Liberal or Labor? (1 Viewer)

[Rothbard]

Yeah it is pretty heavy on the 'revolutionary rhetoric'

 

[peikoff]

@ Scuba Steve and Rothbard

Ive seen alot of your posts and can discern quite obviously your political inclinations. I'm just curious, how did you get into anarcho-capitalism? I personally find the philosophy abhorent but the purpose of this post is not to argue just to investigate. So, how did you get into anarcho-capitalism?

It just seems like something that you would not come across naturally and thus could only be discovered by looking up the subject or directly seeking it out which to me indicates (although does not prove) that you seemingly made up your minds on the subject before really thoroughly understanding it.

If I may ask another question, what is your metaphysical/epistemological basis of anarcho capitalism? Obviously you require one to justify it. if you choose to answer my question and put yourself through that intellectual task please dont reference books or copy and paste someone else I want to hear your own thoughts and opinions.

 

[Rothbard]

If I may ask another question, what is your metaphysical/epistemological basis of anarcho capitalism? Obviously you require one to justify it. if you choose to answer my question and put yourself through that intellectual task please dont reference books or copy and paste someone else I want to hear your own thoughts and opinions.

The removal of coercion as a valid means of interactions with others justified by a nation state.

Boom did it in one.

No Metaphysical beliefs of any nature other than self-sovereignty, chosen because it makes the most logical sense.

If you find it 'abhorrent' I'd take it you understand very little of the philosophy and motivations.

 

[peikoff]

Thats a great answer professor walter block, I cant believe i thought someone might use their own words.

'boom did it one'...seriously? You provided no rational basis either metaphysical or (more importantly) epistemological, all you did was make an ethical statement which, if it was used to answer my question, assumes its own validity thus nullifying it as justifiable in an argument

I understand the philosophy quite well and find it abhorent because it is so underhanded. It is abhorent in the same way conservatives are more abhorent than hippies because they mask their true philosophy and confuse people by attempting to link themselves with actual worthwile ideas like free markets and human dignity and liberty. AC is a corrupt philosophy and quite intellectually pompous

 

[murphyad]

Probably best to keep this to a PM fellas.

 

[Kwayera]

Probably best to keep this to a PM fellas.

Nah, it's educational.

 

[Rothbard]

Thats a great answer professor walter block, I cant believe i thought someone might use their own words.

'boom did it one'...seriously? You provided no rational basis either metaphysical or (more importantly) epistemological, all you did was make an ethical statement which, if it was used to answer my question, assumes its own validity thus nullifying it as justifiable in an argument

I understand the philosophy quite well and find it abhorent because it is so underhanded. It is abhorent in the same way conservatives are more abhorent than hippies because they mask their true philosophy and confuse people by attempting to link themselves with actual worthwile ideas like free markets and human dignity and liberty. AC is a corrupt philosophy and quite intellectually pompous

okay -Lemon-/OmarComin/Etc

How do I *know* that the statement is a valid ethical statement, purely from understanding that coercing someone forces them to undergo something against their will and without their consent.

If you want me to provide an absolute metaphysical position, I cannot because I don't value metaphysics or the concepts of natural law in that regard.

Further, being an An-Cap implies that one need only wish to be free of an external coercive force, it's not a prescription for a society. All it values is the right of people to opt-out of the social contract.

Please, inform me as to how your political beliefs differ in any way, other than you attempt to use a straw man of conservatives to apply to an-caps and then you just imply that having any informed reasoning regarding the stance is regurgitation.

Yay, trolls!

 

[peikoff]

You dont have to value natural law per se but you must recognise the importance of metaphysics in the formulation of any ethical philosophy. For someone to construct a philosophical system with no regard for the nature of reality it is not only doomed to fail but it is not at all justifiable, by definition, thus any ethical system that arises independantly (dently?) of the nature of reality cant be seen to have any application to the real world thus making it useless to anything that exists in the real world.

secondly, yes AC is a prescription for society as it directly necessitates the abolition of government, and considering government is a collective institution that has application only to a society, the prescriptions of AC then can be seen to, yes, directly affect society.

 

[Rothbard]

You dont have to value natural law per se but you must recognise the importance of metaphysics in the formulation of any ethical philosophy. For someone to construct a philosophical system with no regard for the nature of reality it is not only doomed to fail but it is not at all justifiable, by definition, thus any ethical system that arises independantly (dently?) of the nature of reality cant be seen to have any application to the real world thus making it useless to anything that exists in the real world.

Ugh, conservatard bullshit repeated as justification for a moral system that attempts to sweep aside grandiose claims to intellectual superiority based entirely from either thoughtless nietzschean nonsense or religion. I assume intelligent people are able to decide their own axioms for their own lives. I'm a moral nihilist and I've chosen as my primary axiom a personal disgust for coercion in all of its forms. Am I the person making these moral judgments, of course I am. Am I arguing within the frame of reality, of course I am, I'm making arguments that are readily applicable to the situation in which we live. To argue that individuals deciding what they define as moral is an abrogation of reality is intellectual ignorance in the extreme. Save your piety for someone else.

secondly, yes AC is a prescription for society as it directly necessitates the abolition of government, and considering government is a collective institution that has application only to a society, the prescriptions of AC then can be seen to, yes, directly affect society.

Absolutely incorrect. It does not prescribe the abolition of government, but the potential for people to exist outside the grasp of government.

 

[peikoff]

On a more friendly note, are you by any chance familiar with the works of Jesus Huerta de Soto? He wrote an absolutely phenomenal book called "Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles". Its a superb piece of economics, history and just about anything it covers, its the best exposition of the folly of central banking ever penned in my opinion (yes even greater than mises's 'theory of money and credit')

 

[Lolsmith]

I think Rothbard meant was that he didn't apply his opinion of AC to all of society. He takes it on a personal level.

 

[peikoff]

I assume intelligent people are able to decide their own axioms for their own lives. I'm a moral nihilist and I've chosen as my primary axiom a personal disgust for coercion in all of its forms.



.

And there is your fatal flaw, (if we neglect the previous sentence was just dribble) An axiom is not something to be chosen williy nilly, or something that is unique to each individual person, it is a statement that can not be supported with reference to previous knowledge and is self evident. An axiom must be accepted in order to argue coherently against it thus making a true axiom irrefutable. If you base an ethical philosophy on a chosen axiom, not only is it not true, it can not, through any means, be shown to be more prudent than any other system, so how do you for example claim AC to be any more 'right' than communism or socialism?

 

[Rothbard]

And there is your fatal flaw, (if we neglect the previous sentence was just dribble) An axiom is not something to be chosen williy nilly, or something that is unique to each individual person, it is a statement that can not be supported with reference to previous knowledge and is self evident. An axiom must be accepted in order to argue coherently against it thus making a true axiom irrefutable. If you base an ethical philosophy on a chosen axiom, not only is it not true, it can not, through any means, be shown to be more prudent than any other system, so how do you for example claim AC to be any more 'right' than communism or socialism?

Absolute pabulum, given my lack of respect for Metaphysics, all that other individuals are doing is speculating that their motivations are manifest entirely in axioms that they agree with and adopt for their own premises. A free market perspective and one without coercion seems to have far less of a human toll than the others, if you're measuring it by that particular statistic.

 

[Rothbard]

On a more friendly note, are you by any chance familiar with the works of Jesus Huerta de Soto? He wrote an absolutely phenomenal book called "Money, Bank Credit and Economic Cycles". Its a superb piece of economics, history and just about anything it covers, its the best exposition of the folly of central banking ever penned in my opinion (yes even greater than mises's 'theory of money and credit')

 

[peikoff]

Absolute pabulum, given my lack of respect for Metaphysics, all that other individuals are doing is speculating that their motivations are manifest entirely in axioms that they agree with and adopt for their own premises. A free market perspective and one without coercion seems to have far less of a human toll than the others, if you're measuring it by that particular statistic.

A lack of metaphysics translates into a lack of respect for reality. In the course of your intellectual development you have somewhere made the choice to disregard facts and assume truth to be whatever you like it to be. Again, you say AC is a social system with a lower 'human toll' (something i dispute) but does that make it an appropriate system? You cannot justify it. You are intellectual bankrupt, your thought has strayed from truth. If you wish, I will gladly continue to argue with you and debate you as it would provide both of us with a degree of intellectual stimulation im sure, however I believe it is best to cease our arguing as our issues cannot be resolved, as someone who does not correspond to reality you can not argue effectively, appropriately or properly, therefore making any discourse between us useless as it cannot lead to the discovery or acceptance of absolute truth on your part.

 

[Mayazcherquoi]

I seriously doubt that you pay tax.

I doubt you pay tax or anything above a couple hundred dollars that you could easily claim back. Also don't pull some bullshit "but I pay GST lwol" argument, either.

No, I can not claim anything back... However, my statement of "I do pay tax" (income tax; paid bi-weekly) is valid.

 

[Rothbard]

A lack of metaphysics translates into a lack of respect for reality.

When the metaphysics you assert are garnered without any form of evidence, you're not really making a cogent argument about reality.

In the course of your intellectual development you have somewhere made the choice to disregard facts and assume truth to be whatever you like it to be.

What an arbitrary distinction of 'truth'. You don't hold claim to truth, neither do I, I just ask that I should be able to live outside of the current system.

Again, you say AC is a social system with a lower 'human toll' (something i dispute) but does that make it an appropriate system?

Yes a much lower human toll than the current prison population, the outcome of wars, the outcome of the drug war, the outcome of government intervention in every aspect of reality. I'd posit that there is a substantially lower human toll in the long run, yes.

You cannot justify it.

I can entirely justify it, I cannot 'justify' it within the scope of the system you arbitrarily declare to be the truth.

You are intellectual bankrupt, your thought has strayed from truth.

again with this truth nugget. None of us hold any truth more than we consider to be accurate within our frame of reference.

If you wish, I will gladly continue to argue with you and debate you as it would provide both of us with a degree of intellectual stimulation im sure, however I believe it is best to cease our arguing as our issues cannot be resolved,

Of course they can't be resolved, I've strayed from this arbitrary truth you keep spouting.

as someone who does not correspond to reality you can not argue effectively,

I'll argue that I'm generally on the do not serve list of reality, but to posit that I don't understand the world because I don't adhere to your version of truth is getting a bit tiresome.

appropriately or properly, therefore making any discourse between us useless as it cannot lead to the discovery or acceptance of absolute truth on your part.

Absolutism just implies an inability to accept arguments or discuss on the person that tends towards it.

My current beliefs only hold to the point that scarcity is no longer a relevant issue within economics.

 

[peikoff]

Well, it was clear that your latest post centres around your rejection of my conceptualisation of 'truth' which is interesting because I never explicitly articulated an understanding of 'truth' that would deviate from what is generally accepted as 'truth'

I will now put forward a definition: "Truth is the product of the identification of the facts of reality"

If you have trouble justifing your beliefs in this 'framework of truth' then you surely do have severe intellectual problems

 

[Rothbard]

Well, it was clear that your latest post centres around your rejection of my conceptualisation of 'truth' which is interesting because I never explicitly articulated an understanding of 'truth' that would deviate from what is generally accepted as 'truth'

I will now put forward a definition: "Truth is the product of the identification of the facts of reality"

If you have trouble justifing your beliefs in this 'framework of truth' then you surely do have severe intellectual problems

Again facts of reality, are you implying the tangible or the intangible.

Are you talking about gravity being 9.8Ms^2 on the earth at sea level, or are you talking about the inherent nature of man or something equally as spurious?

Are you talking about a mathematical proof for the addition of numbers, or a philosophical concept?

 

[Lolsmith]

What? wtf. How much do you earn?

You can also claim $300 in tax back without receipts if it's for work. Get onto that.