This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

At the risk of sounding and looking like a "right-wing extremist", this is the best I can do for now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6c_dinY3fM

...and you call me crazy? look at that dude at 9.30, if you ignore what he says, he sound just like one of those crazy priest dudes that expects "AMEN!!!", every time he stops.

This is brain washing, and you are a right-wing extremist.

Shouldn't you be out seeking a victim?

Is that in my best interest?

Depends if you get away with it, I guess.  Much of what Whittle said is amenable to research.  Prove him wrong, without resorting to shaming attacks, if possible.

Actually, I guess the onus is on me to prove him correct, but I ask you to research it all the same.

So "Critical Theory" is some grand conspiracy by the political Left to somehow undermine Capitalism with propaganda/ empty non-constructive criticism? It's funny how simply summarising the other person's spiel is often a great sanity-check.

• e.g.: Alex Jones -- left wing or right wing?? Does he offer practical ideas for what should be done to make the world a better place? No. He just complains. He sometimes lets others do the talking, but carefully avoids taking a political stance himself.
• Any Anarcho-Capitalist -- do they offer a practical strategy for making the world a better place? No! Their ideology is shielded behind a wall of excuses saying things like: "but government will stop us, and that would be their evildoing not ours. Therefore our ideology can't be disproved."

Whatever happened to those exiled Jewish Marxists? Presumably they made it all the way to the US after WW2 and now they're subtly subverting CapitalISM with the Obama-care narrative?

Just read a bit.  Free-market goods are always better than one-size-fits-all goods forced upon one by the state.

[myrkul]

Just read a bit.  Free-market goods are always better than one-size-fits-all goods forced upon one by the state.

This. Especially security.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Just read a bit.  Free-market goods are always better than one-size-fits-all goods forced upon one by the state.

This. Especially security.

Yup.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Just read a bit.  Free-market goods are always better than one-size-fits-all goods forced upon one by the state.

Is the free market a free market good?

Only if you freely partake in it.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

Just read a bit.  Free-market goods are always better than one-size-fits-all goods forced upon one by the state.

Is the free market a free market good?

Only if you freely partake in it.

Like a drug dealer samples his own product to show that it's "fit for purpose"?

The correct answer is no. "The free market" can not be a free market good because that would be paradoxical. You would need an infinitely recursive hierarchy of free markets, and that would be ridiculous. There has to be a top level somewhere -- a market that is not free, or a framework that is not a market.

Therefore, "the free market" itself would have to be exempt from your claim:

Free-market goods are always better than one-size-fits-all goods forced upon one by the state.

You think markets can be bought and sold, and markets of markets, ad infinatum?  Idiot.

[myrkul]

"The free market" can not be a free market good because that would be paradoxical. You would need an infinitely recursive hierarchy of free markets, and that would be ridiculous. There has to be a top level somewhere -- a market that is not free, or a framework that is not a market.

Well, isn't that a lovely little bit of sophistry.

The free market is the framework:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

A free market is a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by government or monopolies.

[myrkul]

Both of you guys seem desperate to avoid any serious discussion of what supports markets, as that might lead to a scary conclusion that you probably won't like: some non-voluntary monopoly (e.g.: a government) might be necessary in order to create suitable conditions for markets.

Not at all. What supports markets? What creates the conditions suitable for their existence?

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

You think markets can be bought and sold, and markets of markets, ad infinatum?  Idiot.

I never said that. I asked a question pertaining to that and you answered 'maybe'.

"The free market" can not be a free market good because that would be paradoxical. You would need an infinitely recursive hierarchy of free markets, and that would be ridiculous. There has to be a top level somewhere -- a market that is not free, or a framework that is not a market.

Well, isn't that a lovely little bit of sophistry.

The free market is the framework:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

A free market is a market structure in which the distribution and costs of goods and services, along with the structure and hierarchy between capital and consumer goods, are coordinated by supply and demand unhindered by external regulation or control by government or monopolies.

soph·is·try
 (sf-str)
n. pl. soph·is·tries
1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.

I asked a QUESTION. Then I disagreed with F.E.R.'s answer. (Then he called me an idiot because of his answer -- what the hell??)

Besides, various real-world examples of markets (MtGox, Google Ad-words/Ad-sense...) generally seem to be controlled by something or someone. They're not ubiquitous, they have scarcity...

Both of you guys seem desperate to avoid any serious discussion of what supports markets, as that might lead to a scary conclusion that you probably won't like: some non-voluntary monopoly (e.g.: a government) might be necessary in order to create suitable conditions for markets.

The only thing that supports markets is supply vs demand.  Ireland went over 500 years without a government, and Iceland had free-market courts.
Again:
The only thing that supports markets is supply vs demand  It is not dependant upon some coercive over-arching authority to exist.
Do you understand?

[myrkul]

Ireland went over 500 years without a government,

Closer to 1000, and if the UK dropped Ireland, Brehon law would pick right back up. I doubt people would even notice anything except their taxes would go away.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

It's unreal how the statists, after killing over 250 million in the 20th century, still maintain that their system works, or hasn't been perfected yet.  How can these people advocate mass-murder?  Every time they advocate for a state, that is what they are doing. How?  HOW?!!

[Anon136]

It's unreal how the statists, after killing over 250 million in the 20th century, still maintain that their system works, or hasn't been perfected yet.  How can these people advocate mass-murder?  Every time they advocate for a state, that is what they are doing. How?  HOW?!!

There have been very violent anarchies (think plains indians) as well but i wouldn't call that an argument against anarchy.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

It's unreal how the statists, after killing over 250 million in the 20th century, still maintain that their system works, or hasn't been perfected yet.  How can these people advocate mass-murder?  Every time they advocate for a state, that is what they are doing. How?  HOW?!!

There have been very violent anarchies (think plains indians) as well but i wouldn't call that an argument against anarchy.

I don't think any of them managed to kill over 2 million/year for a century, as the global statists have done.

[Anon136]

It's unreal how the statists, after killing over 250 million in the 20th century, still maintain that their system works, or hasn't been perfected yet.  How can these people advocate mass-murder?  Every time they advocate for a state, that is what they are doing. How?  HOW?!!

There have been very violent anarchies (think plains indians) as well but i wouldn't call that an argument against anarchy.

I don't think any of them managed to kill over 2 million/year.

still you committed a correlation causation fallacy is what im getting at. just be careful statists are lurking around every corner for the tiniest mistake to exploit ad nausium. It would be different if like half of the societies in the 20th century were statist and the other half anarchist and only the statists committed atrocities but since we have no modern examples of anarchies it doesnt work to say that all genocides are committed by societies with government ergo government caused this problem.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

It's unreal how the statists, after killing over 250 million in the 20th century, still maintain that their system works, or hasn't been perfected yet.  How can these people advocate mass-murder?  Every time they advocate for a state, that is what they are doing. How?  HOW?!!

There have been very violent anarchies (think plains indians) as well but i wouldn't call that an argument against anarchy.

I don't think any of them managed to kill over 2 million/year.

still you committed a correlation causation fallacy is what im getting at. just be careful statists are lurking around every corner for the tiniest mistake to exploit ad nausium.

I believe there is a causation relation between mass death and states.  It was governments that killed the millions.  Perhaps they would have died anyway, but, as I said, it was government that did it, and without government, who knows, it's unlikely to have been worse.

[kokjo]

It's unreal how the statists, after killing over 250 million in the 20th century, still maintain that their system works, or hasn't been perfected yet.  How can these people advocate mass-murder?  Every time they advocate for a state, that is what they are doing. How?  HOW?!!

Lame "Reductio ad Hitlerum" fallacy is lame. AKA "slippery slope": so-called Statist supports 'A', therefore they must support B, C, and D, which obviously leads to mass murder and genocide at Z.

Or maybe it's tu quoque?

You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.

The fallacy applied to AnCap:
a) AnCaps believe in possession of guns.
b) Guns kill people.
c) All AnCaps are crazy and violent people, who kill people with guns.

[ktttn]

It's unreal how the statists, after killing over 250 million in the 20th century, still maintain that their system works, or hasn't been perfected yet.  How can these people advocate mass-murder?  Every time they advocate for a state, that is what they are doing. How?  HOW?!!

There have been very violent anarchies (think plains indians) as well but i wouldn't call that an argument against anarchy.

Institutional mass murder: capital punishment, especially but rather not limited to false convictions and state sanctioned lynchings; civillian casualties of war, soldier deaths; people killed by cops; people killed by governmental incompetence and neglect; people who died in prison.Short list, presumably astronomical number.
The First Nations People are a confederacy. Before the intervention of spain, war and sport overlapped. Counting Coup rarely involved murder.
Anarchism requires far more structure than a state does. The fundamental structure in statism is coersion. Conversely, Anarchistic societies rely only on mutual aid without the threat of death.
An example of one anarchist structure is linux, another, the guilds that built notre dame. Geographical borders.are unimportant to the anarchist- dominion and jurisdiction are internal persomal questions.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

It's unreal how the statists, after killing over 250 million in the 20th century, still maintain that their system works, or hasn't been perfected yet.  How can these people advocate mass-murder?  Every time they advocate for a state, that is what they are doing. How?  HOW?!!

Lame "Reductio ad Hitlerum" fallacy is lame. AKA "slippery slope": so-called Statist supports 'A', therefore they must support B, C, and D, which obviously leads to mass murder and genocide at Z.

Or maybe it's tu quoque?

You avoided having to engage with criticism by turning it back on the accuser - you answered criticism with criticism.

The fallacy applied to AnCap:
a) AnCaps believe in possession of guns.
b) Guns kill people.
c) All AnCaps are crazy and violent people, who kill people with guns.

Even though it's probably correct (An-Caps intuitively seem to be crazy and violent people, who kill people with guns), it's a bit like doing a maths question at school the evil indoctrination centre, making several mistakes in the working and accidentally getting the right answer.

You accuse people who advocate NAP of being violent and crazy. I see.
You support states. States kill millions, on a regular basis.

[FreedomEqualsRiches]

You accuse people who advocate NAP of being violent and crazy. I see.
You support states. States kill millions, on a regular basis.

The whole "I see..." thing doesn't really work if you don't see.
The NAP has been repeatedly shown to be Orwellian because it's the opposite of what it calls itself. ("Love is hate" and all that...)
Non-aggression?? Turns out that it is aggressive, intolerant of other views.

Ahh, I guess you must support the Aggression Principle, and therefore be non-aggressive.  Thanks for setting me straight on that.

[ktttn]

AFFLUENCE
Huah! Goodgod y'all... What is it good for?
 

[Anon136]

It's unreal how the statists, after killing over 250 million in the 20th century, still maintain that their system works, or hasn't been perfected yet.  How can these people advocate mass-murder?  Every time they advocate for a state, that is what they are doing. How?  HOW?!!

There have been very violent anarchies (think plains indians) as well but i wouldn't call that an argument against anarchy.

Institutional mass murder: capital punishment, especially but rather not limited to false convictions and state sanctioned lynchings; civillian casualties of war, soldier deaths; people killed by cops; people killed by governmental incompetence and neglect; people who died in prison.Short list, presumably astronomical number.
The First Nations People are a confederacy. Before the intervention of spain, war and sport overlapped. Counting Coup rarely involved murder.
Anarchism requires far more structure than a state does. The fundamental structure in statism is coersion. Conversely, Anarchistic societies rely only on mutual aid without the threat of death.
An example of one anarchist structure is linux, another, the guilds that built notre dame. Geographical borders.are unimportant to the anarchist- dominion and jurisdiction are internal persomal questions.

right there are definitely strong arguments to be made for why government is responsible for those deaths and why if we didnt have a government we wouldnt have had those deaths, and i personally believe this is accurate. My point was not to say that freedomequalsriches had drawn a false conclusion. I believe his conclusion was accurate. My point was to say that that particular conclusion does not follow from those particular premises alone.