Liberartarians can only exist within a conventional society
A society based on liberatarianism will naturally collapse
All societies collapse, eventually. The length of a society's duration does not always equate with the quality of that society. I would rather have a prosperous, moral society based on the non-aggression principle for a hundred years, than two thousand years of a repressive dictator or police state. |
|
|
|
Nice!  I've been listening to it at work...even played it for some of my office mates. Don't think they understood it, but at least it's giving them some exposure. |
|
|
|
|
Vandroiy, You wouldn't sell your signature space as an add for $500? I guess you have a higher preference for expressing your individuality through your signature space. I have never used my signature space so might as well get a 100 mBTC for it.
Bitcoin2cash, I'm not in a huge rush, but when can I expect to be paid? I changed my signature on June 19th, which was 11 days ago. I'm not sure what day you actually added my name to the list (signaling the beginning of the contract) because there's no time-stamp associated with it, but I seem to remember it was only a day or two after I changed me signature.
|
|
|
|
Assuming that they do not engage in an age of colonization  . Like the British, French, Spanish, etc. Driven by greed and the need to increase profits, the 5 in-control train their slaves for war. They go on expeditions to conquer the other islands so they can have more slaves and get more coconuts. Back where we are today, descendants of exploitation and slavery. But suppose that one of the five people on the free island is a former special forces Marine who believes in anarchy. He offers his protection and arbitration services to anyone who will pay for it. The Others are afraid of him because he has a tatoo proving he's completed the 9th order of the Proving so they leave his clients alone. Basically, I don't think we are going to learn anything from this island model because we can make it as arbitrary as we choose.  Oooo... That book looks nice. I think you'll enjoy it. It's the authors first professional publication so the writing is a little stiff at the beginning, but I thought it developed nicely. Well worth the read, IMO. |
|
|
|
Assuming that they do not engage in an age of colonization . Like the British, French, Spanish, etc. Driven by greed and the need to increase profits, the 5 in-control train their slaves for war. They go on expeditions to conquer the other islands so they can have more slaves and get more coconuts. Back where we are today, descendants of exploitation and slavery. But suppose that one of the five people on the free island is a former special forces Marine who believes in anarchy. He offers his protection and arbitration services to anyone who will pay for it. The Others are afraid of him because he has a tatoo proving he's completed the 9th order of the Proving so they leave his clients alone. Basically, I don't think we are going to learn anything from this island model because we can make it as arbitrary as we choose. |
|
|
|
AyeYo: It seems like you have to stop at some premise and either attack it's logic or accept it, because otherwise you slide into infinite regression. For example, I could say that the natural law that "all men own their own bodies" derives from the fact that all organisms deserve a chance at life, and in order for them to do so they must decrease entropy locally which requires economic ownership of not only their lives but resources around them. But then you could ask me to prove that all organisms are entitled to a chance at survival. I can't prove that. It is an assertion. The best I could do would be to say that by living you implicitly agree with my assertion. However, then you could argue that only some o
See, you've presented an argument for the claim made. NOW we have somewhere to start from, and you've even gone a few steps ahead. MoonShadow didn't want to do this because it leads to a dead end for him, so instead he just kept on the chant of wanting me to prove a negative. Now... I'll counter your idea of a "right to life" with the fact that life is taken away by forces out of our control ALL the time. If there is a natural law that says living beings have a right to life, then nature wouldn't be constantly and arbitraritly taking that life away. Natural laws CANNOT be disobeyed. The laws of physics CANNOT be ignored. The laws of mathematics CANNOT be altered. If there was a natural law granting a right to life, nothing would ever die. And I guess that it's impossible to fly, since there is a natural law that we call "gravity", huh? See, I can pull your bullshit too. Actually, I don't think that flying is violating the law of gravity because to do it you actually have to take gravity into account. I.E. create enough thrust or lift to counteract it. Would you agree? |
|
|
|
AyeYo: It seems like you have to stop at some premise and either attack it's logic or accept it, because otherwise you slide into infinite regression. For example, I could say that the natural law that "all men own their own bodies" derives from the fact that all organisms deserve a chance at life, and in order for them to do so they must decrease entropy locally which requires economic ownership of not only their lives but resources around them. But then you could ask me to prove that all organisms are entitled to a chance at survival. I can't prove that. It is an assertion. The best I could do would be to say that by living you implicitly agree with my assertion. However, then you could argue that only some organisms have a right to a chance at life.
See, you've presented an argument for the claim made. NOW we have somewhere to start from, and you've even gone a few steps ahead. MoonShadow didn't want to do this because it leads to a dead end for him, so instead he just kept on the chant of wanting me to prove a negative. Now... I'll counter your idea of a "right to life" with the fact that life is taken away by forces out of our control ALL the time. If there is a natural law that says living beings have a right to life, then nature wouldn't be constantly and arbitraritly taking that life away. Natural laws CANNOT be disobeyed. The laws of physics CANNOT be ignored. The laws of mathematics CANNOT be altered. If there was a natural law granting a right to life, nothing would ever die. I specifically said "a chance at life" because obviously everyone dies at some point. Also, I personally wouldn't argue that your right to a chance at life is a natural law, maybe a natural right, but instead I would simply say that because I desire to live I concede that other organisms of the same species as me should have that same right. However as Myrkul says it's a negative right, it does not mean that i have a right to force everyone to provide for me, but rather that I have a right not to be murdered. Edit: Fixed a grammar mistake. |
|
|
|
Savers and investors are two sides of the same coin... well, at least they were when banks did their job instead of playing the casino thanks to deregulation. In spite of what the oficial propaganda says, the regulation in the USA has increased in each of the last decades. Citation required.  That doesn't mean a damn thing. They could have increased the font size.  You think they increased the font by a factor of seven?  This was a quick google search because I have to go to the gym to meet a friend, but looks like the number of regulators has doubled since the 70s. That is a significant increase, no? I suppose they could all be sitting around doing nothing and not actually writing regulations, but I think you would have to admit the reason to have more regulators is to write and manage more regulations. Right? http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-federal-government-employee-and-regulation-growth/ |
|
|
|
|
AyeYo: It seems like you have to stop at some premise and either attack it's logic or accept it, because otherwise you slide into infinite regression. For example, I could say that the natural law that "all men own their own bodies" derives from the fact that all organisms deserve a chance at life, and in order for them to do so they must decrease entropy locally which requires economic ownership of not only their lives but resources around them. But then you could ask me to prove that all organisms are entitled to a chance at survival. I can't prove that. It is an assertion. The best I could do would be to say that by living you implicitly agree with my assertion. However, then you could argue that only some organisms have a right to a chance at life.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the Federal Reserve may be an example of the government "breaking up" an oligopoly and replacing it with a monopoly. The Federal Reserve Act was written by a bunch of bankers to give themselves a monopoly on the banking system and passed by the government.
|
|
|
|
Well, he did make the example outrageously restricted. The more people in the equation, the more likely it is that someone will come along who is willing and able to charge less/pay more.
I wasn't talking about the example. I was talking about the real world, today, outside your window. I don't understand. Are you saying something exists.... outside of the Internet?! Lies. P.S. What is this..."window"? |
|
|
|
Sorry, that was worded poorly. Most of the socialist anarchists I've spoken with advocate the use of force in order to prevent ownership of private property, rather than say, just boycotting the property owner. Such use of force is akin to a state, from my point of view.
I can use my own hands in order to defend my property (means of production), or pay someone else to do it for me. It's only a monopoly on force if there is a single entity that may legitimately use force. Do you mean that as a property owner, I have a monopoly on force? If so, that seems like a rather self referential definition of property and monopoly, though I can see how it could seem to be state-like from your perspective.
Do you think that an individual has the right to use force in the defense of his possessions from others? What about property? What about both of those, but a group instead of an individual?
Which is what I said, but worded much more eloquently. +1. I dunno, "hippy squatters" is hard to top. |
|
|
|
Ha ha, nice. Perhaps that's what I should do next time? "But in an anarchy what--" WHAM "Well, what stopped me in the current society?" Lol |
|
|
|
Abraham Lincoln will invade and take all the credit for freeing the slaves even though he did it just to take all the resources of the island. Also, he will actually get his way this time and deport them (back?) to Africa. Hilarious post, Atlas. I appreciate dry satire. |
|
|
|
Appeal to Authority fallacy You really don't understand these fallacies you like to quote, do you? Appeal to authority is: "My point is right because this guy ________ (insert important sounding title) says it's right." Tell someone I cannot have an intelligent argument with them because they have no idea what they're talking about is NOT appeal to authority fallacy... it's not even an argument. It's a statement of fact. Ha ha, I think you may both be wrong? Suggesting someone read a book because you believe it has strong empirical evidence isn't an appeal to authority, as you say, but claiming that someone else doesnt know what they are talking about is "a statement of fact" seems rather arbitrary to me. |
|
|
|
What if they collude and all agree not to bid below a certain price. Lets say someone is "compassionate" and they bid below this threshold. Then the remaining four stop trading their essential resources with the "compassionate one". The four will then resort to using force over the fifth, to gain the fifth's essential resources. Then what?
This wouldnt be an anarchistic society. Sounds more like despotism. So your scenario is irrelevant. So what exactly is stopping the non-socialist anarchy from becoming despotism? One of the most common responses I get when I talk to people about anarchy is: "In an anarchy what would stop me from punching you in the face/hitting you on the head with a shovel?" I usually look them in the eyes and say "try it", because that question pisses me off. The better answer though, is "what is stopping you now?". Most people assume it's the statues and "laws" passed by the government, but I believe that to be far undervaluing the affect of social mores, norms and pressures which I think have a bigger effect on people's behaviors. |
|
|
|
Because Keynes supports state intervention in matters of money, and states like to intervene in matters of money?
That could be one of the explanations why states like Keynesian theory, but it doesn't explain why most economists do. Who paying the most economist's wages? Same people who like to intervene in the matters of money? I'd say that, outright corruption, if anything, is extremely rare. However, at least one prof, confessed that he didn't dare to publish an article opposing the mainstream view for several years, fearing that he may lose his job. But a bias in selection and self-selection of economists is what happens. It starts with public schools and ends with Federal Reserve research grants. Add intellectual fads into mixture. Also is very easy to be wrong for long time in economics. Unique events, mixed evidence, political pressures. Not exactly a lab. Which is why economics isn't fundamentally an empirical science, but rather a logical axiomatic one. |
|
|
|
Hugolp, thanks for responding to my criticism. It boosts my opinion of you as a moderator. I agree with you that insults are counter-productive but I see people of the libertarian and anarcho-capitalism persuasion making insults and moderators don't say anything. While I disagree with the above posters, and their methods, I will defend their right to express their opinions. And I while I don't know what the word was that you deleted, it can't be any worse than the things that are normally said on the forum. However, I realize it is your prerogative as a moderator and I respect that. I just encourage you to make sure you treat everyone the same even if you disagree with them. Of course anyone can express their own opinion. I dont think there is any doubt on that. Regarding the moderation of insults, I (or the other moderators) can not be everywhere. The forum has grown big and I can not read everything that it is posted. Insult that I see, insult I remove. That is all I can do. Keep in mind I am a volunteer, Im not getting payed for this. [/quote] Fair enough. This is the first time I had seen an insult deleted, but I also cannot be everywhere on the forums so that doesn't mean it's the only one that has been removed. You do what you can, I do understand that. Thanks again for caring enough to respond, I appreciate it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
