle of its consequence and the chance of being caught.
However, I am very glad that laws and society and government exist, because I believe most people, if they acted freely because law and government were abolished, would act much less ethically than I would, and I think they would generally destroy civilization. My life time experience with people has lead me to believe they will always put short-term gain and immediate self interest above all else, including long-term gains and interests. In short, most people are stupid.
So as much as I find governments of all sorts to be grossly inefficient and I dislike many laws, I am very very happy to live in a society that has such things because most people are sheep in addition to being stupid, and I think these inefficient laws protect them and me and do more good than harm by being in place. And it doesn't bother me at all that I pick and choose which ones I obey.
Is it weird or hypocritical that I go about my life freely without thought of governance but think it's a really good thing that others feel constrained by laws and government?
Or am I just some kind of psycho? I really just don't trust the judgment of others.
I think you're rational and sensible. You realize laws and regulations are absolutely necessary in today's society, especially given the population. You believe in yourself as someone who generally does the right thing, but you respect the law enough and understand it will keep you in line should you ever feel inclined to push against the boundaries of your current freedoms too hard. As cool as you might think being libertarian is, you've come to realize that a lot of the things about libertarianism just aren't appropriate. |
|
|
|
This is a forum for people with no executive or legislative duties to discuss Politics and Society. Surely broad generalities and platitudes are welcome? Posting lists of books and videos instead of communicating your ideas directly is not going to progress the conversation. If I were to sat that you should have read "Das Kapital" before you can say you are against socialism, all that means is I've given up on engaging you directly.
Missed the point again. Seriously, read the posts. Why do you keep coming back and implying that I've been saying the opposite of what I've been saying? |
|
|
|
I'm neither interested in regurgitating a lot of material which builds a case through fact after fact, dynamic after dynamic. Then there's nothing left to discuss. I'll simply wait for you to say something relevant and talk to you then. I'm always saying things that are relevant. One of the relevant things I've recently said in this thread is the following: Knowledge about a specific political ideology in the absence of real world data and how processes in the world work does not make you qualified to slap your overly principled and overly simplistic political ideology on the world and think it will fix everything. I don't care what you choose to learn external to your favorite political ideology, but please, go learn it, and then suggest a solution to it without claiming that your solution is the panacea to all the other world's problems as well. |
|
|
|
Thus, you tell him to put down his book on libertarian views make your own point instead of expecting others to do your job for you Every time someone asks me about how courts or police or some other thing will work under libertarianism, I don't say "go read XYZ". Why? Because if I can't put it into my own words, there's nothing to argue about. Simply saying "go educate yourself", other than being incredibly rude and condescending, earns you absolutely no points in the debate. Either make a point or admit you can't. I have made plenty of points, but you had me on ignore, remember? I'm neither interested in regurgitating a lot of material which builds a case through fact after fact, dynamic after dynamic. One just needs to be motivated to learn a lot, not just a snippet, which is all you'll ever learn in this forum. The world is far more complex that forum snippets. I do not agree that forum points are adequate. Why is it my responsibility to rewrite whole books? But if you want an example of me explaining one complex interaction, here's one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40394.msg509546#msg509546 |
|
|
|
Its not really a valid argument to say "I read a book and you should read it too." I can read "The Wealth of Nations," agree with everything Adam Smith said and argue the case for free trade. But I can't tell you "Go read 'The Wealth of Nations'" if you disagree with me.
I didn't tell him to read any particular book. I told him to stop reading books that only preach political ideology, and instead learn about problems that exist in the world today. How can he claim his political ideology is adequate to address the problems of the world if his only knowledge is derived from books which preach a political ideology, as opposed to deep knowledge about processes?Every time I ask him how such and such issue can be addressed by his pet political ideology, he trots out his solution to pollution, mentions security forces and private courts. That demonstrates a rather shallow awareness of actual detailed processes. As an example, when I mention the environment, I'm more often than not referring to issues besides pollution. But in his view of the world, protecting the environment means preventing pollution to a neighboring property. He himself admitted that he need not be an expert, but only be able to identify an expert when he sees one. Fallacious thinking at its best, when one wishes to argue in favor of their favorite political ideology. The world is not sustained on politics, but it certainly is harmed by politics. But the world can be sustained by understanding it in depth, and then, in a finely nuanced manner, fitting finely crafted solutions to those problems. I'm disappointed in your post, Hawker. What I was trying to say is that asking someone to read a book that doesn't conform to their existing ideas is counter productive. It may be that our ideology comes first, then we choose books accordingly. Since its very rare for someone to change their ideology, all you can do is discuss implementation issues. Its very easy to disagree with someone 100% on ideology and still end up agreeing on the same course of action. Its also hard for an ideologue to develop his ideas if you don't force him to focus on the nitty gritty issues, for example food regulation is a thought provoker for libertarians and and dependency culture is a thought provoker for lefties. You're only underscoring my point. I recommend learning about the processes and problems that are external to political ideology, thus allowing intelligent discussion and application to address those problems, given knowledge about the processes. Here's an example. Imagine a microworld in which the only things which exist are diseases, and bookstores which contain books on diseases and books on political ideology. Let's say that every time the conversation turns to the subject of treatment of disease, your opponent trots out his favorite political mantras and explains how it solves heart disease, and through your conversations with him, it's obvious that his knowledge of heart disease is superficial at best. More to the point, he appears to be completely unaware that other diseases exist at all. Thus, you tell him to put down his book on libertarian views, and start broadening and deepening his knowledge on disease, so he'll be in a better position to evaluate the efficacy of his chosen tool (libertarianism), at addressing the problems in this microworld (diseases in this case). |
|
|
|
Its not really a valid argument to say "I read a book and you should read it too." I can read "The Wealth of Nations," agree with everything Adam Smith said and argue the case for free trade. But I can't tell you "Go read 'The Wealth of Nations'" if you disagree with me.
I didn't tell him to read any particular book. I told him to stop reading books that only preach political ideology, and instead learn about problems that exist in the world today. How can he claim his political ideology is adequate to address the problems of the world if his only knowledge is derived from books which preach a political ideology, as opposed to deep knowledge about processes? Every time I ask him how such and such issue can be addressed by his pet political ideology, he trots out his solution to pollution, mentions security forces and private courts. That demonstrates a rather shallow awareness of actual detailed processes. As an example, when I mention the environment, I'm more often than not referring to issues besides pollution. But in his view of the world, protecting the environment means preventing pollution to a neighboring property. He himself admitted that he need not be an expert, but only be able to identify an expert when he sees one. Fallacious thinking at its best, when one wishes to argue in favor of their favorite political ideology. The world is not sustained on politics, but it certainly is harmed by politics. But the world can be sustained by understanding it in depth, and then, in a finely nuanced manner, fitting finely crafted solutions to those problems. I'm disappointed in your post, Hawker. |
|
|
|
Assertions, assertions but no arguments. There's no meat, nothing for me to respond to. I notice that you didn't respond to any of my points either. *shrugs*
Hence the reason I've given you a month to cogitate on it, as you'll need to bone up on some actual material external to a political ideology. Put down the books on being libertarian, and educate yourself on issues that are independent of political ideology. Become the mechanic, so to speak. He knows how to fix your car. And he also knows how to take you for a ride if you choose to remain ignorant. |
|
|
|
I don't know much about cars but I know enough to find a decent mechanic. Being able to find a good expert doesn't require being an expert yourself. If I look the other way then that's my choice. It's my property. Are you saying that you should be able to tell me how I should value my property?
You see those three paragraphs I just wrote? I want you to think about those at least once a day for the next month. And while you're doing that, make an effort at learning about the complexities of the engine that sustains us. Or, as you like to say, if you're good enough to find a mechanic, then, as it relates to our discussion, you better become good enough at finding some experts on the engines which support humanity. It's more than just insisting that your political ideology can fit the problem, because your political ideology does not fit the problem. |
|
|
|
It is cooperation. You and I can do that in today's society. Why do we need to allow businesses to do whatever they want to the environment if all you want is to be able to trade a watch for shoes? If a business pollutes my land, I'll sue them for damages until they stop or go broke and are unable to continue. Yes, you've said that many many times in this forum. Are you aware that it is unlikely that you possess enough expertise to identify the true extent of the damage said business is doing? More to the point, perhaps you'll look the other way because suing them will only drive the price up on what they're producing. Welcome to the world as it exists today. Your proposed solutions will not improve the situation. And if they did, it will be fragmented and non uniform in application, geographically. What is needed is leadership to ordain collective ownership (i.e. public lands), with guaranteed future protection. Following that, businesses will find themselves collectively handicapped in the quantity of resources available to them (artificially imposed constraints), and thus the process of finding alternative solutions to resource exploitation will be accelerated by competition to derive real solutions that are efficient and non exploitative, as opposed to being mostly exploitative. The key is to artificially guide business to seek out efficiency as it relates to the entire system which sustains us, as opposed to efficiency at maximizing money through exploitation. |
|
|
|
Actually, free markets as you envision them, are 100 percent a form of selfishness mechanized to its limit. Let's say that I trade my watch for your shoes. If we both agree to the trade then there must be something I like about your shoes more than my watch and it must be the case that you like something about my watch more than your shoes. After the trade, we both end up with something we like more. We're both better off. How is that not cooperation? It is cooperation. You and I can do that in today's society. Why do we need to allow businesses to do whatever they want to the environment if all you want is to be able to trade a watch for shoes? |
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but it really doesn't sound like I'm engaging in naturalistic fallacy. How could you get that wrong? What I'm engaging in is the presentation of the way evolution has evolved solutions to species' survival. It has nothing to do with good or bad. It's simply what has allowed various species to be successful. By and large, there are numerous examples of socialistic societies amongst species in the animal kingdom. Humans are obviously one example, going back to our diaspora from Africa. There is plenty of evidence in our past that the weaker were offered protection within groups. Free markets are a form of cooperation. Actually, free markets as you envision them, are 100 percent a form of selfishness mechanized to its limit. |
|
|
|
All human interactions shouldn't violate the rights of people involved.
People are humans, right? Humans are one among many animals, right? Among members of the animal kingdom are bees, ants, wolves, horses, chimpanzees, dolphins, black widow spiders and gopher snakes. As far as I can tell, all live in a socialistic group, except for the black widow spiders and gopher snakes. Since you keep responding to me even though I have you on ignore, I'll unignore you for now until you start to get insulting again. It sounds like you're engaging in the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's good. Cancer is natural. Death is natural. In Aristotle's politics, he condemns money exchanging as unnatural and therefore bad; war and pillage as natural and therefore good. There is no connection between "is" and "ought". It's an unbridgeable gulf. The closest anyone's gotten are presupposition arguments such as Hoppe's argument from argument. I'm sorry, but it really doesn't sound like I'm engaging in naturalistic fallacy. How could you get that wrong? What I'm engaging in is the presentation of the way evolution has evolved solutions to species' survival. It has nothing to do with good or bad. It's simply what has allowed various species to be successful. By and large, there are numerous examples of socialistic societies amongst species in the animal kingdom. Humans are obviously one example, going back to our diaspora from Africa. There is plenty of evidence in our past that the weaker were offered protection within groups. |
|
|
|
All human interactions shouldn't violate the rights of people involved.
People are humans, right? Humans are one among many animals, right? Among members of the animal kingdom are bees, ants, wolves, horses, chimpanzees, dolphins, black widow spiders and gopher snakes. As far as I can tell, all live in a socialistic group, except for the black widow spiders and gopher snakes. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
