Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Right.
Well, I've tried anyway.
Well, I've tried anyway.
nvm
- Thread starter xarthaz
- Start date
But so what if he isn't acting? I mean, seriously, who the hell cares? It has no relevance, It has no importance. It's just an excuse for exactly the kind of violence you like to pretend doesn't happen under anarchocapitalism. So your AC is in fact a theory that says violence is all that matters. That all violence is legitimate. Which means that everything you've been trying to convince people of on this forum for the past year is a fraud.
Wrong. If you use violence to strip away someone's right and opportunity to act, then that does not in any way change the fact that that the economic analysis that does not take externalites into consideration will always yield a wrong result.
But your definition of a "free market" is one in which any person can, and in fact should, kill other people to coerce others into being slaves. In other words, you are absolutely opposed to free markets and only accept violently coerced and controlled markets.
So since you argue that markets should never be free, how is it that you claim free markets are better?
That statement was false before, and remains false.
Let me try one last time:
Suppose you and I both own widget factories, and we are the only 2 that do. I decided to kill you. Burn your factory to the ground. Kill all your employees. Go to your house, beat your wife and children and throw them out on the street. Steal anything I want, and burn the house. Then I double the price of my widgets and cut the pay of my workers in half. If they complain, I hire a bunch of thugs to kill a few and beat the rest.
Now I am better off. But everyone else in the world is worse off.
And this is the system you have been arguing for.
You really should move to Somalia.
I've told you repeatedly. Go back and read it. If you cannot comprehend that you are wrong, then you should never try to discuss economics.
So I hire the protective service to kill you and burn your factory. The result is always the same: Under anarchcapitalism the person who uses the most violence and does so the most effectively becomes the king, and everyone else is a serf. Zero economic freedom is the intended result.
You are still not getting it. You do not have the right to take or damage the property of someone else without their prior consent. The burden to seek consent is on the person undertaking the activity that may damage or take the property of another. The person who's property is being taken or damaged has no burden of seeking out all those who might choose to damage his property and paying them off to not do so. That would be extortion.
If a person has not given prior consent, then by definition no other person has a right to take or damage their property.
You have begun with the communist possition that all private property can be taken at will. What you need to do is reverse that and accept the capitalist possition that private property matters, and that people have a right to their property, and that it can't be taken or destroyed without their possition.
You simply do not understand that the burden of action is not on the property owner. The burden of seeking approval is only on the actor. It is absolutely false to say that the property owner didn't act, and therefore has no preference. The preference is assumed to be that no one can take or damage his property without consent. The fact that you want to steal their property by violence does not give you the right to do so.
Of course I did. I assume that people will act in their own best interest. I don't do that silly utopian crap like you do.
Verbose
Deity
Do you have anything like an analysis of the effects of unequal power relations in all this?
I know with an absolute certainty that they won't make the decisions you seem to think they will.
Verbose
Deity
And if I'm not mistaken you dismiss history as a guide to anything, no? And if so I take it you probably won't accept anthropological examples either?
I mean, no point in posting any argument based on either?
Verbose
Deity
OK, so can we actually analyze the current situation according to you?
El Bogus
Prince
And so does the Papal State, the USA and Trinidad and Tobago.
Miles Teg
Nuclear Powered Mentat
I see. You had a argument on a internet forum devoted to a notably bad economist which you personally assessed as a win for those arguing against human rights. Such an authoritative source should really settle the argument. I'll go alert the media, and you can handle the philosophical community. Try to ignore their tears of laughter. They're laughing with you, not at you.
Something seems wrong in this sentence, but I can't quite put my finger on it...
Verbose
Deity
As I'm sure you've been made aware opinion is divided on that matter. (I would think you are somehow misconstruening the meaning of that word.)
However, you have pretty consistently been using the claim that other peoples' interpretations are "arbitrary" to dismiss them. Since apparently this kind "arbitrarity" seems to be the only way we have of assessing things - and I'm trying to interpret your position here (I don't think I'm the only one puzzled) - why should pointing this out be a valid reason for dismissal? It seems to be the best shot we've got.
There has to be a measure of symmetry here. If their claims are "arbitrary", then so are yours. Unless you can argue why your claims have a firmer foundation; which would be?
holy king
Deity
pretty much, yeah. whats the problem?
If your axioms are wrong, then all theories built on them are wrong.
...what are the axioms, anyway? Don't give me a link to Mise, summarize them.
So go ahead do itIf not, we might have to conclude the economic superiority of anarchy.
How does being inferior in every imaginable way come up with something that someone would consider superior? The burden of proof is on the ones who would throw the baby out with the bath water. Nothing you've come up with in the past has shown anything even tolerable about anarchy, much less superior. So what have you got that is not a poorly understood quote from Rothbard or a rant from Mises.org?
Mais non. Unfortunatly, you can't just say 'prove it isn't so' and get everyone else to do your legwork, otherwise the principle that Newton laid down that when two possible interpretation of the existing evidence are correct the simplest is true falls down.
