i wasn't expecting or asking for a reply. what he wrote wasn't even slightly responsive, however. the problem here is that people think they're offering new thoughts on grand questions that have been debated to death by countless others who have examined the propositions in much greater detail. read 'anarchy, state, and utopia' and then nozick's own refutation of it, as a start. looking for new political thoughts in this forum is a fool's exercise.
Yet the point is that Atlas made this thread about the bad rap Bitcoin is getting, and someone brought in the political sauce to it, side discussion to which you contributed. I understand clearly from your stance that you think yourself far superior in experience and wisdom than the common poster on this forum when it comes to political matters, even though it doesn't surprise me since you fancy yourself as a "connaisseur" and this forum is about technology and economics, both which are not directly related to politics.
Under these premises that I think you will agree to, I am trying to understand now the motive for your posts and their content. I frankly do not understand why you are willing to take part in a political discussion on a forum that isn't dedicated to such topic to only state to your detractors that the level in here is too low to deserve any contribution from your part. You are either genuinely attempting to elevate the discussion in here, in which case you can't deter from any arguments based on the premise that it is too low and unrefined for you, or you are being dishonest and reluctant to discuss in the very fashion you are accusing others of.
Also, this is a public forum, you might not be asking for replies, but you should certainly expect some. I think to establish a proper level of respect between the speakers, it is required that you either answer to post directed to you or you admit the point over and done. Which is not what you are doing. You are attacking the writer, not the content delivered. I regard this as disrespectful considering the people who answered you took the time read your posts and provide proper and honest answers. If you wish for such grandeur of speech, you ought to show the way.
in the end, almost no experienced policymaker or businessperson is an extreme libertarian (or whatever other minor variant of it you want to call your own ideology). you can come up with psychological theories for that ('the rest suckle the teat of the state' is a common one) or dwell on the exceptions (like peter thiel, for whom the first words that come to mind would probably be even too uncivil for this forum), but the beliefs are almost inconsistent with having significant real-world business experience in the end.
That's funny. The first thought that crossed my mind is that people nursing such political thoughts would naturally act against governmental expansion, which would in return close them doors in the political world, or they would altogether not seek office. It is but natural to expect people you qualify as idealists to stick to their ideals, isn't it?
i know it doesn't satisfy the craving some seventeen-year-olds have for formal logic as applied in the political sphere, but it's hard not to let your interlocutor's absence of any experience enter your thoughts, even if that means you're resting partly on authority.
A pure logical argument can subvert the need for common knowledge. I think politics are abstract enough at their core to allow for such arguments to prevail. And I think you should give it a try before dismissing the possibility of your interlocutor grasping the concepts you are trying to convey. I'll say it again, I think Atlas made valid points against your prior arguments, and you haven't answered them. As a detractor of your ideas, I could just as well accuse you to refuse to confront your points with someone that doesn't share your views of politics to begin with. This will only result in a succession of ad hominem stands on both sides until you chose to either attempt to refute Atlas' points or step out of this discussion. I'll view any other action from your part in this thread as proof that you are being dishonest about your intention to engage into a proper argument.
dozens of people work for me, and i've created significant wealth for myself and for others. it's hard to debate 'political nihilism based on voluntary contract' with someone who's probably never negotiated or signed a single complicated voluntary contract and has no detailed understanding of contract law.
law is complex and subtle. it's more complex and subtle in the common-law world than in civil-law countries, though even then the difference isn't as stark as some continental commentators would like to suggest. it's fact-based and messy, like all practical reasoning. to boil it down to 'governments have done some bad things, thus there should not be governments' is exactly as juvenile as it sounds, and it deserves a laugh because i've never encountered an ideologue whose mind was changed by logical argument rather than by outgrowing their fringe beliefs.
I'm quite startled by this stance. The frame upon which our current political system is built, which you appear to support, has been crafted in antiquity, and it's forefather, Plato and friends, have made quite a point of proving that politics is the affairs of every citizen, disregarding experience and standing. I think a quick re-read of the dialogue "Protagoras" will get you back on track on this one. Certainly laws are complicated to write, for them to be rigorous in such fashion that there is no room for interpretation outside of their original intent, but the rule the law is meant to convey is simple, and debatable by all. Unless you are refuting the very frame of republic and democracy, in which case I wonder who is the most anarchist of us 2.
if, on the other hand, you are at least moderately a consequentialist, at least i can point you to empirical studies of happiness and make arguments about the cost-benefit analysis of various policies. very rarely is it clear which group the extremists on this forum fall into, however, and relatively few have even thought about it.
I'm open to discussion, but let me make things clear when it comes to me, since I can only speak for myself and only wish to do so: I do not hold happiness to be synonymous of freedom. I also am more concerned about being in control of what it is that will cost me more than it's perceived efficiency. You can't properly discuss politics with an anarchist or a libertarian if you refuse to discuss the argument regarding aggression and the use of force by the government. I can just as well say you are stuck on your principles and deaf to my plea. Unless you're willing to agree on some middle ground for the premise leading to such discussion, nothing will happen. You have to perform a gesture to prove you stand by your own words before you can sermon others with them.
have you witnessed any political growth in this forum, ever, on anyone's part? if not, why shouldn't people simply laugh at foolishness?
You seem to overestimate the power of argumentation, and I'll wager that your stance is not humble enough for others to listen to you without animosity. If your wish is but to laugh at the content of the discussions in here, a simple "lol" will do. Calling people names on the other hand, will result in retaliation.