Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Higher taxes on investment income = more investment, Krugman claims

In reading Paul Krugman for more than a decade, I have come to the following conclusions about his economic beliefs:
  • State-sponsored investment is both morally and economically preferable to private investment;
  • Higher tax rates on investment return will result in more private investment;
  • These are mutually-exclusive beliefs, but nonetheless he expresses them both, but if there is to be a choice, it always is in favor of more state power.
Of course, Krugman also seems to believe that the greater the scope and scale of government police power, the freer people will be, at least if the Democratic Party controls the apparatus of government. In other words, the Police State in which government tells us what we can eat, what we should think, where we should live, what income we are permitted to keep, the form of transportation we should have, and so on, is a State of Freedom. (And if any dissenters can point out where Krugman publicly has stated otherwise, please let me know, but for now, I cannot say honestly that I ever have seen Krugman complain about the expansion of the Police Powers of the State.)

Krugman's recent blog post which I want to examine is the one on taxes on investment income, where he writes:
As Ezra Klein says, the real issue raised by Romney’s maybe-revelation — are we sure that his tax rate is even as high as 15 percent? How much is shielded in tax havens? We need the returns — is the way our system allows those with very high income to pay substantially lower taxes than the upper middle class. If capital gains and other investment income didn’t receive special treatment, we’d be getting substantially more revenue. Why does our political elite talk only about cuts to social insurance, and not at all about raising more revenue from the upper tail of the income distribution? (Emphasis mine)
Given that Krugman and President Obama have called for a return to the 39.6 percent upper-income tax brackets (and Krugman on many occasions has intimated that it should be even higher), one can assume that Krugman also wants a near-40 percent levy on investment income. Now, given that his Keynesian beliefs permit him to assume that the Law of Opportunity Cost does not exist when government is involved, we safely can assume that Krugman believes that if investment income were taxed at about 40 percent, then there would be exactly the same amount of overall investment income that would be taxed.

In other words, a 40-percent tax rate would not discourage investors from putting even a penny less of investment, and that investment returns would not change. My sense is that Krugman believes that even if private investment were to fall, government could make up the difference with investing. Of course, everyone knows that government investments are made in "wise" things like "high-speed rail" in California (a true boondoggle if ever there was one), Solyndra, corn-based ethanol, electric windmills, auto industry bailouts in order to prop up the United Auto Workers, and so on. By moving resources from higher-valued uses to lower-valued uses, government works is "magic," making us poorer, but apparently that is what Krugman believes is morally and economically preferable to anything that might advance private investment.

Furthermore, Krugman deftly changes "tax rates" to "taxes" themselves, which is what Obama also has been doing. No, Warren Buffet does not pay less in taxes than his secretary, and Mitt Romney does not pay less in taxes than do I. For that matter, I am sure that Krugman himself pays more taxes than do most of us. But there is a difference in tax rates and taxes, even if Krugman wants to confuse us on that subject.

The more I read of Krugman, the more I realize that he is just a pure statist. The corporatism that he espouses (government funnels money to politically-connected firms, with the financial markets essentially carrying out state-sponsored directives) has been seen before, whether in Mussolini's Italy, Hitler's Germany, and Peron's Argentina. We know how those regimes went down, and ours will fare no better, and in the end, Krugman will blame private enterprise and call for even more statism.

192 comments:

morse79 said...

Why don't you try arguing with Krugman's actual position -

1) State encouraged (not sponsored) investment is at times superior economically and morally. At other times it is highly inefficient and detrimental.

2) Higher tax rates on investment might result in lower investment at a certain point (and now where does Krugman state that he thinks it should be 40%), but the equity gains might be worth the cost. Opportunity costs cut both ways, and by lowering the capital gains tax rate is not free either.

3) We once had an economy with higher income tax rates and capital gains rates that flourished with gains spread more equitably across the income spectrum.

William L. Anderson said...

Since Obama has called for capital gains tax rates to be the same as ordinary tax rates, and since Krugman never has called for lower rates, I will assume that Krugman is endorsing 39.6 percent tax rates for capital gains. If you have evidence otherwise, please post it and I will make note of it.

If cutting top tax rates is bad, which Krugman says, then I guess that when LBJ had the top rates cut from over 90 percent to 70 percent in 1964, that is what drove down the economy. For all of Krugman's claims, the economy was pretty much kaput in 1980.

We had double-digit inflation, and capital investment was falling. Also, please explain why state-sponsored "investment" is "morally" superior to private investment. Now, if you attribute holiness or goodness to the police powers of the state, then maybe you are correct, at least in your own view.

However, if what we mean by the state is legalized violence, then perhaps equating violence with morality is inconsistent thinking.

With the higher tax rates came what politicians and Krugmanites call "tax loopholes," or deductions. However, many of those deductions have since disappeared, making the effective tax rates much higher today. Furthermore, much of the post-war prosperity came in the absence of government investment, not in its presence. Furthermore, because of the war damage to Europe and Asia, the U.S. economy was by default the main game.

Over time, that situation changed, and the U.S. economy became less competitive, relatively speaking. That is something Krugman refuses to acknowledge.

Bob Roddis said...

What is the "moral" basis of taxing funny money-induced capital "gains"? Why isn't the cost basis of an asset "indexed" for inflation, that mysterious inexplicable force of nature?

morse79 said...

Are you really claiming that because there is no evidence to the contrary you are just going to assert that Krugman supports a 40% capital gains tax! Really!? Why not just make any number up? In addition, Krugman has not denied that he supports eating babies so unless he says otherwise I will claim that he likes to eat babies.

On tax rates, Krugman has not claimed that a reduction in tax rates can't under certain conditions expand the economy. But we are not talking about going back to 90%. Most people are talking about rolling back the Bush tax cuts to the levels of the Clinton era where I don't recall the "burden" of taxation really stifling growth. And while Krugman at times might indicate that he might support even higher rates, he has never said 90%.

Public investment can at times be superior to private investment. Yesterday on the news there was a report about the search for a cure for Alzheimer disease. Private investors do not have the resources and coordination necessary to target this growing issue (the predicted numbers of future Alzheimer patients are quite startling). They are in fact begging for government assistance. Here the private market fails to tackle the problem (unless you are wiling to wait a very very long time), and government support for a research market (not creation of a market) can provide moral and economic benefits. And that is just one example.

The state, as so eloquently put by Max Weber is the monopoly on the LEGITIMATE use of force. Modern states are an efficient mechanisms for generating the security necessary to build economic prosperity. Do you espouse anarchy? Democratic states further address issues of consensus and what is always going to be a balance between freedom and order. Only the naive believe that freedom, minimally defined, is the only basis of human society.

" Furthermore, much of the post-war prosperity came in the absence of government investment," WOW! You really need to do some basic research into the airline industry, the auto industry, farming, hi-tech, life sciences, and the higher education system that employs you. Didn't we land on the moon? Where did that come from and what effects did have on the broader economy?

morse79 said...

Krugman has just posted a graph showing the change in the capital gains rate. Now you can say he might support something like a 25%-30% rate.

Anonymous said...

He doesn't indicate any support for any particular rate that I can see. He just questions whether there is a compelling reason for the capital gains rate to be so low.

And in the paragraph our host quotes, he just says that we'd be getting "substantially" more revenue if capital gains were taxed at the same rate as income, which is hardly controversial. So no evidence for a position either way either. It seems to me that that is a consistent error in Anderson's analysis (responding not to what is actually said but to what he would like Krugman to have said).

Major_Freedom said...

morse79:

"Are you really claiming that because there is no evidence to the contrary you are just going to assert that Krugman supports a 40% capital gains tax! Really!? Why not just make any number up? In addition, Krugman has not denied that he supports eating babies so unless he says otherwise I will claim that he likes to eat babies."

If eating babies contributed to AD in a depression, Krugman would probably at least pause.

"On tax rates, Krugman has not claimed that a reduction in tax rates can't under certain conditions expand the economy."

He has not claimed that a reduction in taxes DO expand the economy.

"But we are not talking about going back to 90%. Most people are talking about rolling back the Bush tax cuts to the levels of the Clinton era where I don't recall the "burden" of taxation really stifling growth."

That's because you were probably still living in your mom's basement, not having to worry about the taxes.

"And while Krugman at times might indicate that he might support even higher rates, he has never said 90%."

Nobody accused him of saying 90%.

"Public investment can at times be superior to private investment."

Public "investment" is not investment. It is SPENDING. Public SPENDING can NEVER be superior to private investment. Human values must be forcefully sacrificed in order to bring about government spending, since it is backed by violence, not consent.

Major_Freedom said...

morse79:


"Yesterday on the news there was a report about the search for a cure for Alzheimer disease. Private investors do not have the resources and coordination necessary to target this growing issue (the predicted numbers of future Alzheimer patients are quite startling)."

You're not in any position to declare that curing Alzeimer's is more important that what others value using their own money, for example a cure for brain cancer, or another hamburger.

You are just a stupid socialist who believes his personal subjective values are somehow objective for all of society.

You are, as expected, totally ignoring the law of opportunity costs, and what had to be given up in order for the government to finance this.

More importantly, it is false to claim that the private sector does not have the resources or coordination to cure Alzeimer's whereas the government does. EVERY RESOURCE the government confiscates or spends money on are all produced in the private sector. The government doesn't produce anything. If the government has the resources to finance research in project X, then by definition the private sector has the resources.

Most importantly, if people are not willing to finance a cure for Alzeimer's at this time, because at this time they have more pressing issues to take care of, like, oh I don't know, their own damn lives and the lives of their family, than you are in no position to say that they are "wrong" to finance their children's education rather than investing in some R&D project for Alzeimer's.

Let the people decide how to spend and invest their own money you ignorant closet tyrant.

"They are in fact begging for government assistance."

Since when did "begging" justify having the right to receive? Are you thinking about economics, or are you viewing civilians as children begging for allowance from mommy and daddy government?

"Here the private market fails to tackle the problem (unless you are wiling to wait a very very long time),"

It's not a "failure" of other people if they have different values from you in their own lives, you solipsistic tin pot ignoramus.

The only "failure" here is you being unable to respect other people's decisions for themselves.

Major_Freedom said...

morse79:


"and government support for a research market (not creation of a market) can provide moral and economic benefits. And that is just one example."

Your example was total garbage. It doesn't have "moral" benefits. It only has special interest group benefits, and victimized group costs. It's IMMORAL to harm one group to benefit another.

And it incurred economic costs, not gains. When people are forcefully deprived of their own property, it immediately incurs a loss that cannot be made up for by others benefiting. If some people benefit at the expense of others, there is no total gain.

"The state, as so eloquently put by Max Weber is the monopoly on the LEGITIMATE use of force."

It's interesting how you use the adjective "eloquent" when speaking about violent, baby killing sociopaths.

Weber was wrong. There is no such thing as legitimate initiations of violence.

"Modern states are an efficient mechanisms for generating the security necessary to build economic prosperity."

Worthless mantra.

"Do you espouse anarchy? Democratic states further address issues of consensus and what is always going to be a balance between freedom and order."

Consensus is not had by majority rule by force. Consensus is had by voluntary consent, which is what anarchy is built on.

Freedom is not antithetical to order such that freedom has to be infringed in order to have order. Individual freedom does not mean people are free to violate the freedoms of others, for that would contradict the meaning of individual freedom.

Major_Freedom said...

morse79:


"and government support for a research market (not creation of a market) can provide moral and economic benefits. And that is just one example."

Your example was total garbage. It doesn't have "moral" benefits. It only has special interest group benefits, and victimized group costs. It's IMMORAL to harm one group to benefit another.

And it incurred economic costs, not gains. When people are forcefully deprived of their own property, it immediately incurs a loss that cannot be made up for by others benefiting. If some people benefit at the expense of others, there is no total gain.

"The state, as so eloquently put by Max Weber is the monopoly on the LEGITIMATE use of force."

It's interesting how you use the adjective "eloquent" when speaking about violent, baby killing sociopaths.

Weber was wrong. There is no such thing as legitimate initiations of violence.

"Modern states are an efficient mechanisms for generating the security necessary to build economic prosperity."

Worthless mantra.

"Do you espouse anarchy? Democratic states further address issues of consensus and what is always going to be a balance between freedom and order."

Consensus is not had by majority rule by force. Consensus is had by voluntary consent, which is what anarchy is built on.

Freedom is not antithetical to order such that freedom has to be infringed in order to have order. Individual freedom does not mean people are free to violate the freedoms of others, for that would contradict the meaning of individual freedom.

Major_Freedom said...

morse79:

"Only the naive believe that freedom, minimally defined, is the only basis of human society."

Only the naive believe that freedom, minimally defined, is not the only basis of human society.

"Furthermore, much of the post-war prosperity came in the absence of government investment," WOW! You really need to do some basic research into the airline industry, the auto industry, farming, hi-tech, life sciences, and the higher education system that employs you."

He said MUCH of the post-war prosperity came in the absence of government spending. He didn't say all.

It was the private sector that made almost all the innovations in airline travel, auto industry, farming, hi tech, and life sciences, and higher education.

"Didn't we land on the moon?"

Didn't that come at a cost that people were not willing to incur, so the government had to steal their money?

"Where did that come from and what effects did have on the broader economy?"

We'll never know what could have been produced, because it's a forever lost opportunity, and that is unfortunately what you raging violence advocating statist ideologues like to pretend isn't relevant, because you can't see it.

Dave said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Anyone who thinks taxes are theft or that democracy is slavery has built a moral system that doesn't admit debate. If taxes are morally wrong- it does NOT MATTER how useful the tax revenue might be, the moral system forbids it.

As much as they might pretend to be arguing that the free-market is the best of all possible worlds, what they really mean is the free-market is the most moral of all possible worlds, according to a very narrow morality that the overwhelming majority of the world disagrees with.

Mikaelus said...

"Anyone who thinks taxes are theft or that democracy is slavery has built a moral system that doesn't admit debate. If taxes are morally wrong- it does NOT MATTER how useful the tax revenue might be, the moral system forbids it."

The argument we make is not that taxation is morally wrong, it is that concept that was so eloquently summarized by Calvin Coolidge: "Taxing any more than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery"

If a government is taking money from me in taxes primarily to fund programs that they should not be funding, then THAT is where morality comes in.

"As much as they might pretend to be arguing that the free-market is the best of all possible worlds, what they really mean is the free-market is the most moral of all possible worlds, according to a very narrow morality that the overwhelming majority of the world disagrees with."

Any morality the free market provides is a side-benefit: we simply believe in the idea that in order for people to be truly free, markets must be free.

In addition, just because you have a majority of opinion, does not mean that the majority is right: all the people in the world can believe Keynes was correct, but it will not magically refute the Laws of Scarcity or Opportunity Cost.

Bala said...

Why is a morality that holds that to initiate force against a man is immoral a narrow morality? And since when did morality become a popularity contest? The Statist "arguments" are truly hilarious.

Bala said...

Also note how the Statists use the word "useful" in a truly slimy manner to conceal that "use" is use to someone or some particular individuals. There is few concepts universally useful. Liberty is one of them. Absolute property rights is another. Statists are unbelievably funny.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: If eating babies contributed to AD in a depression, Krugman would probably at least pause.

That's funny, because Swift's Modest Proposal hinged on an understanding of a fundamental limitation of markets.

Major_Freedom: {Krugman} has not claimed that a reduction in taxes DO expand the economy.

Of course he has. Krugman even wrote a textbook on macroeconomics. The relationship between fiscal policy and the economic cycle is not a mystery or in significant contention in economics. The problem has been that governments often want to stimulate the economy even when the prescription is to temper the economy.

Major_Freedom: Public SPENDING can NEVER be superior to private investment.

That's your oft repeated claim, but most people find that the U.S. government has done many things of value; defeated fascism, supervised the building of interstate transportation, made investments in basic science and technology.

Major_Freedom: Let the people decide how to spend and invest their own money you ignorant closet tyrant.

As the conversation has continued, and you've been confronted on your black-and-white thinking, you've resorted more and more to rants, strawmen, and personal attacks. You need to realize that your position is by far the minority, and it would behoove you to try and understand why so many people reject your point of view.

Bala said...

"you've been confronted on your black-and-white thinking"

How? Like saying that a King setting aside a space for a market does not mean that it is not a free market? Very interesting.

Even more interesting is the point that the very definition of the concept "free market" is a market free of violent exchange, i.e., a market where all exchange is voluntary.

So, the King setting aside a space for a market, that too a space that is not his and paying for it through money taken from others without their consent is violent exchange. Hence, it does not constitute a free market.

I know I am going to be accused of black-and-white thinking, but then what am I to do if the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle tell me that a thing is either white or non-white!!!

There!!! I have you. It is not about White vs Black but about White vs Non-White.

Bala said...

"You need to realize that your position is by far the minority, and it would behoove you to try and understand why so many people reject your point of view."

The way Copernicus had to realise that his position on the Heliocentric model was by far in the minority and that it would have behooved of him to understand why so many people rejected his point of view?

Actually, it will help to know that it is not about a "point of view". It is about white vs non-white; voluntary exchange vs violent exchange. But then how is a Statist to ever understand this!!!!!

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Major_Freedom: If eating babies contributed to AD in a depression, Krugman would probably at least pause."

"That's funny, because Swift's Modest Proposal hinged on an understanding of a fundamental limitation of markets."

No, it hinged on a fundamental limitation of human life itself, not markets specifically, as if the absence of markets will alleviate that limitation.

That's just your socialist brain acting up again.

"Major_Freedom: {Krugman} has not claimed that a reduction in taxes DO expand the economy."

"Of course he has."

Show me.

"Krugman even wrote a textbook on macroeconomics."

I was talking about the NYT Krugman, not the former past life Krugman.

"The relationship between fiscal policy and the economic cycle is not a mystery or in significant contention in economics. The problem has been that governments often want to stimulate the economy even when the prescription is to temper the economy."

Nobody can know these things.

"Major_Freedom: Public SPENDING can NEVER be superior to private investment."

"That's your oft repeated claim, but most people find that the U.S. government has done many things of value; defeated fascism, supervised the building of interstate transportation, made investments in basic science and technology."

What "most people" value doesn't refute the fact that the only value that exists is individual value.

You say I can only "claim" that public spending can never be superior, but that others "find" that public spending is superior. You're just using Orwellian newsspeak to make the tacit assertion that public spending has some inherent objective value that no individual subjective value can nullify.

In reality of course, it makes no difference if some people value public spending while others do not. Public spending is financed by coercion, not consent, and so actual, real world values, the only values that exist, individual values, are in fact destroyed, for the sake of other people's values that are based on violence.

I do not hold violence backed values to be superior to peace backed values.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:


"Major_Freedom: Let the people decide how to spend and invest their own money you ignorant closet tyrant."

"As the conversation has continued, and you've been confronted on your black-and-white thinking, you've resorted more and more to rants, strawmen, and personal attacks."

I have already long ago accepted the world to be black and white, and you have proven yourself to be a black and white thinker ever time you say I'm wrong and you're right.

The fact that your only response to my telling you that you ought to let people decide how to spend and invest their own money, is "black and white thinking!, rants!, straw man!, personal attacks!, blah blah blah" only reinforces the fact that you can't argue against what I am saying to you.

"You need to realize that your position is by far the minority, and it would behoove you to try and understand why so many people reject your point of view."

Do you really believe that I am as ignorant as you? You can't even consider the possibility that I am fully aware of the fact that my convictions are in the minority, and that you and many other brainwashed statists reject peace because you want violence, and hence reject my "point of view"?

Please be aware that playing show and tell with me, and telling me what the majority believes, as if that had even the slightest smidgeon of support to the validity of what you are saying, only reinforces the clear inability of you to seriously challenge my arguments and ideas. All you have is antagonism and idiotic "truth by consensus" irrationalism.

Truth is not derived from what the majority believe. The majority can be, and very often is, WRONG. If you doubt this, then you're nothing but a follower, a sheep, a biased blind ideologue.

When it comes to morals, and property rights, it IS in fact a black and white issue. You violence advocating nutjobs simply don't understand this, so you pretend as if reality is subjective, and all morality to be subjective.

Private property, free trade, voluntary exchange, these are incommensurable with violations of private property, theft, and coercive exchanges. Ethics is black and white. Believing otherwise is just believing in a black and white world where the white (or black) is your subjective beliefs, and the black (or white) is everything that conflicts with them.

Zachriel said...

Bala: I know I am going to be accused of black-and-white thinking, but then what am I to do if the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle tell me that a thing is either white or non-white!!!

The fallacy of black-and-white thinking means that you are saying that everything is either black or white. It's also known as a false dilemma. If you really think that a plaza set aside by the city fathers means that the market is not free, then you are contradicting how nearly everyone uses the term. Such markets are the archetype of what we know as free markets.

free market, an economic market operating by free competition.

If it would help, we will refer to places of trade where prices are set by supply and demand as PoTwPaSbS&D.

Bala: The way Copernicus had to realise that his position on the Heliocentric model was by far in the minority and that it would have behooved of him to understand why so many people rejected his point of view?

Absolutely. It wasn't enough to make the claim, they had to be willing to address the arguments and counterarguments, something that was left to Galileo at the loss of his freedom.

Bala: It is about white vs non-white; voluntary exchange vs violent exchange. But then how is a Statist to ever understand this!!!!!

Either voluntary or violent, no in between. Can't get much more black-and-white than that.

morse79 said...

O Major,

Once again, brevity is not your strong suit, which makes it difficult for others to respond and for us to have a critical dialogue. The hurl of insults doesn't help as well, and just gives the impression that you are grasping at straws.

Most of your response, which Zachriel has addressed, was either straw man, hyperbole, or factual misstatement. I particularly liked that you attacked me for using the term "public investment," which was the term Prof. Anderson used.

Besides your fundamental, and I don't think it is a stretch to say radical view of the DEMOCRATIC modern state, I was struck by your intransigence in the face of finding a cure for Alzheimer.

First, do you really think there is no basis for moral judgments besides market prices? Is curing debilitating disease not something everyone would support and would actually elect officials to further that cause?

Second, the fact that there is an opportunity cost of government spending on disease research does not mean it is not worth it! Nor does it mean that spending somewhere else must automatically decline.

Third, private sector companies are not going to cure Alzheimer in our lifetime without government support. They readily admit that and are asking for assistance. Curing this disease involves public investments into universities, national research institutes, private research institutes, and market competition.

You consistently try to make the equivalence between government support of a public good with socialism. Let me be clear, I do not support placing quotas and production, nationalizing all industry, and dividing up all national income equally. THAT is socialism, not the caricature you have in your head.

Bala said...

"Can't get much more black-and-white than that."

Care to show how violent and voluntary are not mutually exclusive categories? I am sure it will be worth quite a few laughs.

"The fallacy of black-and-white thinking means that you are saying that everything is either black or white."

The error of failing to recognise that white is not non-white and that non-white is not white is to claim (like every insane person that has walked the face of this earth) that white is non-white and that non-white is white.

"Absolutely. It wasn't enough to make the claim, they had to be willing to address the arguments and counterarguments, something that was left to Galileo at the loss of his freedom."

And like in that situation, here too, the minority is right and you, as part of the majority, are wrong. That you have a number of convoluted arguments wading through which would be a criminal waste of any sane person's time does not give you any more credence.

"free market, an economic market operating by free competition."

FREE of what, my dear Sir? Please elucidate on what the word "free" means.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: No, it hinged on a fundamental limitation of human life itself, not markets specifically, as if the absence of markets will alleviate that limitation.

Sorry, we meant to say it was a free market solution.

Major_Freedom: I was talking about the NYT Krugman, not the former past life Krugman.

Major_Freedom: Show me.

Krugman, Economics, second addition 2009, pg 778: "during a recession, the government may pass legislation that cuts taxes and increases government spending in order to stimulate the economy."

There is an entire discussion of multipliers from tax cuts. The only reason you have troubles with this is because you having been fighting a straw-Krugman.

Major_Freedom: What "most people" value doesn't refute the fact that the only value that exists is individual value.

Constantly repeating your position, as if it were aximatic, doesn't make an argument. It does matter what other people value. Just because *you* don't value it doesn't mean it doesn't have value to others. If it spurs overall economic growth, then people will consider it a valuable investment. If they are correct, then the overall prosperity of the country will increase. Indeed, the most successful economies are those with mixed economic systems.

Major_Freedom: When it comes to morals, and property rights, it IS in fact a black and white issue.

Perhaps, but you made the empirical claim that government projects are necessarily less productive in an objective sense, than allowing people to spend their own money. You merely repeat this over and over again as if it were aximatic. Indeed, the most successful economies are those with mixed economic systems.

But at least now we understand your position better: Democracy is tyranny. You really should find yourself an island somewhere.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"The fallacy of black-and-white thinking means that you are saying that everything is either black or white."

Calling black and white thinking a "fallacy" IS ITSELF a black and white thinking. Fallacies only exist in a black and white world.

You are contradicting yourself.

"It's also known as a false dilemma."

And again.

"If you really think that a plaza set aside by the city fathers means that the market is not free, then you are contradicting how nearly everyone uses the term."

Contradicting what "groups of people" believe, does not mean one is making a false statement. Holy Mary Mother of God are you ignorant. Contradicting 1000 trillion people who hold false convictions still wouldn't be grounds for concluding the contradicting is wrong.

Right and wrong are related to objective reality, not what most people believe.

"Truth by consensus" is a fallacy.

"Such markets are the archetype of what we know as free markets."

No, they are not. The archetypes of free markets have no archetypes. They are totally unplanned, organic, and based fully on individual private property rights. No Kings, no states, no central planners.

"Bala: The way Copernicus had to realise that his position on the Heliocentric model was by far in the minority and that it would have behooved of him to understand why so many people rejected his point of view?"

"Absolutely. It wasn't enough to make the claim, they had to be willing to address the arguments and counterarguments, something that was left to Galileo at the loss of his freedom."

Bala wasn't talking about pragmatic choices for personal safety. He was talking about correct versus incorrect arguments, and how to arrive at them.

"Bala: It is about white vs non-white; voluntary exchange vs violent exchange. But then how is a Statist to ever understand this!!!!!"

"Either voluntary or violent, no in between. Can't get much more black-and-white than that."

Consent is a binary concept. You either consent to what someone does to you or your property, or you don't. There is no "in between".

Claiming there is an in between is an incorrect black and white worldview that says reality is definitely not black and white, but is definitely grey. Saying what reality is and what it is not, is a black and white worldview.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Major_Freedom: No, it hinged on a fundamental limitation of human life itself, not markets specifically, as if the absence of markets will alleviate that limitation."

"Sorry, we meant to say it was a free market solution."

"We"? Who else is there with you?

And no, eating babies is not a "free market solution." Eating babies can be, and probably will be, outlawed in a free market society.

"Major_Freedom: I was talking about the NYT Krugman, not the former past life Krugman."

"Major_Freedom: Show me."

"Krugman, Economics, second addition 2009, pg 778: "during a recession, the government may pass legislation that cuts taxes and increases government spending in order to stimulate the economy."

I was talking about the NYT Krugman, not the former past life Krugman.

"Now show me the NYT Krugman saying that."

I was asking you to show me, because I claim they don't exist.

"There is an entire discussion of multipliers from tax cuts. The only reason you have troubles with this is because you having been fighting a straw-Krugman."

I know of the tax cut multipliers, please don't insult my intelligence. I am not having "trouble" with anything but you failing to answer my simple question of showing me the NYT Krugman calling for tax cuts.

"Major_Freedom: What "most people" value doesn't refute the fact that the only value that exists is individual value."

"Constantly repeating your position, as if it were aximatic, doesn't make an argument."

Constantly denying it, as it the contra position were axiomatic, doesn't make an argument.

What I am saying has an entire school of literature behind it that explains in great detail the summaries of what I am conveying to you.

Throwing idiotic talking points at me doesn't constitute an argument.

"It does matter what other people value."

The only value that exists are individual values. I am not interested in vague, undefined "other people" value.

"Just because *you* don't value it doesn't mean it doesn't have value to others."

Nobody has the right to value stealing from others, and nobody has the right to hold that their valuing something that is financed by theft, somehow crystalizes that value into something objective that others must be forced to be subjugated under.

Just because **YOU** value something, it doesn't mean I ought to be forced to pay for it against my will. I have **MY** values that **OVERRULES** every single one of your arrogant values you want to impose on me when it comes to my own person and property.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:


"If it spurs overall economic growth, then people will consider it a valuable investment."

It doesn't spur economic growth. Stealing people's property SHRINKS economic growth in accordance with actual individual values, and substitutes them by violence with the values of those who initiate violence.

You are again, AGAIN, ignoring the law of opportunity costs, and you fallaciously believe that as long as you can identify some causal chain of productivity derived from the side effects of government spending, that it entitles you to claim that "overall economic growth" is increased. It is NOT increased overall. Some people lost, and other people gained when force is used. That doesn't generate "overall" economic growth. It's at least a net zero gain, and almost always a net loss since violence always reduces overall productivity even if some people gain from the looted wealth.

"If they are correct, then the overall prosperity of the country will increase."

They are not correct.

"Indeed, the most successful economies are those with mixed economic systems."

Epic conflation of correlation with causation.

Most successful economies also have rape, murder and theft, but that doesn't mean they are required or necessary or beneficial to economic growth.

Without the statism, and private property rights being absolute for everyone, then economic growth would have been even higher than it has been.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:


"Major_Freedom: When it comes to morals, and property rights, it IS in fact a black and white issue."

"Perhaps, but you made the empirical claim that government projects are necessarily less productive in an objective sense, than allowing people to spend their own money."

So now ethics are perhaps black and white? Then you quickly move on to the next crap claim? This time that I made an empirical claim? No, I made a logically necessary claim. I didn't make a claim that is derived from hypothesis testing. It is logically deduced from first principles, like Pythagoras' theorem. It is not an empirical proposition like how many apples are growing in that tree.

"You merely repeat this over and over again as if it were aximatic."

You merely repeat the opposite over and over again as if it were axiomatic.

"Indeed, the most successful economies are those with mixed economic systems."

Indeed, you again just conflated correlation with causation. Again, the most successful economies also have rape, murder and theft, but that doesn't mean they are required or necessary or beneficial to economic growth.

"But at least now we understand your position better: Democracy is tyranny. You really should find yourself an island somewhere."

I am saying violence is tyranny. Anything that is based on violence is tyranny. Since democracy is based on violence and not consent, it's tyrannical.

And again, the fact that you can't argue against my arguments, and can only hope that my person is removed, proves you are unable to seriously challenge anything I am saying.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: Since democracy is based on violence and not consent, it's tyrannical.

Wow. Just wow. You really need to find an island somewhere.

Major_Freedom said...

morse79:

"O Major,"

O Captain my Captain...

"Once again, brevity is not your strong suit, which makes it difficult for others to respond and for us to have a critical dialogue."

If you lack the ability to handle yourself here, then maybe you should try youtube and watch LOLCATS instead.

"The hurl of insults doesn't help as well, and just gives the impression that you are grasping at straws."

Oh please. Insulting you and Zchriel, who positively advocate for violence, is the least I can do. You don't deserve respect. I respect and refrain from insulting those who don't do what you crazy sociopaths do.

"Most of your response, which Zachriel has addressed, was either straw man, hyperbole, or factual misstatement."

Wrong. ALL of my responses, which Zachriel could not seriously challenge, was neither strawman, hyperbole, or factually incorrect.

If you disagree, then put your money where your mouth is and show me where I created a straw man, where I engaged in hyperbole, and where I am factually incorrect.

But you and I both know you won't do that, because your only goal is to antagonize and spew worthless diatribes.

"I particularly liked that you attacked me for using the term "public investment," which was the term Prof. Anderson used."

Do you honestly believe that I am a follower like you, such that if one person on "the good team" says X, I have to agree?

No, government expenditures are not investments. They are all consumptive expenditures. For government does not expend money in a context of private property rights, for the purposes of making subsequent sales (at a profit). That is what I hold investment to be, and any other expenditures are consumption expenditures, EVEN IF they lead to gigantic, durable projects like the Hoover Dam. The Hoover Dam is a glorified stick of gum holding back a leak.

"Besides your fundamental, and I don't think it is a stretch to say radical view of the DEMOCRATIC modern state, I was struck by your intransigence in the face of finding a cure for Alzheimer."

I am not against finding a cure for Alzeimer's. I am against using force to do it.

Just like while I am in favor of finding a cure for AIDS, I would not go around and steal people's money to finance research on it, and I would not kill all AIDS patients, and I would not simply go into a laboratory, declare it to be mine, and then research a cure.

I do not hold the vicious ethic of the ends justifying the means.

Please stop falling over yourself trying to paint me as being anti-cure-for-Alzeimer's.

I simply object to the government doing it because they use violence to do it.

"First, do you really think there is no basis for moral judgments besides market prices?"

First, I never claimed market prices to be the only basis for morality. Market prices are but one dimension in a whole array of voluntary interactions.

I do not hold there to be a rational moral case for initiating violence.

Major_Freedom said...

morse79:

"Is curing debilitating disease not something everyone would support and would actually elect officials to further that cause?"

HOW will those "elected officials" "further than cause"? Will they simply go around and ask for voluntary donations and investments? Or will they demand that people pay whatever the "elected officials" want, and if anyone resists, because they have MORE URGENT and MORE IMPORTANT plans for themselves and their families, because either nobody in their family is suffering from Alzeimer's, or there is, but they wish to go about finding a cure OUTSIDE the governmental system, because the government for example prevents certain government doctors from performing certain experiments and treatments, thus resulting in that family wanting to "go private", then who in the flying hell do you think you are to call for guns to be pointed at this family, to take their money, so that YOUR personal choice for who should cure Alzeimer's is "the" choice that family has to be connected to?

Why can't you ASK that family for money, and if they refuse, then clearly it's because they have MORE IMPORTANT things and DISAGREE WITH YOU about what they need to deal with in their lives?

Why is the presence of people who disagree with you on how they are going to go about solving their own and their family's complex and diverse problems, so abhorrent to you? How in the world can you say that the state is the only solution to curing Alzeimer's, and then, to make a total fool of yourself, accuse me of being against wanting to cure Alzeimer's? I am reminded of a famous quote by the great Frederic Bastiat, and it applies PERFECTLY to you:

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."

Substitute "cure for Alzeimer's" for "education" and that aptly characterizes your completely misguided and muddleheaded attitude.

"Second, the fact that there is an opportunity cost of government spending on disease research does not mean it is not worth it!"

YOU CAN'T KNOW THAT UNLESS YOU PASSIVELY OBSERVE PEOPLE MAKING THAT CHOICE!!!!!

Which means the only way you can KNOW "it is worth it" for people, is to observe people in a framework of free trade and property rights, and then see if that is in fact what they are willing to give up in order to get the thing in question.

But the fact that people are forcefully deprived of their property, it means that it is NOT "worth it". It is NOT "worth it" to the people who are dragged into your socialist plan!

Major_Freedom said...

morse79:


"Nor does it mean that spending somewhere else must automatically decline."

It does mean that if the government spends a given sum of money, private property owners are NOT spending that money. Since government acquires its money coercively, it means that what the government spends, is money that others are deprived of being able to spend. It doesn't matter if people, after they are taxed, reduce or increase their spending out of their remaining incomes over time. What matters is what was forever given up and lost because the government took people's money and spent it, rather than the people who earned that money.

"Third, private sector companies are not going to cure Alzheimer in our lifetime without government support."

Then that proves people's actual values are such that they have more pressing issues to deal with first, before there is enough capital and productivity to make a cure for Alzeimer's economical.

You can't say that because YOU and a special interest group of people, value a cure for Alzeimer's, that it justifies you or the government stealing money from people to finance a cure for it. For what if I and my special interest group friends want a cure for AIDS and we find that more important than a cure for Alzeimer's? Does this mean that we can just go ahead and steal your money and the money from others, to finance a cure?

No? We have to "go through democratic channels" first? In other words, the choice on whether Mr. X with AIDS lives or dies, hinges on the government's values, and not the values of the individual in question? Do you have any idea how sick that is?

"They readily admit that and are asking for assistance."

Asking, begging, all these things are not justification for taking.

"Curing this disease involves public investments into universities, national research institutes, private research institutes, and market competition."

At the cost of actual individual values which were violently sacrificed by the force of armed men.

And no, those weren't investments. They are were consumptive expenditures.

"You consistently try to make the equivalence between government support of a public good with socialism."

You consistently advance socialist arguments.

"Let me be clear, I do not support placing quotas and production, nationalizing all industry, and dividing up all national income equally."

What if doing so will cure Alzeimer's?

"THAT is socialism, not the caricature you have in your head."

So you want socialism for everything you believe is important, like cure for Alzeimer's, so you ask that the government take it over at other people's expense, but then you realize that you might be on the other end of that exploitation if the government took over what you want to keep in the private sector, like the industry you are in, so you ask that the government do not take it over at your expense.

In other words, you are exactly like a fat cat corporatist. Privatize the gains, socialize the losses. Socialist gains for you, privatized losses for others.

How wonderful. And you hilariously believe you have a superior morality to mine? Your morality is sick and depraved.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Major_Freedom: Since democracy is based on violence and not consent, it's tyrannical."

"Wow. Just wow. You really need to find an island somewhere."

Wow. Just wow. Wowey wowsters. Wow wow to the wow wow. Wow wow chicka wow wow chicka wow wow woooooh!

You really need to realize that saying the same imbecilic thing over and over and over again is having absolutely zero effect on the courage of my convictions.

Go move to an island. Go move to an island. Go move to an island.

You need to realize that individuals are islands unto themselves, and if you tread on my island, I am not going to just sacrifice it to the collective of all islands just because your rotten sewage infested island isn't working right.

You did not even attempt to respond to my argument that democracy, since it is based on violence, is tyrannical.

If 51 people voted to torture, steal from, coerce, 49 people, then democracy says that's totally justified.

Denying this is just you being ignorant as usual.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: You need to realize that individuals are islands unto themselves

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as a manor of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

morse79 said...

@Major Freedom,

Wow, a rant per sentence. That is impressive even for you. I will focus on just one, indicative sentence in reference to Alzheimer,

"so you ask that the government take it over at other people's expense"

At no point did I saw that government should "take over" anything. That you fail to see the difference between support and control, is highly revealing about your own cognitive bias. And everything is at someone else's expense, that is not a basis for argument.

I have not time right now to respond to the rest of your post. As I mentioned earlier, by making such lengthy comments you are further isolating yourself from critical dialogue with people who hold a different perspective (and also do not feel the need to insult you at every turn. Why so angry?).

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Major_Freedom: You need to realize that individuals are islands unto themselves"

"No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as a manor of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

Every man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a master of his own continent, a man of himself;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is no more the less, for Europe is but a place,
as well as if a promontory were, as
well as a manor of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
if I am involved in his life.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the liberty bell tolls; it tolls for me.

Major_Freedom said...

morse79:

"Wow, a rant per sentence."

Wow, a wow per wow. Wowey wow.

"That is impressive even for you."

Why do you believe that your rants are in any way a challenge to my rants?

"I will focus on just one, indicative sentence in reference to Alzheimer,"

"so you ask that the government take it over at other people's expense"

"At no point did I saw that government should "take over" anything."

Yes, you did. By saying you want the government to FINANCE a cure for Alzeimer's, you are ipso facto implying that you want the government to TAKE OVER people's economic lives by forcefully preventing them from achieving their own dreams and goals, in favor of yours.

Why don't you just ask the people if they want to give you money? Is it because you suspect you won't get any except through theft?

"That you fail to see the difference between support and control, is highly revealing about your own cognitive bias."

I don't fail to understand the difference between "support" and "control", and your straw man assertion to the contrary is highly revealing about YOUR cognitive bias in being unable to see people's economic lives being destroyed because of you calling for armed thugs to take care of your desire to finance a cure for Alzeimer's.

I didn't say the government will take over control of a means of production. They will take over, take control, over people's economic lives, for that is what is required for the government to do what you want them to do.

"And everything is at someone else's expense, that is not a basis for argument."

Of course it is a basis for an argument. If I can show you that what you want will necessarily come at the expense of others, and by that I mean without their consent, by force, exploited, against their will, against their values, then I can correctly identify you as a destroyer of real world human values, not a protector or promoter of them.

"I have not time right now to respond to the rest of your post."

LOL, you say this like you believe I am going to miss your cement headed rants on how other people's values much be forcefully squashed in favor of your individual values.

"As I mentioned earlier, by making such lengthy comments you are further isolating yourself from critical dialogue with people who hold a different perspective"

YOU are isolating yourself from peaceful, productive, cooperative society, and degenerating it into a cesspool of economic parasitism, ethical depravity, and sanctimonious holier than thou grandstanding about good causes for people, even though it has a rotten core of human sacrifice.

I do not care one single iota that I "isolate" myself from people like you. In fact, I consider being isolated from the likes of you as a value generating activity.

"(and also do not feel the need to insult you at every turn. Why so angry?)."

I'm angry? I'm not the one calling for guns to be pointed at people's heads if all they do is the horrific thing and disagree what you on what they "should" want to do with their own bodies and their own property.

You self-righteous crusaders of moral depravity make me sick to be associated with you in terms of species.

morse79 said...

Grants to universities for research on Alzheimer = putting a gun to everyone's economic head, taking control of their economic lives, and stealing their money without permission.

Did I get you right?

And this whole "I know you are but what am I" style of arguing is just juvenile.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: any man's death diminishes me,
if I am involved in his life.


And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

Major_Freedom said...

morse79:

"Grants to universities for research on Alzheimer = putting a gun to everyone's economic head, taking control of their economic lives, and stealing their money without permission."

Where did the grants come from? The Treasury.

Where did the Treasury get the money? The IRS.

Where did the IRS get the money? From the taxpayers.

In what way did the money get collected from the taxpayer, asking or demanding? Demanding.

What is that demand backed by? The threat of force.

What kind of force? Physical force.

What are the lengths the government will go to ensure that the physical force is adequate in coercing taxpayers to pay? Ultimately lethal force with guns if you resist enough.

Ergo, all the fluffy teddy bears and pink unicorns and rainbows and colorful butterflies that go along with the "grants to cure Alzeimer's" is ultimately backed by pointing guns at people's heads.

You can deny this REALITY all you want, but I have woken up so many people to this reality that I EXPECT you to believe I'm crazy at first. It is ALWAYS the same order. Denial, then acceptance. Every single time. You're no different.

"And this whole "I know you are but what am I" style of arguing is just juvenile."

I do that whenever someone is juvenile enough to spew verbal diatribes that do not address any argument I made in detail, and are just those anonymous "F U" type verbiage that can apply to anyone you disagree with. I repeat that garbage back so that you can see that your nonsense doesn't address my specific arguments and is just your mind going haywire at trying to cope and comprehend what it is that you are now thinking about. It is clashing very strongly with your existing convictions, so that angst and turmoil is then manifested as a food fight "I hate you" shouting match, where the most intimidating wins. That's what happens when people like you can't think, you get confused and frightened, and you are genetically predisposed to treating the situation as a threat, and so you attack, rather than understand.

Try thinking and understanding. It may do you some good.

Zachriel:

"Major_Freedom: any man's death diminishes me,
if I am involved in his life."

"And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

And therefore never send to know for whom
the liberty bell tolls; it tolls for me.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: In what way did the money get collected from the taxpayer, asking or demanding?

It's called taxation with representation. In other words, you have a voice in the raising of taxes.

Major_Freedom: And therefore never send to know for whom
the liberty bell tolls; it tolls for me.


Yes, it's quite apparent. You turned the poetic phrasing of John Donne about the interrelatedness of all people into some perverse version of your personal isolation. That's why we repeated,

"And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

morse79 said...

In other words, you agree with my representation of your position. That would have sufficed.

I don't know why you have the need to rant so much and belittle other people so much. Maybe it is, as Zachriel put it, an unfortunate consequence of your utter isolation from humanity and society. Or it could be that you are just an a$$hole.

morse79 said...

@ Major,

So where can I join your militia to help take down the US government and create a utopian paradise in its place? Apparently living here is like living under Nazi Germany so why not protest with your feet (or your guns?)?

Bala said...

"It's called taxation with representation. In other words, you have a voice in the raising of taxes."

Taxation with representation. Hmmmm. Interesting. It's like when the case where the sheep get to choose the wolves that may represent them so that the wolves may make the rules governing how the sheep may be eaten? Like the sheep have a voice in determining when they are eaten, I have a voice in determining how much of my property I may be relieved of. It is very comforting indeed to know that I am represented in this manner. Thanks for opening my eyes and causing the scales to fall off.

ekeyra said...

Morse,

Considering the technology, funding, and down right arrogance available to the federal government at the present, how can you conclude that it is NOT equal to or worse than nazi germany in its capacity and scope of violence foreign and domestic?

Zachriel said...

Zachriel: Taxation with representation

Bala: It is very comforting indeed to know that I am represented in this manner.

That's what the American colonialists fought for in 1776 and implemented in 1789, and the model has been adopted nearly the world over.

ekeyra: Considering the technology, funding, and down right arrogance available to the federal government at the present, how can you conclude that it is NOT equal to or worse than nazi germany in its capacity and scope of violence foreign and domestic?

Um, Nazi Germany started world war that left civilization in flames and resulted in the deaths of tens of million, including millions murdered in the Holocaust. No matter how unwise American actions may have been, no matter how much they may have failed to live up to their own values, they are not Nazis.

Bala said...

"That's what the American colonialists fought for in 1776 and implemented in 1789, and the model has been adopted nearly the world over."

I wonder why I keep feeling that what the American Colonialists said was "No taxation without representation" and not "Taxation with representation". Statists are experts at twisting reality to fit their warped worldview. You just proved it.

Zachriel said...

Bala: I wonder why I keep feeling that what the American Colonialists said was "No taxation without representation" and not "Taxation with representation".

Nor did they simply say "No Taxation".

It was qualified because they weren't against taxation, but were being deprived of their representation in the Parliament, a right won in the aftermath of revolution in 1688.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Major_Freedom: In what way did the money get collected from the taxpayer, asking or demanding?"

"It's called taxation with representation. In other words, you have a voice in the raising of taxes."

Just because the man being beaten or stolen from has a "voice" to say he does not want it, it doesn't mean the beating or theft are morally justified.

"Major_Freedom: And therefore never send to know for whom
the liberty bell tolls; it tolls for me."

"Yes, it's quite apparent. You turned the poetic phrasing of John Donne about the interrelatedness of all people into some perverse version of your personal isolation."

LOL, individual liberty quite the opposite of "isolation." It is camaraderie, cooperation, teamwork, and mutually beneficial interaction.

Yes, it's quite apparent that you fallaciously believe that "interrelatedness" of people requires guns and coercion to "keep people together." And that in peace, in a society of individual property rights, then like the metaphysical communist you are, you ignorantly believe that individual humans will be progressively "alienated" from one another, until some magical force reveals itself and transform human society in one giant cosmic blob with the creator.

That's why I repeated my poetic version of Donne's poem, to show you the perverse way in which you are interpreting it.

"And therefore never send to know for whom
the liberty bell tolls; it tolls for me."

Bala said...

Ha Ha Ha!!! They definitely didn't say "Taxation with representation" either. That much is certainly egg on your face, Statist buffoon. And I am still waiting for your explanation of what the free market is "free" of.

Major_Freedom said...

morse79:

"In other words, you agree with my representation of your position. That would have sufficed."

Your representation was a mockery, not an understanding. I showed you the understanding, so that you can see how it is in fact based on tyranny. You thought it was crazy before, but now you understand.

"I don't know why you have the need to rant so much and belittle other people so much."

Probably because YOU are belittling people so much. That is what happens when you call for violence to be initiated against them. You are belittling them. I belittle people like you who want to belittle others.

"Maybe it is, as Zachriel put it, an unfortunate consequence of your utter isolation from humanity and society."

I think both you and Zachriel are anti-social losers who project their feeling of isolation onto others who reject you, as if THEY are the ones isolated from humanity.

I am metaphysically isolated from every other human in the world, as are you and Zachriel. The only difference between you and I is that I don't want to "bring people together" in a coercive manner. I want people to WANT to come together for mutual benefit. That occurs when we START with individual liberty and respect for property rights.

If that means some people live on their own in the woods, let them. If that means others engage in a high level of interaction and exchange with others, let them. You are in no position to dictate what others should and should not do with their own persons and property.

And for you to hilariously accuse me of being "isolated", when in reality it is the exact opposite, can only mean that you WANT people like me to be isolated, i.e. thrown out of society because I disagree with you. You can't even see the possibility of agreeing to disagree, and going our separate ways, me on my property and with my friends and colleagues and family, you in your mother's basement.

"Or it could be that you are just an a$$hole."

I find those who advocate for violence against innocent people to be a$$holes. That means you are one.

"So where can I join your militia to help take down the US government and create a utopian paradise in its place?"

I don't have a militia, nor do I plan on engaging in a suicide mission of taking down any government.

My battle is in the intellectual sphere.

"Apparently living here is like living under Nazi Germany so why not protest with your feet (or your guns?)?"

I am not a sociopath like you?

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"That's what the American colonialists fought for in 1776 and implemented in 1789, and the model has been adopted nearly the world over."

As is typical, you lump everyone up into a nice little package of 100% agreement with your historical revisionism.

No, they didn't "fight" for that at all.

The statist colonialists might have fought for it, but because there were existing property owners, their "fight" turned on the colonists themselves.

The first US government confiscated more taxes from the people than the British crown when the colonists were not independent.

The principle of independence is only truly had at the individual level. Anything less and there will invariably exist people who are not independent, but oppressed.

If you speak positively of American independence from Britain, then why not state independence from the feds? Why not city independence from states? Why not neighborhood independence from cities? Why not individual household independence from neighborhoods?

Of course since your mind lacks a high enough cognitive ability to understand all this, you will instead try to spew out some nonsense about the magical barrier that Gandalf set up which makes independence "work" but up to some arbitrary level containing a magical area of land and magical number of people, that only you can know, and wow would you look at that, it just so happens to be existing country borders and existing country populations.

It's a coincidence!

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Nor did they simply say "No Taxation"."

Absolutely false. There were existing property owners who didn't want any taxation at all, but were forced to pay them. There were many anarchist communities that wanted to remain independent.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: And therefore never send to know for whom
the liberty bell tolls; it tolls for me.


That's funny (in a sad sort of way).

Major_Freedom: No, they didn't "fight" for that at all.

Well, a lot of them got together and wrote their reasons down, including the right of the people to institute government.

Major_Freedom: The principle of independence is only truly had at the individual level.

Taking the U.S. as an example, people do have a number of endowments, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the right to speech, assembly, petition, religion, due process.

Yes, it's quite apparent you disagree with the vast majority of people, and you see any accommodation to common democratic government to infringe on your personal liberty. You've said that.

Major_Freedom: {rand snipped}

So just to clarify, you consider it a valid use of government power to force people to stop at red lights?

Bala said...

Oh!!! So you are pretty quick at wiping the egg off, huh?

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"That's funny (in a sad sort of way)."

You're sad, (in a funny sort of way).

"Major_Freedom: No, they didn't "fight" for that at all."

"Well, a lot of them got together and wrote their reasons down, including the right of the people to institute government."

Yeah, just like "a lot" of people get together to rob stores.

"Major_Freedom: The principle of independence is only truly had at the individual level."

"Taking the U.S. as an example, people do have a number of endowments, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the right to speech, assembly, petition, religion, due process."

Only because enough of the philosophy that I espouse has been accepted by enough people. If everyone thought like you, the minority would be enslaved by the majority's whims.

"Yes, it's quite apparent you disagree with the vast majority of people, and you see any accommodation to common democratic government to infringe on your personal liberty. You've said that."

I don't need to have your acceptance, nor even your recognition. That is not my intention. I am merely using you as a case example of a sociopath statist whose worldview, once exposed, would show the world how utterly evil the core of it really is.

"So just to clarify, you consider it a valid use of government power to force people to stop at red lights?"

I would find it a valid use of force to stop people from destroying the person or property of another, and so regardless of who the enforcer is, rapist, murderer, or the state, it would be a valid use of force.

But, this does not mean that I have to advocate for rape, murder, or the state.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: Yeah, just like "a lot" of people get together to rob stores.

Yes, we "get" that you disagree with the argument contained in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. All your words, and yet that's all you've said.

Don't know how to help you. Have you considered renouncing your citizenship in protest?

Major_Freedom: If everyone thought like you, the minority would be enslaved by the majority's whims.

As we have explained to you several times, we are not a majoritarian. Modern democratic societies are composed of distributed power balanced at all levels of society, from state to corporate to individual.

morse79 said...

The more I read the Major's responses, the more I am convinced that he is actually 11 years old.

Major_Freedom said...

"Yes, we "get" that you disagree with the argument contained in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. All your words, and yet that's all you've said."

"We"? Is there someone else there with you?

"Don't know how to help you. Have you considered renouncing your citizenship in protest?"

I don't want your help you busybody, nosey muckraking shill. Why do you presume to be in any position to help someone who knows your beliefs are morally repugnant? If anyone needs help, it's you, not me.

morse79:

"The more I read the Major's responses, the more I am convinced that he is actually 11 years old."

The more a statist throws everything he believes into a discussion, the more it is clear that they are traumatized adults and young adults who view the state and mommy and daddy, because they never reconciled their familial problems, and so they still cling to the need to attach themselves to some authority.

This is why they view libertarians as "naughty children." It's because they resist the state. Resisting the state appears to the traumatized statist as a disobedient child to their parents.

So just like your parents mocked, condescended, and chastised you for disobeying them, so too do you feel the need to fill that role of abusive parent, who has to "keep the family together", and hence "keep the government-citizen relationship together."

The more I read your posts, the more I see a sad, pathetic, mentally disturbed person whose body may have matured, but whose mind is still that of a child who is afraid of independence and thus reaches out for mommy and daddy in government.

I bet you had a very strict father that you didn't much like growing up, and you were raised by your mommy, which is why you find yourself supporting "mommy" type government (progressive, democrat programs like healthcare, education, roads, etc). Just like mommy took care of your cuts and bruises as a child, so too do you want mommy government to do the same. Just like your mommy read to you and taught you how to read and count, so too do you want mommy government to do the same.

You view libertarians and anarchists as bratty, disobedient destroyers of "the family." That's why you cannot help but call them "11 years old."

The funny thing is that you actually believe your silly and pedantic insults are somehow succeeding in inflicting emotionally pain on those you mock. In reality, I see just a pathetic weak minded loser who can't think and act independently without being told what to do.

morse79 said...

No, I think you are eleven because your argument basically comes down to "I know you are but what am I."

Childish. And then you accuse me of trying to insult when, as has been pointed out, it is you who repeatedly bullies people on this site. Like an eleven year old.

Bala said...

"So just to clarify, you consider it a valid use of government power to force people to stop at red lights?"

I don't speak for MF, but I do not consider use of government power to force people to stop at red lights to be legitimate. The reason I consider it illegitimate is childishly simple. Driving involves the use one's own property (vehicle, fuel, person, etc) on the property of another person (land, the road, etc.). Only the owner of the road may lay down conditions for the usage of the road. No one else has any business telling others how to use their property (vehicle, fuel, person, etc.). To do so would be to usurp the said property.

Government does not own the roads because the very concept "government property" is an oxymoron. If it is government, it can't have property and if it is property, the owner can't be government. Since government dictating behaviour at stop signals presupposes government ownership of the road or the property of the drivers, it is illegitimate and enforcing its diktats involves the initiation of force and is hence immoral.

Do you see how vacuous your "argument" is?

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: {extensive rant snipped}

Have you considered renouncing your citizenship in protest?

Bala: Do you see how vacuous your "argument" is?

No. Your argument only follows given your precepts, such as saying it is axiomatic that government can't have property. In fact (whether you like it or not), the public does own property in common. For instance, parks used to be places where aristocracy set aside land for their personal use. They were typically walled to keep game in and people out, and you could be imprisoned for trespassing or poaching. In the modern era, though, parks are often publicly owned for the benefit of the public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Centralpark.png

Major_Freedom said...

morose79:

"No, I think you are eleven because your argument basically comes down to "I know you are but what am I.""

Well sure, if you ignore the arguments I made that refute your claims, and instead focus on the deserved responses I gave to your off topic worthless antagonisms that are not arguments against my arguments.

"Childish. And then you accuse me of trying to insult when, as has been pointed out, it is you who repeatedly bullies people on this site. Like an eleven year old."

False. You started the bullying and insults. You introduced advocacies of violence. You introduced hateful and anti-social practises.

To respond to an insulting vermin with not only arguments that refute your nonsense, but insults that respond to your insults, only to then see you accuse me of being a child, is proof that you think like a child. Temper tantrums like yours are due to an inability to stick with the ideas and arguments presented.

morse79 said...

Ummm, here is the first insulting post on this comment board, from you -

"You are just a stupid socialist who believes his personal subjective values are somehow objective for all of society."

Look up anger management Major. Funny that you have chosen a military moniker, claim to live under a tyranny, yet somehow are not implying violence?

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Have you considered renouncing your citizenship in protest?"

Obviously you didn't understand me the first time. I said I don't want or need your help. I don't want your advice. I don't consider you to be in any position to improve anyone's life but your own mooching self.

Imagine I have renounced my citizenship. Imagine I am now typing these words on my own tropical island. NOW can you address my arguments as they are, instead of trying to ignore them and trying to give me advice on what I should and should not do?

You can admit it if you can't argue against what I am saying. It's alright. You won't be the first.

"Bala: Do you see how vacuous your "argument" is?"

"No."

I see it. Not surprised you claim not to see it.

"Your argument only follows given your precepts, such as saying it is axiomatic that government can't have property."

Legitimate land property is only had by original appropriation (homesteading) and/or trade. The claim that brute violence and theft of land property can establish legitimate property rights is a contradictory universal morality. It cannot be a HUMAN morality. It can only generate two moralities, one for masters, one for victims.

Thus, in the realm of human ethics, your silly worldview contradicts itself.

"In fact (whether you like it or not), the public does own property in common."

They don't have legitimate ownership. They own like thieves own.

"For instance, parks used to be places where aristocracy set aside land for their personal use. They were typically walled to keep game in and people out, and you could be imprisoned for trespassing or poaching."

The bastards. Let's take the next step and ban people from owning their own backyard gardens, and let's "modernize" (HAHAHAHA) them to be open to the public.

"In the modern era, though, parks are often publicly owned for the benefit of the public."

Until the government arrests people for loitering/protesting/selling/violatingcurfew/etc/etc.

Private parks are also open to the public. You just need to pay a fee, much like the governments taxes people "fees" to upkeep the parks and pay the park staff.

Major_Freedom said...

morse79:

"Ummm, here is the first insulting post on this comment board, from you"

Yes, let's ignore the OTHER posts, and pretend this is the first and only one you posted to.

"Look up anger management Major."

I only get angry and angry hateful people like you.

"Funny that you have chosen a military moniker, claim to live under a tyranny, yet somehow are not implying violence?"

It's not a military monicker, yes democracy is inherently tyrannical, and no, I am not advocating for violence, you are.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: Imagine I have renounced my citizenship.

Good. Thought you were being hypocritical there for a minute.

morse79 said...

"Yes, let's ignore the OTHER posts, and pretend this is the first and only one you posted to."

Go for it. I am confident you will find that you are persistently insulting and belligerent toward others here.

morse79 said...

" I am not advocating for violence, you are"

There you go again - I know you are but what am I! LMFAO!

And by Major, did you mean like a musical scale?

morse79 said...

"Imagine I have renounced my citizenship. Imagine I am now typing these words on my own tropical island. NOW can you address my arguments as they are, instead of trying to ignore them and trying to give me advice on what I should and should not do?"

I think the point is that you can't write this as if you were living on your own private tropical island. And if you could, your insights would be irrelevant to the billions of people who have to live in states with other people.

Bala said...

"Your argument only follows given your precepts, such as saying it is axiomatic that government can't have property."

Ha Ha Ha!!! The very concept property is applicable only to humans, not to metaphors. This is by definition and not by MY precepts. Government is a metaphor, not an individual or a shared ownershship arrangement among individuals. You just demonstrated my point about your vacuity. You are well and truly a Statist buffoon.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: I am not advocating for violence, you are.

Actually, you advocated for doing away with governments and having private security forces instead. It still means a resort to violence when conflicts can't be resolved by other means. A specific example was provided where people downstream would band together and fight to protect their access to fresh water.

Bala: Government is a metaphor, not an individual or a shared ownershship arrangement among individuals.

A governments is not a metaphor, but a very real organization of people.

Bala said...

"A governments is not a metaphor, but a very real organization of people."

Fool yourself all you want, but government is not real. Only the people are real. Government is not a person and not even an 'organisation' of people. When a joint stock corporation "owns" something, the real owners are the owners of the stock. When government claims to "own" something, which people actually "own" that thing? No one.

Zachriel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Zachriel said...

Bala: Fool yourself all you want, but government is not real.

That's nonsense. Just because something is made up of smaller units doesn't mean it isn't real; otherwise, humans aren't real as they are just an assemblage of individual cells, or a snowflake isn't real because it is made up of water molecules. A government is an organization.

Bala said...

"That's nonsense."

Can you see how idiotic your epistemology is? I can. It is now clear why you have everything wrong. You cannot understand the difference between concepts and existents. You cannot understand the point that unless a concept can be traced to its ultimate referrent in reality, it means nothing.

Enjoy your darkness.

Zachriel said...

Bala: You cannot understand the difference between concepts and existents.

We are quite aware of the distinction. We provided two examples of aggregates treated as wholes, which you ignored.

Everything is an aggregate, except quarks perhaps. Whether it is reasonable to consider something as a distinct entity depends on whether it has distinguishing properties beyond the pattern itself. Even the molecules that make up humans change over time, but there is a continuity in the pattern that makes up what we call a person. Governments, families, snowflakes and the collection of molecules we call humans are all reasonably considered as distinct entities.

Bala said...

"We are quite aware of the distinction. We provided two examples of aggregates treated as wholes, which you ignored."

First, as MF asks you repeatedly and which you repeatedly ignore or, should I say, evade is who is this "we" you keep using as the Subject of your sentences.

Second, your examples further reflect the utter idiocy of your epistemology. I'll just give you one example. "Snow" is a concept of water molecules arranged in a particular way and which hence has certain properties identified with snow. "Water" is a concept of a substance that has a particular composition and which has certain properties. The components of water, in turn, are concepts referring to particular entities that have a particular composition and have particular properties. I can go on till I reach the fundamental particles which are not composed of anything else and are defined by themselves.

The point is that each of these is a concept that has its concrete referrent in reality and which has its identity that is defined by its particular composition and the particular arrangement of its constituents.

Going by that, "government" does not exist except in terms of people, both those in and those out of government and the particular relationship they bear to each other. And in this case, the relationship is simply that those that constitute government hold a monopoly over the legal use of force while those outside are supposed to defer to the former's use of force.

Thus, "government" is a concept of sets of people in a particular relationship with each other. Divorced of this, the concept "government" has no existence and meaning. In other words, government does not exist. It is people that exist and have a particular relationship with each other.

And once this is understood, the fundamental criminal nature of government must be obvious to anyone with as much as a dried pea for a brain.

On the other hand, "property" defines a relationship between a man and objects in his environment (his own body included). That relationship defines who may act to apply that object to serve his own ends. Only a man may logically have such a relationship to an object. Concepts like "government" cannot do so because they are neither people nor an entity created by people to jointly claim ownership of particular objects. Governments do not apply objects to serve their ends. Only people do. In fact, government cannot even have ends which are not the ends of particular people.

Now ask yourself a simple question. "If you are the owner of something, what may you not do with it?". The only answer consistent with the concept "property" is a simple NOTHING. That means that I may transfer ownership to someone else or even destroy what is "my property".

Take a further step and ask yourself another equally simple question. If an object is the "property" of government, who may do anything they please with it? The answer is NO ONE. And if there is no one who may do anything they please with it including destroy it or transfer ownership in it at their will, there is no one who may claim it as their property. Hence, to call that object "property" is utterly idiotic.

This is the simple reason why the term "government property" is an oxymoron. Now!! I do understand that it is indeed difficult for morons to suddenly get oxy (meaning sharp) and understand this, but do try. You may even succeed.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Good. Thought you were being hypocritical there for a minute."

A hypocrite's and a non-hypocrite's argument is not falsified or refuted by referring to their hypocrisy or non-hypocrisy.

Only if their argument is logically contradictory by virtue of what is presupposed in making arguments, can you point to their actions as refutation of their argument.

Major_Freedom said...

morse79:

"Yes, let's ignore the OTHER posts, and pretend this is the first and only one you posted to."

"Go for it. I am confident you will find that you are persistently insulting and belligerent toward others here."

Not "others", just you and other violence advocating statists. Stop pretending that I am lone and you are on a team. I belittle those who call for others to be belittled.

You want innocent people to be threatened with violence to give up their wealth and money to some immoral and illegitimate agency. And YOU have the gall to act all offended and affronted? Take a look in the mirror pal, and accept the fact that you are looking at someone who WANTS innocent people to be belittled solely because they have something you want your grubby hands on, regardless of how it comes into your jealous and resentful life. Just as long as it does. You preach all about people being too greedy, and there you are being a greedy cretin demanding that others give their wealth and money to others, and if they disagree, then they get initiated with violence from armed thugs.

"I am not advocating for violence, you are"

"There you go again - I know you are but what am I! LMFAO!"

LOL, nice evasion. You only started this "I know you are but what I am I" nonsense so that you can set up a protective wall against others correctly criticising you for the very course of action you are incorrectly accusing others of advocating!

It's very much like an embarrassed closeted homosexual Republican incorrectly calling others gay, so that if others correctly identify him as being gay, he'll say "What is this, I know you are but what I am I?, LMFAO!" Then he proceeds as if he wasn't correctly identified as gay, as if he proved he is straight.

How about you instead CONSIDER the fact that you ARE in fact advocating for violence? And no, your silly "There you go again with I know you are but what am I, LMFAO!" pathetic defense won't work. You are positively advocating for violence against private property owners who merely have disagreements with the majority on how their own property is to be used and disposed.

"And by Major, did you mean like a musical scale?"

What difference does it make? Stay on topic and stop trying to continually derail the discussion.

"Imagine I have renounced my citizenship. Imagine I am now typing these words on my own tropical island. NOW can you address my arguments as they are, instead of trying to ignore them and trying to give me advice on what I should and should not do?"

"I think the point is that you can't write this as if you were living on your own private tropical island."

Sure I can. I can write arguments "as if" I am anywhere in the world. The validity and truthfulness of arguments aren't anchored to the location the arguments are made, except of course for arguments that are declarations of where the arguer happens to be. But my argument is not a declaration of where I am. My argument is about private property rights, which can be anywhere.

"And if you could, your insights would be irrelevant to the billions of people who have to live in states with other people."

False. Just because states exist, just because billions live under the tyranny of states, that doesn't mean my arguments are "irrelevant."

If the world was covered with race slavery, arguments on slave emancipation would not be "irrelevant." Same thing with the world being covered with minority slavery, I mean mob rule, I mean majority rule, I mean democracy.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Actually, you advocated for doing away with governments and having private security forces instead."

That is not advocating for initiating violence.

"It still means a resort to violence when conflicts can't be resolved by other means."

Are you seriously so dense that you cannot even comprehend the difference between unjust initiations of violence, and just defensive uses of violence? Or is all violence the same to you, and so there is no difference between a dictator engaging in ethnic cleansing, and a rape victim who successfully physically stops their attacker?

"A specific example was provided where people downstream would band together and fight to protect their access to fresh water."

Violations of property rights are, in the libertarian ethic, unjust aggressions that are rightfully responded to with enforcement.

morse79, and yourself, on the other hand, are calling not just for defensive uses of force, you are calling for aggressive uses of force. You both want the productive to be robbed solely because they are productive. Not because they initiated violence. Not because they violated someone's property rights. Solely because they produced, earned something, and therefore have something to loot.

You are OK with some individuals threatening others with violence to get them to pay, as long as those individuals are supported by most people in a given area, as long as the thieves finance something you want them to finance.

It's like if someone watched a mafia family threaten a bunch of shopkeepers with violence to extract "protection money", then that person shrugged their shoulders and said "At least some small portion of that money is going to that school down the road. It's for a good cause. Yes, money is also going to murders and larceny, but that's the majority's fault. They voted for it."

Then they go on and pretend as if everyone is acting justly.

Zachriel said...

Bala: First, as MF asks you repeatedly and which you repeatedly ignore or, should I say, evade is who is this "we" you keep using as the Subject of your sentences.

Our spam filter normally removes off-topic commentary. A number of theories have been proposed concerning our use of nosism. If Zachriel were legion ...

commune of pedants
ultimate expression of internet group think
hive
group of poseurs
committee
weird cult
collective pseudonym like Bourbaki
five guys
collective
tri-unity
married couple
being of more than one mind
royalty
schizophrenic
gaggle of grad students
Jovian clique
someone with a tapeworm

-
We are thus led also to a definition of 'time' in physics. — Albert Einstein

Zachriel said...

Bala: Going by that, "government" does not exist except in terms of people, both those in and those out of government and the particular relationship they bear to each other.

Yes, just like a snowflake is made up of water molecules that have a particular relationship to each other.

Government is defined in terms of people, their relationship and their interactions. So, a representative government may have specific characteristics, such as a head of state, a legislature and a judiciary.

Bala: And once this is understood, the fundamental criminal nature of government must be obvious to anyone with as much as a dried pea for a brain.

Heh. That's funny. First, government was just a metaphor. Now, it's a criminal enterprise.

Bala: Now ask yourself a simple question. "If you are the owner of something, what may you not do with it?". The only answer consistent with the concept "property" is a simple NOTHING. That means that I may transfer ownership to someone else or even destroy what is "my property".

There are limits to everything, including property ownership. Property law is highly complex. A simple example is a tree on your land that drops apples on your neighbor's property. Who's apples are they? If your ball bounces over the fence into your neighbor's yard, who's ball is it? If you take all the water in a stream that flows through your property and dump your sewage is that a fair use of property?

Major_Freedom: The validity and truthfulness of arguments aren't anchored to the location the arguments are made, except of course for arguments that are declarations of where the arguer happens to be.

But you haven't made an argument. You merely repeat your belief that democracy is tyranny. All forms of government are compromise.

Major_Freedom: Just because states exist, just because billions live under the tyranny of states, that doesn't mean my arguments are "irrelevant."

Your views are irrelevant because they have nothing to do with the world most people live in. It answers none of their concerns and offers no solution to inequity.

Major_Freedom: Violations of property rights are, in the libertarian ethic, unjust aggressions that are rightfully responded to with enforcement.

Violence in your anarchistic world would be prevalent unless and until one "private" group wins. Then we call it government.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Bala: Fool yourself all you want, but government is not real."

"That's nonsense. Just because something is made up of smaller units doesn't mean it isn't real; otherwise, humans aren't real as they are just an assemblage of individual cells, or a snowflake isn't real because it is made up of water molecules. A government is an organization."

Government has no reference to anything in reality. It is simply an abstract universal concept that refers to actual real life people. When you say governments do this and governments do that, all you are really saying is that some people interact with other people in certain ways that are different from non-governmental interaction.

Once you merely identify what those differences are, you will immediately see the coercive nature of governmental activity.

"Bala: You cannot understand the difference between concepts and existents."

"We are quite aware of the distinction."

"We"? Who else is there besides you?

"We provided two examples of aggregates treated as wholes, which you ignored."

Aggregates ARE "wholes." To say that you provided two examples of aggregates treated as wholes is like claiming to have treated a concept as that concept.

You can't split humans up into its constituent physical components and claim to have provided an example akin to government being split up into its components. Government is already split up into individual humans, where individuals in one group treat other individuals differently than those other individuals treat the individuals of the first group.

"Everything is an aggregate, except quarks perhaps. Whether it is reasonable to consider something as a distinct entity depends on whether it has distinguishing properties beyond the pattern itself. Even the molecules that make up humans change over time, but there is a continuity in the pattern that makes up what we call a person. Governments, families, snowflakes and the collection of molecules we call humans are all reasonably considered as distinct entities."

No. Governments and families are not existents in themselves. They are references to real world individuals who are existents in themselves. If you conceptually separate humans into molecules, you will no longer be referring to a human, but a pile of different molecules. If you conceptually separate government into individuals humans, you will still be referring to individual humans who act governmentally.

Individuals act. Governments don't.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Yes, just like a snowflake is made up of water molecules that have a particular relationship to each other."

No, false. See above.

"Government is defined in terms of people, their relationship and their interactions. So, a representative government may have specific characteristics, such as a head of state, a legislature and a judiciary."

No characteristics of government EXIST apart from the individuals and their actions.

"Bala: And once this is understood, the fundamental criminal nature of government must be obvious to anyone with as much as a dried pea for a brain."

"Heh. That's funny. First, government was just a metaphor. Now, it's a criminal enterprise."

He was obviously referring to those who act governmentally.

"Bala: Now ask yourself a simple question. "If you are the owner of something, what may you not do with it?". The only answer consistent with the concept "property" is a simple NOTHING. That means that I may transfer ownership to someone else or even destroy what is "my property"."

"There are limits to everything, including property ownership. Property law is highly complex."

If property rules are "highly complex", how in the world does that justify a single one size fits all solution of people who lack the totality of "complex" information that exists in society? Does not complexity call for multitudinous, decentralized solutions catered to individual cases?

"A simple example is a tree on your land that drops apples on your neighbor's property. Who's apples are they? If your ball bounces over the fence into your neighbor's yard, who's ball is it? If you take all the water in a stream that flows through your property and dump your sewage is that a fair use of property?"

How does your inability to come to a conclusion on how people ought to deal with these social problems, justify a monopoly enforcer to deal with it for you? They will be faced with the same "complexity" as you, except they have the power to use force to settle things their way. Why is their way the correct way? Wait, their way is not necessarily the correct way? Then why support an institution that doesn't necessarily solve these problems the correct way?

You are contradicting yourself when you claim to be all concerned with how these complex solutions will be found, how you don't want incorrect solutions to be utilized, but then you positively support an institution that you admit doesn't have the correct solutions!

Would you find it a lazy thing for an anarchist to say "I don't know right now at this moment how exactly these complex issues will be solved, but I advocate for private law solutions anyway because I think they will tend to be optimal for people in the long run."?

Well, how lazy is it to admit you don't know right now at this moment how exactly these complex issues will be solved, but you advocate for the government to solve them anyway?

"Major_Freedom: The validity and truthfulness of arguments aren't anchored to the location the arguments are made, except of course for arguments that are declarations of where the arguer happens to be."

"But you haven't made an argument."

LOL, yes I have. Merely denying it exists is not a proper rebuttal.

"You merely repeat your belief that democracy is tyranny."

No, I've shown how it is tyranny. I've shown that democratic principles condone rape, murder, theft, any and all behavior against the individual if the majority so happens to believe in it.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"All forms of government are compromise."

Peaceful people and absolute property rights, can't "compromise" with violent people and governments. Any compromise between aggressors and victims results in a gain to the aggressor and loss to the victim.

If I threatened to use violence against you if you don't pay me 40% of your income, then how can we "compromise" in a way that doesn't see me gain and you lose? If we "compromise" such that I take only 30% of your income, you still lose and I still gain.

Compromising with evil is a sanctioning of evil. There is no "happy medium" between justice and injustice. Ethics is black and white. You believe in the pickpocketing and exploitative "the world is grey" ethics, where initiating violence is just as legitimate as the absence of initiating violence.

And it is telling that you want individuals not in the government who don't want government to "compromise" with those in the government anyway, but you don't want those in government to compromise with individuals not in government who don't want government.

"Major_Freedom: Just because states exist, just because billions live under the tyranny of states, that doesn't mean my arguments are "irrelevant."

"Your views are irrelevant because they have nothing to do with the world most people live in."

False. I am not describing what people do. I am describing what people ought to do. To say that my arguments are irrelevant because what I say what people ought to do is not what people do do, is the height of imbecility. OF COURSE the "world" I am talking about doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean it can't exist, should not exist, or is not relevant.

"It answers none of their concerns and offers no solution to inequity."

I don't want to answer the concerns of special interest groups. I am answering the concerns of the individual.

And "inequity" in wealth is not inherently a problem that needs a solution. That is just you smuggling in your own illogical and destructive worldview and pretending that it holds objective weight.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:


I am against forcing economic equality. So are you and most others in wealthy nations, if you considered forcing WORLD economic equality, such that 90% of your wealth gets violently confiscated and redistributed to those in poor nations.

Nobody wants to be robbed. Being robbed is by definition involuntary confiscation of wealth, not voluntary donation.

The fact that government has to use force to impose economic equality, is proof that peaceful people don't want to engage in it.

If you want to have greater economic equality, then, like you calling me a hypocrite, why don't you stop being a hypocrite and sell your PC, stop paying for an internet connection, since you don't need them to stay alive, and save the lives of starving children in poor countries? The fact that you are NOT doing that is PROOF that you are a TRUE hypocrite. Here you have the OPPORTUNITY to practise what you preach, and yet there you are going directly against it, but calling for others to be violently deprived of their wealth and money.

Most of you egalitarians are only for egalitarianism when you stand to benefit from it. When it is against you, like world egalitarianism, suddenly you become greedy inequality advocates because nationalism trumps egalitarianism.

You aren't an egalitarian. You're a statist dork.

"Major_Freedom: Violations of property rights are, in the libertarian ethic, unjust aggressions that are rightfully responded to with enforcement."

"Violence in your anarchistic world would be prevalent unless and until one "private" group wins. Then we call it government."

False. That is just a mythical belief that you need to justify your nation state fetishism.

Violence would not be prevalent in a world of private property law. It will be minimized because costs of war cannot be offloaded to any taxpayers.

You just believe human life is inherently antagonistic and violent, when in reality it is a product of choice. Your worldview of humanity is that of lower animals in the jungle. You don't understand that humans choose to be violent and peaceful.

Even if there are violent people, the presence of violent people certainly refutes MONOPOLIES of violence called states.

You are trying to justify your ADVOCACY of the state by claiming states are inevitable. You need the "inevitability" to give your worldview a sense of legitimacy. All socialists have the same belief in alleged "inevitability." They are just rejecting the philosophy of rationalism when they do that. You violence advocates are not "tapping into" any secret of human life.

Bala said...

"Government is defined in terms of people, their relationship and their interactions. So, a representative government may have specific characteristics, such as a head of state, a legislature and a judiciary."

What you still fail to understand is that everyone of these is a set of human beings who act. As MF very clearly said, people act and government does not. People exist and government does not.

"Heh. That's funny. First, government was just a metaphor. Now, it's a criminal enterprise. "

Yes, you Statist buffoon. It is a metaphor used to disguise the fundamentally criminal nature of the enterprise carried on by the people who constitute government and use the name of government to initiate force against other people. I know that understanding this simple point requires a human brain the size of at least a dried pea, but do try.

"There are limits to everything, including property ownership."

Nonsense. In fact, I knew you would come up with the kind of goop you have actually come up with to support this idiotic claim of yours. So, let me move to that prize idiocy.

"A simple example is a tree on your land that drops apples on your neighbor's property. Who's apples are they?"

This has absolutely nothing to do with what one may do with one's property. This has to do with what happens to the ownership of a thing when its circumstances such as its position change. So, this goop does not address my point. Then there is this idiocy.

"If your ball bounces over the fence into your neighbor's yard, who's ball is it?"

which is no different from the apple idiocy. So, let me not waste time over this. But the next one takes the cake and shows how vacuous you are.

" If you take all the water in a stream that flows through your property and dump your sewage is that a fair use of property?"

Genius!!! That I take the water in the river presupposes that I have homesteaded and hence own the segment of the river from which I am extracting the water. Then when I dump sewage in that segment of the river, I am using my property to dump sewage. I am absolutely free to do so and no one can stop me for both the sewage and the segment of the river ar my property.

The problem only comes when the sewage flows down the path of the river into other segments of the river or other pieces of land homesteaded and owned by other people. When my sewage reaches the other person's property, my property would have caused damage to the other person's property. That is the reason for the affected party to have a legal claim on me for violating his property rights.

So, this scintillating example of prize idiocy is no argument against my point about government being a metaphor and government property being an oxymoron reserved for morons and idiots to believe in. And as you can see, it is property rights and only property rights that gives a clear answer to the question of sewage dumping in rivers.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Bala: First, as MF asks you repeatedly and which you repeatedly ignore or, should I say, evade is who is this "we" you keep using as the Subject of your sentences."

"Our spam filter normally removes off-topic commentary. A number of theories have been proposed concerning our use of nosism. If Zachriel were legion ..."

This guy is crazy.

He contemplates being something he is not.

And yet he still wonders why others call him out on believing government to be something it is not.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: Government has no reference to anything in reality.

Government is an organization.

Major_Freedom: Aggregates ARE "wholes."

An aggregate is "a mass or body of units or parts considered as a whole".

Major_Freedom: Individuals act. Governments don't.

The U.S. on December 8, 1941 comes to mind.

Zachriel: Yes, just like a snowflake is made up of water molecules that have a particular relationship to each other.

Major_Freedom: No, false. See above.

Of course a snowflake is made up of water molecules that have a particular relationship to each other.

Major_Freedom: No characteristics of government EXIST apart from the individuals and their actions.

Sure they have characteristics. For instance, some governments are republics, others are constitutional monarchies, others are dictatorships.

Bala: And once this is understood, the fundamental criminal nature of government must be obvious to anyone with as much as a dried pea for a brain.

Zachriel: Heh. That's funny. First, government was just a metaphor. Now, it's a criminal enterprise.

Major_Freedom: He was obviously referring to those who act governmentally.

No, he clearly referred to government as a criminal enterprise. He used the term just like most people use the term.

Major_Freedom: Then why support an institution that doesn't necessarily solve these problems the correct way?

You didn't answer our questions. If your ball bounces over the fence, whose ball is it? If the people upstream take all the water and dump their sewege, who is to make them stop. If you mean that they have to take the matter into their own hands, well, that is exactly how states are formed. The first civilizations began as a response to conflict over water rights.

The rule of law helps resolve disputes by making property rights clear to all parties and having a final arbiter when people can't privately resolve their differences.

Major_Freedom: No, I've shown how it is tyranny. I've shown that democratic principles condone rape, murder, theft, any and all behavior against the individual if the majority so happens to believe in it.

Only in your strawman version of democracy.

Major_Freedom: Peaceful people and absolute property rights, can't "compromise" with violent people and governments. Any compromise between aggressors and victims results in a gain to the aggressor and loss to the victim...Compromising with evil is a sanctioning of evil. There is no "happy medium" between justice and injustice.

No, you are not making an argument. All you are doing is ranting against the very institutions that most people support as bulwarks of freedom.

Zachriel said...

Bala: What you still fail to understand is that everyone of these is a set of human beings who act.

Get real, Bala. Of course we are aware that governments are organizations of people.

Zachriel: A simple example is a tree on your land that drops apples on your neighbor's property. Who's apples are they?

Bala: This has absolutely nothing to do with what one may do with one's property.

It has everything to do with property, the apples.

Bala: That I take the water in the river presupposes that I have homesteaded and hence own the segment of the river from which I am extracting the water.

So you feel that you can take all the water. Can't imagine why that would be politically destabilizing.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Government is an organization."

Government is a COERCIVE organization that violates pre-existing, legitimate property rights, which reduces human welfare.

"Major_Freedom: Aggregates ARE "wholes.""

"An aggregate is "a mass or body of units or parts considered as a whole"."

LOL, you had to look it up. You just repeated what I said.

"Major_Freedom: Individuals act. Governments don't."

"The U.S. on December 8, 1941 comes to mind."

Yes, on December 8, 1941, some individuals acted in certain ways.

"Major_Freedom: No, false. See above."

"Of course a snowflake is made up of water molecules that have a particular relationship to each other."

It's not surprising you missed the point, what with your terrible epistemology to deal with.

No, snowflakes are things in themselves that are more than just the component parts.

With government, there is nothing more than just individual action. There is nothing GREATER than individual action when you talk of government. There is something GREATER than water molecules when you talk of snowflakes.

"Major_Freedom: No characteristics of government EXIST apart from the individuals and their actions."

"Sure they have characteristics. For instance, some governments are republics, others are constitutional monarchies, others are dictatorships."

These again are just descriptions of individual people's actions.

Your crude Platonic epistemology is leading you into seeking to give reality to abstract universal conception where nothing in fact exists apart from the individual actors acting.

"Major_Freedom: He was obviously referring to those who act governmentally."

"No, he clearly referred to government as a criminal enterprise. He used the term just like most people use the term."

No, he was referring to the actions of the people you call government, and that those actions are criminal (if you consider theft of property to be a crime, as most people do).

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:


"Major_Freedom: Then why support an institution that doesn't necessarily solve these problems the correct way?"

"You didn't answer our questions. If your ball bounces over the fence, whose ball is it? If the people upstream take all the water and dump their sewege, who is to make them stop. If you mean that they have to take the matter into their own hands, well, that is exactly how states are formed. The first civilizations began as a response to conflict over water rights."

"Our" Who else is there besides you?

And yes I did answer the question. Your questions are not concerning property rights. Your questions presuppose property rights, and you are only talking about enforcement of those rights.

"The rule of law helps resolve disputes by making property rights clear to all parties and having a final arbiter when people can't privately resolve their differences."

The government isn't an agency of the rule of law. It is an agency of the rule of its own laws that violate private property law.

"Major_Freedom: No, I've shown how it is tyranny. I've shown that democratic principles condone rape, murder, theft, any and all behavior against the individual if the majority so happens to believe in it."

"Only in your strawman version of democracy."

It's not a straw man version of democracy. It's democracy. Democracy is majority rule. Not a straw man. Democratic principles would therefore condone all manner of violence against private property rights as long as the majority agrees. It is only because private property law is keeping the mob at bay to some respects that you don't see democracy fully expressed in the western world.

"Major_Freedom: Peaceful people and absolute property rights, can't "compromise" with violent people and governments. Any compromise between aggressors and victims results in a gain to the aggressor and loss to the victim...Compromising with evil is a sanctioning of evil. There is no "happy medium" between justice and injustice."

"No, you are not making an argument."

Yes, I am making an argument. Merely denying it exists is not an argument.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:


"All you are doing is ranting against the very institutions that most people support as bulwarks of freedom."

So it's not an argument if it's not supported by the majority. Way to presume your conclusion is true by using it as a premise to support that same conclusion. In other words, way to beg the question you logical fallacy spewing violence advocate.

"Bala: What you still fail to understand is that everyone of these is a set of human beings who act."

"Get real, Bala."

"Getting real" in Zachriel's world means deny reality of individual action.

"Of course we are aware that governments are organizations of people."

"We"? Who else is there besides you?

You of course missed Bala's true point. There is no reality to government apart from individual actors.

That point may seem innocuous to you, but that's only because your epistemology is so screwed up that you continually waver back and forth between concept and existent as if there is no difference, totally failing to see when you are doing it.

"Zachriel: A simple example is a tree on your land that drops apples on your neighbor's property. Who's apples are they?"

"Bala: This has absolutely nothing to do with what one may do with one's property."

"It has everything to do with property, the apples."

No, it has nothing to do with what one may DO with one's property. What one may DO with one's property is not the same thing as something happening to someone's property, and whether or not it is a violation of property rights.

"Bala: That I take the water in the river presupposes that I have homesteaded and hence own the segment of the river from which I am extracting the water."

"So you feel that you can take all the water."

No, he said the section of the river, not all the water. He can take all the water that travels into his section of property, if he so chooses.

"Can't imagine why that would be politically destabilizing."

It's only destabilizing if you ignore pre-existing contracts and agreements that codify what a given owner of river section can do and what they cannot do, which again, DO NOT REQUIRE A STATE.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: Government is a COERCIVE organization ...

It is an organization, yes.

Major_Freedom: With government, there is nothing more than just individual action.

You just said it was an organization.

Major_Freedom: There is something GREATER than water molecules when you talk of snowflakes.

A snowflake is nothing but organized water molecules.

Major_Freedom: Your crude Platonic epistemology is leading you into seeking to give reality to abstract universal conception where nothing in fact exists apart from the individual actors acting.

You just said government was an organization.

Major_Freedom: Your questions are not concerning property rights.

Of course it's about property rights. Who owns the apples? Who owns the ball?

Major_Freedom: Democracy is majority rule.

As we have explained many times, democracy is not simple majoritarianism.

Major_Freedom: No, it has nothing to do with what one may DO with one's property.

Great! Now who owns the apples? Who owns the ball?

Major_Freedom: No, he said the section of the river, not all the water.

You really don't know about rivers?

Major_Freedom: He can take all the water that travels into his section of property, if he so chooses.

One day the people upstream decide they don't like the people downstream, so they take all the water in river. The people downstream watch their crops wither and their children cry of thirst. What do you think will happen?

Bala said...

"Get real, Bala. Of course we are aware that governments are organizations of people. "

You are the one needs to get out of the world of metaphors and into the real world. And in the real world, it is individuals who act and not 'organisations of people'. Even corporations do not act. It is individuals who act on behalf of the owners of the corporation. Families don't act. It is individual family members who act and also happen to be people who share a particular relationship with a particular set of people.

"It has everything to do with property, the apples."

You Statist buffoon!! It has NOTHING to do with what the owner of a thing that is his "property" may or may not do with that thing. Why do you evade this and try to side-track the discussion into the question of what happens to the ownership when the position of an object changes? Is it that you cannot argue the original question? Obviously. You cannot argue against that and are deliberately trying to create diversions from your failure.

"So you feel that you can take all the water. Can't imagine why that would be politically destabilizing."

Yeah!!! People can never come to agreements on all these issues. A thug to act as the final arbiter is indeed required. Once again, goop that only Statist buffoons can come up with. In any case, this is not an argument against the point that it is the individuals that act and not government and that government does not exist except as a concept in our minds.

Want to engage in conceptual realism? Be my guest, but also be prepared to be treated the way people treat every other insane person.

Bala said...

"No, he clearly referred to government as a criminal enterprise. He used the term just like most people use the term. "

No. I did not. YOU read it like most people do - without entangling yourself from the web of conceptual realism and believing that concepts act and not existents. Before you posted this, I had already said that it is the people who constitute government who engage in a criminal enterprise and government is just the name for that criminal enterprise. Why do you ignore it? Because it is convenient to you to do so?

Zachriel said...

Bala: And in the real world, it is individuals who act and not 'organisations of people'.

People don't act, only cells act. You just think people act because the cells are organized into a corpus, a sack of cells. Your cells get changed over time. Your consciousness is not even the same as it was before. It's an illusion of continuity. Potamoisi toisin autoisin embainousin, hetera kai hetera hudata epirrei.

Bala: It has NOTHING to do with what the owner of a thing that is his "property" may or may not do with that thing.

It has everything to do with property and with how people in the real world act about property. Notably, you never answered the question.

Bala: People can never come to agreements on all these issues.

There is a great incentive for people upstream to monopolize the water. There is no limit to their power if they control the water. Do you not understand human nature?

Bala: No. I did not.

Of course you did. Here it is again: "the fundamental criminal nature of government must be obvious". In other words you are treating the government as an entity with characteristics, in this case, a "criminal nature". It is given that government is made up of people, and you used the term just as most people do.

Bala said...

"People don't act, only cells act."

Action is purposeful behaviour. Purposeful behaviour presupposes a being capable of purpose. If you are trying to say cells are beings capable of purpose, wait till I get up from the floor once I stop rolling over laughing.

" You just think people act because the cells are organized into a corpus, a sack of cells."

No. This shows that you just do not understand how one comes up with the statement "Man acts". That's not surprising considering that you have been wading through Keynesian garbage all these years. "Action" or purposeful behaviour is an attribute of the concept "man" and is a property of every entity that we identify as man. "Action" is in fact one of the attributes by which we identify a thing as a man. If a thing has the physical attributes of a man but does not act, we do not call it "man". The body of a dead man is called a dead body and not a man.

You cannot even dispute the statement "Man acts" because even attempting to dispute is is purposeful behaviour or action.

"It has everything to do with property and with how people in the real world act about property. Notably, you never answered the question."

ROFLMFAO. You Statist buffoon. I have been saying repeatedly that your question is an idiot's attempt at refusing to answer a basic question posed to him by asking a completely irrelevant question. When the issue is whether there are any limits to what one can do with one's property, the question of whether a thing is my property or yours because it has fallen from my tree on to your land is irrelevant. Get that, genius?

"There is a great incentive for people upstream to monopolize the water."

Looks like no one ever taught you that there is far greater incentive for people to cooperate and trade. Can you spell L-a-w o-f C-o-m-p-a-r-a-t-i-v-e A-d-v-a-n-t-a-g-e?

" "the fundamental criminal nature of government must be obvious"

ROFLMFAO again. This means that the concept government, which stands for a group of people existing in a certain relationship with all other people is by nature a criminal enterprise because every action undertaken by the individuals in the name of being government is essentially a criminal act.

" In other words you are treating the government as an entity with characteristics"

No. I am saying that "government" is a concept whose referrent is a particular set of people who wield a legal monopoly over the use of force against other people. The characteristics of this concept are the characteristics of the actions undertaken by the people who constitute "government" and who wield the monopoly over the legal use of force. So, it is not the "entity" called government that is criminal in nature but the "actions" of those who are the referrents of the concept "government" that are.

So, Statist buffoon, try thinking once again.

Zachriel said...

Bala: Action is purposeful behaviour.

Aspirin acts as an analgesic. Trees act as a windbreak. Macrophages act as scavengers, ridding the body of worn-out cells and other debris.

Bala: When the issue is whether there are any limits to what one can do with one's property

We answered in detail about limitations to property rights. Then asked you a few simple questions. Notably, you can't answer these simple questions. If your apple tree drops an apple on your neighbor's property, who owns the apple? If your ball bounces over your neighbor's fence, who owns the ball? If you take all the water that flows through the river on your property, is that a fair use of property?

Bala: Looks like no one ever taught you that there is far greater incentive for people to cooperate and trade.

Which is why no one ever went to war over water rights, or no one ever made another a slave.

In any case, there is no economic incentive to cooperate. The incentive is clearly to use the water to maximum advantage. Perhaps charge an exorbitant amount, or simply cut them off forever, let them die, then occupy their now vacant land.

Bala: So, it is not the "entity" called government that is criminal in nature but the "actions" of those who are the referrents of the concept "government" that are.

Governments not only have characteristics, but there are entire school dedicated to the study of government. Did you want a list of schools and texts?

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Major_Freedom: Government is a COERCIVE organization ..."

"It is an organization, yes.

It is a coercive organization.

"Major_Freedom: With government, there is nothing more than just individual action."

"You just said it was an organization."

Organization is also just an abstract universal category that describes individual action.

Why are you so slow?

"Major_Freedom: There is something GREATER than water molecules when you talk of snowflakes."

"A snowflake is nothing but organized water molecules."

I said greater than water molecules, not greater than "organized" water molecules, which is just a euphemism for snowflakes in general abstract terms.

The government is not greater than individual action, the way snowflakes are greater than individual water molecules.

"Major_Freedom: Your crude Platonic epistemology is leading you into seeking to give reality to abstract universal conception where nothing in fact exists apart from the individual actors acting."

"You just said government was an organization."

You are unable to separate concepts from existents.

"Major_Freedom: Your questions are not concerning property rights."

"Of course it's about property rights. Who owns the apples? Who owns the ball?"

Your questions are not concerning what existing property owners can and cannot do with their property.

"Major_Freedom: Democracy is majority rule."

"As we have explained many times, democracy is not simple majoritarianism."

"We"? Who else is there besides you?

And you're wrong, democracy is "simple majority rule." Every other "type" of democracy is in fact a movement AWAY from democracy. If there is a society where there is majority voting, but the elected politicians cannot pass laws where the majority is allowed to enslave, murder, etc, the minority, then that is a democracy RESTRAINED by anti-democratic principles such individual rights.

You have not "explained" that democracy is not simple majority rule. You only claimed it, over and over, ignoring the fact that any policy not subject to majority rule is a movement AWAY from democracy. It is not a "special" type of democracy.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:


"Major_Freedom: No, it has nothing to do with what one may DO with one's property."

"Great! Now who owns the apples? Who owns the ball?"

These questions still do not concern what people can and cannot do with their own property.

You are not asking if the apple tree owner is permitted to drop apples onto the other person's property. Maybe they have an agreement, maybe they don't.

The point is you are not asking what the property owners are allowed to do and not do with their property. You're just asking who owns what, but who owns what is derived FROM asking the question what can property owners do and not do with their property.

"Major_Freedom: No, he said the section of the river, not all the water."

"You really don't know about rivers?"

You really think asking me rhetorical questions to hide your own ignorance, but presented as banal comments that try to paint me as ignorant, are actually convincing?

"Major_Freedom: He can take all the water that travels into his section of property, if he so chooses."

"One day the people upstream decide they don't like the people downstream, so they take all the water in river."

If this becomes a social problem, then existing and new river buyers have an incentive to ensure that when they buy sections of river, they have assurances from owners upstream that they won't take all the water. If there is no such pledge, then of course new river buyers take on such risks.

"The people downstream watch their crops wither and their children cry of thirst. What do you think will happen?"

Obviously a war of all against all will break out, and out of the ashes of that war, a world democratic state, subject to specific individual rights, will necessarily arise, exactly and identically as you predicted.

Or, you know, there might be a peaceful solution to this social problem, like the people downstream can move farther upstream past the owners taking up all the water that goes into their section. Or they can import water. Or they can remain helpless like you want them to be, and then die of thirst, causing an international outrage, and the magical UN forces will swoop in and establish a coercive monopoly so that this will never happen again.

What happens if the people upstream outnumber the people downstream, and they engage in a democratic vote, and the outcome of that vote is that representatives of the majority will use their strong army and police to allow the people upstream to stop the water flow at the place just in front of the people upstream, and they will use force against the people downstream if they try to stop the outcome of a democratic election?

Well, obviously since there is a coercive monopoly in place that has majority support, what will inevitably happen is that the people downstream will cease being helpless, and all of a sudden become innovative and forward thinking people. You see, when people live in a democracy, something magical happens to people's abilities. Before they were just helpless and without any creativity whatsoever. But with a coercive monopoly stealing from people, those starving people can not only incur more costs of the state and still live, but without that state, the costs that they could have incurred, would all of a sudden disappear. In other words, the state brings prosperity by virtue of stealing from people.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"People don't act, only cells act."

No, people act because people have choice, ends, reason, and consciousness. Cells do not.

Action is PURPOSEFUL behavior, not biophysical behavior.

"We answered in detail about limitations to property rights. Then asked you a few simple questions. Notably, you can't answer these simple questions. If your apple tree drops an apple on your neighbor's property, who owns the apple? If your ball bounces over your neighbor's fence, who owns the ball? If you take all the water that flows through the river on your property, is that a fair use of property?"

"We"? Who else is there besides you?

Nobody is dodging your silly questions. There is nothing to hide. Your questions are not relevant to the issue of what property owners can and cannot do with their property.

One cannot answer the question "Who owns the apple?" without further information regarding what the owners can and cannot do with their property.

What happens when an apple drops onto someone else's property in a democracy? Who owns the apple? Don't "dodge" the question by saying "there will be a democratic vote to decide such matters." I am asking you here, now, and you must answer the question, here, now: Who owns the apple in a democracy?

"Bala: Looks like no one ever taught you that there is far greater incentive for people to cooperate and trade."

"Which is why no one ever went to war over water rights, or no one ever made another a slave."

The existence of the greater incentive to trade and cooperate doesn't mean that people will always avoid war. Recognizing this greater incentive is obviously crucial in avoiding war. Since people choose peace and choose war, there is no basis for claiming that war is inevitable.

"In any case, there is no economic incentive to cooperate. The incentive is clearly to use the water to maximum advantage."

False. There is an incentive to trade and cooperate, because with more trading partners, there are more opportunities for the law of comparative advantage to be extended. The incentive is clearly NOT to use the water to maximum advantage. You are ignoring opportunity costs. By your crap worldview, homeowners using public utility water should be installing pumps in their homes and sucking out the tap water so fast that nobody else in the neighborhood has any water pressure. After all, since the water is available, there is every economic incentive for the individual homeowner to take all the water! Huh? You mean people don't do that? Why not? Why aren't they acting in accordance with my crap worldview model of incentives? People are greedy! Obviously there must be benevolent policemen in their homes making sure they don't install such water pumps.

"Perhaps charge an exorbitant amount, or simply cut them off forever, let them die, then occupy their now vacant land."

You think like those in government having control over economic resources think. That's what Stalin did to the Ukrainians.

"Governments not only have characteristics, but there are entire school dedicated to the study of government. Did you want a list of schools and texts?"

First, do you really believe he is interested in immoral propaganda, illogical and contradictory assertions, irrational foundations, and extremely boring literature?

Second, governments have no characteristics apart from the characteristics of the actions of individuals.

Bala said...

"Aspirin acts as an analgesic. Trees act as a windbreak. Macrophages act as scavengers, ridding the body of worn-out cells and other debris."

Looks like you really need more lessons in basic English. Did you bother to read what you typed? I ask this because every one of your sentences reads thus

Blah Blah Blah acts as Blah Blah Blah

The word 'as' performs the role of describing the manner of the 'action' of the subject Blah Blah Blah by relating it (like any self-respecting preposition should) to the object Blah Blah Blah. The difference between these and my sentence was that my sentence is

Man acts.

There is no 'as' which follows. The adverbial phrase 'as Blah Blah Blah' describes the manner in which something WORKS. The difference between this use of acts and the use in Man acts is so vast that only a Statist buffoon like you who can't even understand this basic difference will bring this up to question my point.

"We answered in detail about limitations to property rights."

Nonsense. You answered NOTHING. And you are still evading the irrelevance of this nonsense of yours to my point about the limitations of property rights per se.

"Governments not only have characteristics, but there are entire school dedicated to the study of government. Did you want a list of schools and texts?"

As MF said, why would I waste a single moment of my life reading goop? I have no interest in pigswill.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: Organization is also just an abstract universal category that describes individual action.

All words are abstractions. Some words refer to things, nouns such as government or snowflake or river.

Major_Freedom: The government is not greater than individual action, the way snowflakes are greater than individual water molecules.

They are both greater in the same sense that the whole has characteristics in addition to the characteristics of the individual elements.

Major_Freedom: And you're wrong, democracy is "simple majority rule."

Are you still fighting strawmen? Democracy has several senses, but we have several times made clear our meaning, "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections". Modern democracies entail many organizations working at all levels of society.

Zachriel: Great! Now who owns the apples? Who owns the ball?

Major_Freedom: These questions still do not concern what people can and cannot do with their own property.

Are you afraid of the questions or just the answers?

Major_Freedom: Obviously a war of all against all will break out, and out of the ashes of that war, a world democratic state, subject to specific individual rights, will necessarily arise, exactly and identically as you predicted.

Possibly. Or just the threat of confrontation may bring the upstream people to some accommodation.

Major_Freedom: No, people act because people have choice, ends, reason, and consciousness. Cells do not.

https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Macrophages+act+as+scavengers%22

Major_Freedom: One cannot answer the question "Who owns the apple?" without further information regarding what the owners can and cannot do with their property.

That's the very question. Some kids are playing basketball and the ball bounces over the fence into the yard of a crotchety old man, Corporal Freedom, who refuses to return the ball.

Major_Freedom: What happens when an apple drops onto someone else's property in a democracy?

It depends on the jurisdiction, though fallen fruit is usually theirs, while hanging fruit belongs to the treeowner. Laws provide a framework for resolving such disputes.

Major_Freedom: There is an incentive to trade and cooperate, because with more trading partners, there are more opportunities for the law of comparative advantage to be extended.

The upstreamers disagree with your assessment of the situation and think they will be better served by giving the land to their children. They choose to keep the water and let the people who have inhabited the land downstream for generations to die or sell themselves into slavery.

Zachriel said...

Bala: Looks like you really need more lessons in basic English.

The noun is aspirin while the verb is act. Aspirin acts on the nervous system.

Zachriel: Governments not only have characteristics, but there are entire school dedicated to the study of government. Did you want a list of schools and texts?

Bala: As MF said, why would I waste a single moment of my life reading goop? I have no interest in pigswill.

Heh. We cited not just an authority, but an entire field of scholarship, yet you simply wave your hand as if it doesn't exist. In fact, governments can be classified and studied like any other phenomena.

Bala said...

"The noun is aspirin while the verb is act."

But the point you are missing is that with the preposition "as" following it, act adopts the meaning "performs the role of". In contrast, when I say "Man acts" without a preposition, "acts" takes the meaning "engages in purposeful behaviour". I told you that you needed a lesson in English. See how correct I was.

Bala said...

"Heh. We cited not just an authority, but an entire field of scholarship, yet you simply wave your hand as if it doesn't exist. In fact, governments can be classified and studied like any other phenomena."

No. I didn't say it doesn't exist. I said it is pointless drivel because government is not something worth knowing about. I gain nothing by learning about a fundamentally criminal enterprise. Also note that when you classify government, you are actually classifying the nature of the relationships that exist between the set of people that call themselves government and the rest of the population. This, any talk of government comes down to the people that constitute it, their relationship with other people and the nature of their actions. It still doesn't demonstrate that government exists and acts on its own.

Zachriel said...

Zachriel: The noun is aspirin while the verb is act. Aspirin acts on the nervous system.

Bala: But the point you are missing is that with the preposition "as" following it, act adopts the meaning "performs the role of".

Aspirin acts on the nervous system.

Bala: Also note that when you classify government, you are actually classifying the nature of the relationships that exist between the set of people that call themselves government and the rest of the population.

Yes, of course. Just like when you classify snowflakes, you are classifying the relationships that exist between its constituent parts.

Bala: No. I didn't say it doesn't exist. I said it is pointless drivel because government is not something worth knowing about.

This just shows how nonsensical your position has become. Of course government is worth knowing about, even if you don't like government—*especially* if you don't like government. It is more than reasonable to distinguish between the government of George Washington and the government of Adolph Hitler.

Bala said...

"Aspirin acts on the nervous system."

Ha Ha Ha!!! "acts on" is still no different from "acts as". It's just a different meaning but is not the same as "acts" as used in "Man acts". So, stop clutching at straws. You are drowning and need something much more substantial.

"Yes, of course. Just like when you classify snowflakes, you are classifying the relationships that exist between its constituent parts. "

Yeah!!! And the fundamental characteristic of the relationship between those that constitute government and those that don't is its "master-slave" nature. Those in government shall do things to those outside it that shall not be deemed criminal by others in government while if those outside government were to engage in the same acts against others outside government or, worse, those in government, some others in government would consider it criminal and sufficient to warrant the use of legal force against the original actor.

Now, how much and what colour of lipstick do you want to put on this pig? 'Coz that's what all these "scholarly" studies that ignore this basic characteristic of government are tantamount to.

"This just shows how nonsensical your position has become."

With all your clutching at straws, you have become a never ending spray of nonsense.

" Of course government is worth knowing about, even if you don't like government—*especially* if you don't like government."

Nonsense. The form of tyranny is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that it is tyranny and must be fought. The only way it may matter is that if the tyranny is less obvious, many people may not line up to fight it. That makes the fight rather difficult. As long as people can get along in their lives, they wouldn't fight the enemy. It is only when the tyranny enters their drawing rooms unbridled that people often wake up. When the devil demands an ounce of flesh, they say "Better an ounce than lose it all fighting". When the demand becomes a pound, they say "Better a pound than lose it all fighting". When the demand becomes all..... that's when they realise that it was inevitable and that they should have fought when the devil demanded an ounce. Sad, but true.

Zachriel said...

Bala: It's just a different meaning but is not the same as "acts" as used in "Man acts".

You said "Action is purposeful behaviour." The term "action" may not imply conscious intent.

Zachriel: Yes, of course. Just like when you classify snowflakes, you are classifying the relationships that exist between its constituent parts.

Bala: Yeah!!! And the fundamental characteristic of the relationship between those that constitute government and those that don't is its "master-slave" nature.

Yet a moment ago you indicated we couldn't even treat government as an entity, yet now, government is master.

Bala: 'Coz that's what all these "scholarly" studies that ignore this basic characteristic of government are tantamount to.

More handwaving. No one who studies government is unaware that governments are coercive. Laws and taxes are coercive, by definition.

Zachriel: This just shows how nonsensical your position has become. Of course government is worth knowing about, even if you don't like government—*especially* if you don't like government. It is more than reasonable to distinguish between the government of George Washington and the government of Adolph Hitler.

Bala: Nonsense. The form of tyranny is irrelevant.

As we said, it just shows how nonsensical your position is when you can't distinguish between the government of George Washington and the government of Adolph Hitler.

Bala said...

"As we said, it just shows how nonsensical your position is when you can't distinguish between the government of George Washington and the government of Adolph Hitler."

Ha Ha Ha!!! Want to know the only difference between the government of George Washington and that of Adolf Hitler? Time.

"You said "Action is purposeful behaviour." The term "action" may not imply conscious intent."

Not when the subject is a conscious, volitional animal like Man. Looks like context-dropping is the most common mental illness afflicting Statist thugs. I suspect that's what blocks their evolution into full-fledged human beings. In simple terms, the meaning a word takes depends on the subject and it's nature, you see.

"Yet a moment ago you indicated we couldn't even treat government as an entity, yet now, government is master."

Looks like you (all of you) suffer from serious comprehension problems. Either that or it's insanity. For how else can you infer this nonsense that you sprayed out here from my point that the relationship between 2 sets of people was of the master-slave kind? My statement means that one set of people are the masters and the other set the slaves. So, I have not indicated any existence of government as such. Carry on with your insanity as long as you wish. Try stuffing as many convenient words into my mouth as you wish. I am not swallowing your pigswill, Statist buffoon.

Zachriel said...

Bala: Ha Ha Ha!!! Want to know the only difference between the government of George Washington and that of Adolf Hitler? Time.

As we said, it just shows how nonsensical your position is when you can't distinguish between the government of George Washington and the government of Adolph Hitler.

Bala said...

Ha Ha Ha!!! As I said, you have serious comprehension problems or are just plain insane. I said that the only difference between the government of George Washsington and Adolf Hitler is time. Give the former enough time and it is sure to evolve (or should I say metamorphose) into the latter. Doubt me? Try justifying the NDAA to yourself.

So, you are the one spouting nonsense endlessly.

Bala said...

"As we said, it just shows how nonsensical your position is when you can't distinguish between the government of George Washington and the government of Adolph Hitler."

Oh!!!! It's not that I can't distinguish between them. I'd you try comprehending what I said, which of course you can't because you either have serious comprehension problems or are insane or probably both, I do distinguish between them and find the only difference to be time. They are just tyrannies at different stages of development. One is at an early stage of its development and another at full maturity.

That you interpret my statement as failure to see the difference only reflects the truth of what I said about (all of) you. You are just a Statist buffoon who only deserves to be laughed at in derision.

Zachriel said...

Bala: I do distinguish between them and find the only difference to be time.

There is absolutely no rational support for such a simplistic view which equates the government of George Washington with the government of Adolph Hitler. None.

Bala said...

"There is absolutely no rational support for such a simplistic view which equates the government of George Washington with the government of Adolph Hitler. None."

More comprehension problems or insanity or both. I did not equate them. I said that they are tyrannies at different stages of maturity. If you can't read or comprehend or stay sane, at least stop troubling others with nonsense.

Zachriel said...

Zachriel: It is more than reasonable to distinguish between the government of George Washington and the government of Adolph Hitler.

Bala: Nonsense.

Bala said...

Now you're lying and misrepresenting. The moment the opponent descends to that level, I know I should stop. Do you know what I said "Nonsense" in response to? Here is the extract from my previous post of January 26, 2012 8:32 PM

" Of course government is worth knowing about, even if you don't like government—*especially* if you don't like government."

Nonsense. The form of tyranny is irrelevant.

And then when you said this

"As we said, it just shows how nonsensical your position is when you can't distinguish between the government of George Washington and the government of Adolph Hitler."

I said this

"Ha Ha Ha!!! Want to know the only difference between the government of George Washington and that of Adolf Hitler? Time."

So take your lying elsewhere to someone else who will get fooled by your puerile attempts at trickery (you are so stupid that you can't even engage in trickery effectively).

Zachriel said...

Zachriel: Of course government is worth knowing about, even if you don't like government—*especially* if you don't like government.

Bala: Nonsense. The form of tyranny is irrelevant.

You are saying it is not worth knowing about the various forms of government. But there is a significant distinction to be made between the government of George Washington and the government of Adolph Hitler other than simply time. If you prefer a contemporaneous example, there is a significant distinction between the government of FDR and the government of Hitler.

Everyone knows this, so it's not clear why you are attempting to pretend otherwise.

Bala said...

"You are saying it is not worth knowing about the various forms of government."

Ahhhhh!!! So, do you see why I said that you are lying and misrepresenting me?

"But there is a significant distinction to be made between the government of George Washington and the government of Adolph Hitler other than simply time. If you prefer a contemporaneous example, there is a significant distinction between the government of FDR and the government of Hitler."

ROFLMFAO. I have said many a time now, but I'll say it again of that's what it takes for people of low intellect to understand it. The only difference between all these different governments is Time. They are just tyrannies at various stages of their development. That, incidentally, doesn't strike me as "significant".

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

I notice you have adopted my way of quoting and responding to arguments. I've got another fan.

"Major_Freedom: Organization is also just an abstract universal category that describes individual action."

"All words are abstractions. Some words refer to things, nouns such as government or snowflake or river."

Not all words are universal abstractions that refer to individual concepts. A human actor is an individual concept that has reality in itself apart from all other human actors. A group of human actors is a universal abstract concept that has no reality apart from individual human actors.

"Major_Freedom: The government is not greater than individual action, the way snowflakes are greater than individual water molecules."

"They are both greater in the same sense that the whole has characteristics in addition to the characteristics of the individual elements."

A government doesn't have ANY additional reality apart from the actions of individuals. Just because the actions are different with government than it is with no government, doesn't mean that anything ADDITIONAL exists with government that is apart from individual action.

Individual actions explain the entirety of all governmental activity. There is nothing in addition to government activity, the way there is something additional to the chemicals that make up the human body. Consciousness and purposeful behavior do not exist in any chemical or molecule.

"Major_Freedom: And you're wrong, democracy is "simple majority rule.""

"Are you still fighting strawmen?"

It's not a straw man now, and it wasn't a straw man then. You are MISTAKEN on what a democracy entails.

I don't care if YOU don't support what you call "majoritarian ocholocracy." I am talking about democracy and what it entails. You are wrong about what it entails.

"Democracy has several senses, but we have several times made clear our meaning, "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"."

"We"? Who else is there with you?

And democracy "having several senses" is only the product of moving away from democracy, and integrating anti-democratic values to create other, non-democracy social systems that have some aspects of democracy, but not full democracy.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:


"Modern democracies entail many organizations working at all levels of society."

Too vague to mean anything.

"Major_Freedom: These questions still do not concern what people can and cannot do with their own property."

"Are you afraid of the questions or just the answers?"

Not afraid of either the question or the supposed answer that you claim to know, which would only reinforce the evidence that you are asking rhetorical questions.

Your question on who owns the apple is contingent on property rights. Do you know what that means? It means we have to answer the question of what property owners are and are not entitled to do BEFORE your question can be answered. You hilariously believe that you have a gotcha moment where the lack of a direct answer is making you believe you've hit paydirt, when in reality your question can only be answered by answering more fundamental questions that YOU seem to want to dodge and avoid.

"Major_Freedom: Obviously a war of all against all will break out, and out of the ashes of that war, a world democratic state, subject to specific individual rights, will necessarily arise, exactly and identically as you predicted."

"Possibly. Or just the threat of confrontation may bring the upstream people to some accommodation."

Stop being reasonable. That is not your bag.

"Major_Freedom: No, people act because people have choice, ends, reason, and consciousness. Cells do not."

"https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22Macrophages+act+as+scavengers%22"

"Act" as scavengers is a metaphorical interpretation. It is an example of cells ACTING with a purpose, making choices, using means to achieve ends, etc. These are automatic physiological processes.

"Major_Freedom: One cannot answer the question "Who owns the apple?" without further information regarding what the owners can and cannot do with their property."

"That's the very question. Some kids are playing basketball and the ball bounces over the fence into the yard of a crotchety old man, Corporal Freedom, who refuses to return the ball."

No, it's not the very question. You asked who owns the ball. But that question depends on answering the question of what property owners are and are not entitled to do with their property. So what are the owners of the basketball allowed and not allowed to do with their basketball, when it comes to other people's property?

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:


"Major_Freedom: What happens when an apple drops onto someone else's property in a democracy?"

"It depends on the jurisdiction, though fallen fruit is usually theirs, while hanging fruit belongs to the treeowner. Laws provide a framework for resolving such disputes."

Same thing in anarchy. There are laws in anarchy.

"Major_Freedom: There is an incentive to trade and cooperate, because with more trading partners, there are more opportunities for the law of comparative advantage to be extended."

"The upstreamers disagree with your assessment of the situation and think they will be better served by giving the land to their children. They choose to keep the water and let the people who have inhabited the land downstream for generations to die or sell themselves into slavery."

The upstreamers agree with my assessment of the situation and think they will be better served by giving the land to their children, but not blocking the water for those downstream.

"Bala: As MF said, why would I waste a single moment of my life reading goop? I have no interest in pigswill."

"Heh. We cited not just an authority, but an entire field of scholarship, yet you simply wave your hand as if it doesn't exist. In fact, governments can be classified and studied like any other phenomena."

"We"? Who else is there besides you?

Yes, studying violent organizations is an entire field of "scholarship." But then again so was human torture experimentation during WW2 Germany and Japan.

"Bala: But the point you are missing is that with the preposition "as" following it, act adopts the meaning "performs the role of"."

"Aspirin acts on the nervous system."

No, aspirin affects the nervous system. The concept of action in economics is purposeful behavior, not merely motions and chemical processes.

"Bala: Also note that when you classify government, you are actually classifying the nature of the relationships that exist between the set of people that call themselves government and the rest of the population."

"Yes, of course. Just like when you classify snowflakes, you are classifying the relationships that exist between its constituent parts."

No, the classification is different. Government is not anything in addition to individual human action. Snowflakes are something in addition to individual water molecules.

"Bala: No. I didn't say it doesn't exist. I said it is pointless drivel because government is not something worth knowing about."

"This just shows how nonsensical your position has become. Of course government is worth knowing about, even if you don't like government—*especially* if you don't like government."

It is not wrong to say government is not worth knowing about. It is a value judgment, not a statement of objective fact.

"It is more than reasonable to distinguish between the government of George Washington and the government of Adolph Hitler."

Yes, just like it is reasonable to distinguish a one time rapist with serial rapists, one time murderers to serial murderers, one time thieves to serial thieves.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: A group of human actors is a universal abstract concept that has no reality apart from individual human actors.

A group of human actors is called a troupe.

Major_Freedom: A government doesn't have ANY additional reality apart from the actions of individuals.

Governments can be described, classified and characterized. Humans are a term we use to describe a particular grouping of cells, a grouping that can be described, classified and characterized.

Major_Freedom: I am talking about democracy and what it entails.

Yes, and if you check an encyclopedia, a dictionary, or a scholarly text on government, you will find that modern democracies are representative forms of government. And when describing the U.S. government as a democracy, the term is clearly being used to describe a representative democracy. So when discussing modern democracies, or the U.S. government system in particular, we are referring to representative democracy, not your strawman majoritarian ochlocracy.

Zachriel: Modern democracies entail many organizations working at all levels of society.

Major_Freedom: Too vague to mean anything.

We've described it in detail previously, but you seem to keep forgetting. A modern democratic society has many centers of power that are balanced against one another. For example, they are characterized by a legislature responsible for making laws, an executive responsible for implementing the laws, and an independent judiciary. There is a division between national and local governments. In addition, modern democratic societies include corporations, political parties, social groups, a body of laws and legal precedents, property rights and individual liberties.

Major_Freedom: Your question on who owns the apple is contingent on property rights.

Property right refers to the authority to determine how and when an asset is to be used. However, as with all rights, it is not an unlimited right.

Major_Freedom: Same thing in anarchy. There are laws in anarchy.

You keep saying that, but when we ask, you can't explain how it works even in simple cases. The best we can figure is if cranky old Corporal_Freedom doesn't return the kids' ball, they should go over there and beat him with a bat.

Major_Freedom: The upstreamers agree with my assessment of the situation and think they will be better served by giving the land to their children, but not blocking the water for those downstream.

You're clearly wrong as there is no advantage for them to do so. The people upstream can use their position to force out the competition once and for all, and have decided to do so. That's the whole point of the scenario. The only counterweight to that is the threat of armed conflict. Of course, that leads to the very state which you decry.

Major_Freedom: No, aspirin affects the nervous system.

"Aspirin acts on the hypothalamus, a small gland at the base of the brain"
http://www.wiley.com/legacy/college/boyer/0471661791/cutting_edge/aspirin/aspirin.htm

Major_Freedom: Snowflakes are something in addition to individual water molecules.

Oh? What is that?

Major_Freedom: It is not wrong to say government is not worth knowing about. It is a value judgment, not a statement of objective fact.

It's vacuous handwaving.

Bala said...

"It's vacuous handwaving."

Nonsense. It is a bold dismissal of intellectual garbage.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Major_Freedom: A group of human actors is a universal abstract concept that has no reality apart from individual human actors."

"A group of human actors is called a troupe."

And you lost once again.

"Major_Freedom: A government doesn't have ANY additional reality apart from the actions of individuals."

"Governments can be described, classified and characterized."

Nothing that exists that can be described is apart from individual action.

"Humans are a term we use to describe a particular grouping of cells, a grouping that can be described, classified and characterized."

No, a human is not a collection of cells. A human is a physical entity with consciousness, which none of the constituent parts have.

This is different from government, in which case there is nothing over and above individual actors.

"Major_Freedom: I am talking about democracy and what it entails."

"Yes, and if you check an encyclopedia, a dictionary, or a scholarly text on government, you will find that modern democracies are representative forms of government."

"Modern" democracy? The fact that you had to include "modern" is proof that you're not talking about democracy. You're talking about something other than democracy. You're talking about a society that has anti-democratic ethics.

"And when describing the U.S. government as a democracy, the term is clearly being used to describe a representative democracy."

"Representative" democracy is a redundancy. It doesn't matter if you want to talk about particular societies that contain anti-democratic principles, such as the US, which was founded as a republic, not a democracy.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:


"So when discussing modern democracies, or the U.S. government system in particular, we are referring to representative democracy, not your strawman majoritarian ochlocracy."

"We"? Who else is there besides you?

I am not denying that you want to talk about the non-democratic society called the US. There is no point to it.

It is not a straw man to correctly describe democracy. By rejecting democracy, I am not saying you support "majoritarian ocholocracy." So it is not a straw man.

The society you support is still immoral towards the minority. You still support the majority imposing its will on the minority. The fact that there are only certain individual rights that you will refrain from supporting should the majority support it, does not take away from the disgusting things you do support if the majority wants it. It is THOSE aspects of democracy that make your worldview evil and abhorrent to me.

Arguing over the definitions of democracy is a red herring designed to evade what it is about your worldview that I find immoral. The fundamental principle that I reject is the democratic principle that the majority has ANY right to initiate ANY force against the minority.

"Major_Freedom: Too vague to mean anything."

"We've described it in detail previously, but you seem to keep forgetting."

"We"? Who else besides you is there?

I don't care if you believe you have described it in detail previously. That statement you made there was too vague to mean anything.

"A modern democratic society has many centers of power that are balanced against one another."

It is a myth to believe that a majority that imposes its rule on the minority, is "balanced" simply because there are allegedly separated power centers within the majority elected rulers.

"For example, they are characterized by a legislature responsible for making laws, an executive responsible for implementing the laws, and an independent judiciary."

Then explain why the US executive is able to violate the constitution, explain why the judiciary rules in favor of the executive, and explain why congress is passing unconstitutional laws that give the executive unconstitutional authority.

You're talking about a myth, not reality.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:


"There is a division between national and local governments."

There is a division between those who rule and those who are ruled.

"In addition, modern democratic societies include corporations, political parties, social groups, a body of laws and legal precedents, property rights and individual liberties."

False. Individual liberties and property rights are constantly violated by states in statism.

"Major_Freedom: Your question on who owns the apple is contingent on property rights."

"Property right refers to the authority to determine how and when an asset is to be used."

So explain then on what the apple tree owner can and cannot do with his property, vis a vis other people's property.

"However, as with all rights, it is not an unlimited right."

Property rights are absolute. It is not "unlimited." An individual property owner's property rights extend to where another property owner's property begins. But saying "individual property rights" already takes that into account by definition, since "individual" means all individuals taken together, not just one individual in a vacuum.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:


"Major_Freedom: Same thing in anarchy. There are laws in anarchy."

"You keep saying that, but when we ask, you can't explain how it works even in simple cases."

It is silly to ask someone how a private law, unplanned society, would "work."

All it makes sense to ask are certain principles of impermissible and permissible action, and certain individual rights of person and property. After that, it is up to the millions if not billions of people to plan their own society.

The lack of me giving you a blueprint of exactly how things will "work" is just a sign that you are unable to grasp the nature of a private law society.

I am not a dictator. I don't plan to be a dictator. Asking me how others will plan their own lives is like asking me to impose my will on them. But that's not how I think. That's how closeted dictator wannabes like you think. You want to be able to plan other people's lives. I don't.

"The best we can figure is if cranky old Corporal_Freedom doesn't return the kids' ball, they should go over there and beat him with a bat."

Straw man.

You still have not answered the question on what property owners are and are not able to do with their property. Once you answer that question, then you can answer who's friggin ball it is.

"Major_Freedom: The upstreamers agree with my assessment of the situation and think they will be better served by giving the land to their children, but not blocking the water for those downstream."

"You're clearly wrong as there is no advantage for them to do so."

You're clearly wrong as there is an incentive for them to do so. The incentive is there, which is why many humans have chosen to engage in a division of labor, cooperative form of interaction, instead of a permanent war of all against all.

"The people upstream can use their position to force out the competition once and for all, and have decided to do so."

The people upstream can engage in mutually beneficial cooperation with the people downstream.

"That's the whole point of the scenario."

The above is the whole point of my scenario.

"The only counterweight to that is the threat of armed conflict."

Armed conflict is only justified if there is a violation of property rights. You still haven't shown how your example contains that.

"Of course, that leads to the very state which you decry."

No, you're only imagining violence everywhere because your mind is warped. Violence is just how ignorant humans interact with the physical world.

"Major_Freedom: No, aspirin affects the nervous system."

"Aspirin acts on the hypothalamus, a small gland at the base of the brain"

You're redefining the meaning of action as it is understood in economics.

The way you're using the word "act" is not the kind of action that is relevant in economics and human life.

"Major_Freedom: Snowflakes are something in addition to individual water molecules."

"Oh? What is that?"

Attributes of snowflakes that do not exist in individual water molecules. You know what they are, because you're able to identify snowflakes and distinguish them from water molecules.

"Major_Freedom: It is not wrong to say government is not worth knowing about. It is a value judgment, not a statement of objective fact."

"It's vacuous handwaving."

No, it's a value judgment.

Your entire justification for statism is nothing but "vacuous handwaving".

Bala said...

Hey legion,

Here's an analogy to your context-dropping efforts at distorting the usage of the word 'action'.

Man speaks.
Actions speak louder than words.

The relationship between the meanings of speak in these 2 examples is no different from the relationship between the meanings of action ne the examples

Man acts
Aspirin acts on blah blah blah

Hope that makes the idiocy of your posts apparent.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: No, a human is not a collection of cells.

Humans certainly are a collection of cells.

Major_Freedom: A human is a physical entity with consciousness, which none of the constituent parts have.

Yes, but they are still a collection of cells.

Major_Freedom: This is different from government, in which case there is nothing over and above individual actors.

Well, that's no more true than as applied to the cells that make up humans. Governments often do things that are beyond any conscious planning of the people that make it up. That's one of the inherent problem with government or any rule-based system. Governments have characteristics beyond that of the individuals.

Major_Freedom: The fact that you had to include "modern" is proof that you're not talking about democracy.

Still arguing semantics.

democracy, a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

We have been discussing democracy in terms of modern society. Certainly, its roots are interesting and can enlighten us as to the pitfalls of majoritarianism—but of course, that would be admitting that studying governments is important.

Major_Freedom: "Representative" democracy is a redundancy.

The representative component is assumed when discussing most modern democratic governments, but it is not a superfluous adjective when discussing, for instance, the classical Greeks.

Major_Freedom: The society you support is still immoral towards the minority. You still support the majority imposing its will on the minority. The fact that there are only certain individual rights that you will refrain from supporting should the majority support it, does not take away from the disgusting things you do support if the majority wants it. It is THOSE aspects of democracy that make your worldview evil and abhorrent to me.

Yes, as you've made clear over the last several weeks, you find paying a two pence tax for a pack of bubble-gum to be evil and abhorrent.

Major_Freedom: The fundamental principle that I reject is the democratic principle that the majority has ANY right to initiate ANY force against the minority.

You reject any and all government that doesn't have the express permission of all individuals. Sort of an opt-in system of governance. It has nothing to do with democracy, and you consider the government of FDR and the government of Hitler to be similarly evil and abhorrent.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: Then explain why the US executive is able to violate the constitution, explain why the judiciary rules in favor of the executive, and explain why congress is passing unconstitutional laws that give the executive unconstitutional authority.

Apparently the idea of a balance of power escapes you. There is constant pressure by each component of the system to express and expand its power. It really is the worst of all systems (except for all the rest).

Major_Freedom: Individual liberties and property rights are constantly violated by states in statism.

Apparently the idea of a balance of power escapes you. There is constant pressure by each component of the system to express and expand its power. It really is the worst of all systems (except for all the rest).

Major_Freedom: So explain then on what the apple tree owner can and cannot do with his property, vis a vis other people's property.

The apple tree owner can harvest and eat and sell his apples. He may owe a tax for participation in the market. Now what about apples that fall over the fence? You ever going to answer?

Major_Freedom: Property rights are absolute.

There's your axiom (dogmatism) again. Most people recognize that rights have reasonable limitations.

Major_Freedom: It is silly to ask someone how a private law, unplanned society, would "work."

And yet we can describe in general terms how unplanned markets work.

Major_Freedom: After that, it is up to the millions if not billions of people to plan their own society.

Ah! They have! The vast majority of people want some sort of representative democracy. If you live within those societies, you are expected to pay taxes and obey the laws. While you will have a say in those taxes and laws, you can leave if you want.

Major_Freedom: You still have not answered the question on what property owners are and are not able to do with their property.

You can't even resolve a simple issue of a ball bouncing over a fence. The kids want to know!

Major_Freedom: You're clearly wrong as there is an incentive for them to do so...The people upstream can engage in mutually beneficial cooperation with the people downstream.

The 'cooperation' is that he people downstream will have to pay any price, including their daughters, to keep the water flowing. Or threaten war.

Major_Freedom: You're redefining the meaning of action as it is understood in economics.

The original point concerned whether governments can act, and they certainly can and do. If Bala had meant intent, he should have simply clarified his stance, instead of spending days arguing semantics.

Major_Freedom: Snowflakes are something in addition to individual water molecules.

Zachriel: Oh? What is that?

Major_Freedom: Attributes of snowflakes that do not exist in individual water molecules. You know what they are, because you're able to identify snowflakes and distinguish them from water molecules.

Are you afraid of substantiating your own claims, even the most simple claims? What are snowflakes in addition to individual water molecules?

Major_Freedom: No, it's a value judgment.

Yes. Saying that there are no distinctions between the government of FDR and Hitler that are worth knowing about is vacuous handwaving.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Major_Freedom: No, a human is not a collection of cells."

"Humans certainly are a collection of cells."

No, a human is more than a collection of cells. We are a collection of cells that have the emergent property called consciousness that does not exist in any one cell.

The government is not a collection of individuals that have an emergent property called X that does not exist in any one human. The government IS individual human action. It is nothing MORE than individual action.

"Major_Freedom: A human is a physical entity with consciousness, which none of the constituent parts have."

"Yes, but they are still a collection of cells."

That "yes" is decisive. Humans are more than just a collection of cells. We are a collection of cells that have an emergent property that the individual cells do not have.

"Major_Freedom: This is different from government, in which case there is nothing over and above individual actors."

"Well, that's no more true than as applied to the cells that make up humans."

False. Humans have properties that individual cells do not. Governments do not have properties that individual actors do not.

"Governments often do things that are beyond any conscious planning of the people that make it up."

You're talking supernatural mysticism. No wonder you worship government. You are ascribing to it a property that does not exist. Governments cannot "do" anything that is apart from the individual actors who make it up.

There is nothing that governments can do that is "beyond" the planning of the individuals that make it up.

Action IS the manifestation of conscious individual planning. Even if a million people act as a group, they are still all acting as individuals who make choices.

"That's one of the inherent problem with government or any rule-based system."

You have an inherent problem in how you view humanity.

"Governments have characteristics beyond that of the individuals."

False. There are zero characteristics of government that are beyond that of the individuals. Every single attribute, event, history, story, war, infrastructure, anything and everything that governments "do" is entirely and completely contained in the individual human actors. Government is not an emergent reality that is over and above the individual humans.

"Major_Freedom: The fact that you had to include "modern" is proof that you're not talking about democracy."

"Still arguing semantics."

Nope, nice try. You said "modern" because you know if you just say "democracy", you'll have to agree with me.

"democracy, a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."

Election outcomes are determined by majority vote. You're again just conceding my argument.

"We have been discussing democracy in terms of modern society."

The fact that you have to say "modern" is just more evidence you're not talking about democracy, but a society that has some aspects of democracy, but tempered by anti-democratic principles such as individual rights.

"Certainly, its roots are interesting and can enlighten us as to the pitfalls of majoritarianism—but of course, that would be admitting that studying governments is important."

That would only be you admitting as much.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:


"and you consider the government of FDR and the government of Hitler to be similarly evil and abhorrent."

FDR modelled his Presidency after Mussolini's rule in fascist Italy.

If FDR was not American, and had the opportunity to exert more of power, he likely would have been a fascist dictator. But he unfortunately lived in a country that at the time had enough restraints on the President. Contrast that to today, where Obama just signed himself authorized to assassinate any American without trial, lawyer, or due process, and you can see that the social system and the ideas of the masses is far more important than the alleged good will of the elected leaders.

"Major_Freedom: Then explain why the US executive is able to violate the constitution, explain why the judiciary rules in favor of the executive, and explain why congress is passing unconstitutional laws that give the executive unconstitutional authority."

"Apparently the idea of a balance of power escapes you."

Apparently answering my uncomfortable questions escapes you.

"There is constant pressure by each component of the system to express and expand its power."

And they expand together, with the executive expanding by more than the others.

"It really is the worst of all systems (except for all the rest)."

Try to be original, and not use Churchill's quote without citation.

Democracy is not as bad as monarchy, but both monarchy and democracy cannot compete with a private law society.

"Major_Freedom: Individual liberties and property rights are constantly violated by states in statism."

"Apparently the idea of a balance of power escapes you."

Apparently repeating yourself and again avoiding the arguments I am making, seems to be something you believe constitutes an actual rebuttal.

"There is constant pressure by each component of the system to express and expand its power."

And they expand together, with the executive expanding by more than the others.

"It really is the worst of all systems (except for all the rest)."

Try to be original, and not use Churchill's quote without citation.

Democracy is not as bad as monarchy, but both monarchy and democracy cannot compete with a private law society.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:


"Major_Freedom: So explain then on what the apple tree owner can and cannot do with his property, vis a vis other people's property."

"The apple tree owner can harvest and eat and sell his apples. He may owe a tax for participation in the market. Now what about apples that fall over the fence?"

Does the apple tree owner have the right to throw apples onto, or drop apples onto, or otherwise touch, the other property owner's land or other property on the land? Can he throw an apple at the guy? Can he throw an apple and break the guy's window?

Is there any agreement between the two regarding apples that drop onto his land?

"You ever going to answer?"

Not until I have the requisite information. These questions cannot be answered as if I am a friggin economic dictator. I don't think like you. You may believe I am dodging, but I am only "dodging" considering myself to be the law enforcer that does not take into account the people themselves, what their agreements are, what they have the right to do with their property, etc.

An anarchist society is not like a statist society. In a statist society, much of the populace, who each fantasize, at however small or great a level, to be an economic and law dictator, who pretend to act like a dictator through the state, through thinking in terms of what states would do, and then believe themselves to have found a "solution" to social problems, as if their violence backed opinion is even relevant to the affairs of other consensual adults.

"Major_Freedom: Property rights are absolute."

"There's your axiom (dogmatism) again."

It's not an axiom, and it's not dogmatic.

"Most people recognize that rights have reasonable limitations."

Fallacy ad populum.

"Major_Freedom: It is silly to ask someone how a private law, unplanned society, would "work.""

"And yet we can describe in general terms how unplanned markets work."

According to certain principles, yes. Exactly like we do for chemists and physicists. I have no idea how chemistry and physics will change the world, and change people's knowledge, but I can tell you certain principles of action that guide them, which are proper and "moral" for them to do.

"Major_Freedom: After that, it is up to the millions if not billions of people to plan their own society."

"Ah! They have! The vast majority of people want some sort of representative democracy."

I am not talking about the vast majority. I am talking about ALL individuals. I don't exclude individuals in the minority. The "vast majority" does not have the right to impose their views and plans and how they want society to work, on the "vast minority."

"If you live within those societies, you are expected to pay taxes and obey the laws."

You are conflating government with society. They are different. One can in principle live and act in society without obeying or paying the state, but nevertheless be an individual who takes part in the division of labor society.

You're merely telling me the nature of statism, as if playing show and tell somehow justifies it.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"While you will have a say in those taxes and laws, you can leave if you want."

Merely having a "say" is not enough. A victim of violence can have a "say" in how he is treated, but unless he can ACT on his "say", then he isn't free.

No, one is not free on the basis that one can leave his own property and have it confiscated by violent people who have no right to impose their rule on him.

The ability to leave a violent area does not justify the violence in the area.

"Major_Freedom: You still have not answered the question on what property owners are and are not able to do with their property."

"You can't even resolve a simple issue of a ball bouncing over a fence."

I am not a dictator. You don't understand that it's not my job to resolve everyone's problems. I don't think like you do.

"The kids want to know!"

You see that? You're a child who needs to be told what to do, and so you pretend to be the state, and play the part of telling people what to do, so that you believe you have found a solution on what people should do.

Imitating a state is not how to solve social problems you child.

"Major_Freedom: You're clearly wrong as there is an incentive for them to do so...The people upstream can engage in mutually beneficial cooperation with the people downstream."

"The 'cooperation' is that he people downstream will have to pay any price, including their daughters, to keep the water flowing. Or threaten war."

False. The people upstream can engage in a trade with the people downstream, and trade water for, say, a specialty item that the people downstream can focus on producing. Ever heard of the law of comparative advantage? It means everyone can take part in the division of labor and trade, even if they are relatively shitty at producing everything compared to others. They just need to focus on what they are relatively best at, and they can make gains in trade.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:


"Major_Freedom: You're redefining the meaning of action as it is understood in economics."

"The original point concerned whether governments can act, and they certainly can and do."

You got sidetracked and talked about the behavior of cells and called it action merely because someone else used the term in a different sense.

Governments act only in the sense that the individuals involved act. There is no government action that is apart from individual action.

"If Bala had meant intent, he should have simply clarified his stance, instead of spending days arguing semantics."

No, he's not arguing over semantics. You are. He is using the terms in specific ways, and you are retorting with arguments that use the same words, but meant in a different way altogether, and then you believe you have refuted him. That is arguing over semantics by definition. You're being a hypocrite in accusing him of doing what you yourself are doing.

"Major_Freedom: Attributes of snowflakes that do not exist in individual water molecules. You know what they are, because you're able to identify snowflakes and distinguish them from water molecules."

"Are you afraid of substantiating your own claims, even the most simple claims?"

Again, you keep believing that you have these gotcha moments. No, I'm not "afraid". I am asking you because you were the one who brought snowflakes up to me. If you brought them up to me, then it MUST be the case that you have a conception of snowflakes that distinguishes them from water molecules.

YOU are afraid of substantiating YOUR claims, not me.

"What are snowflakes in addition to individual water molecules?"

Snowflakes contain different energy, different entropy, different fluidity, i.e. different chemistry, than water molecules.

Governments do not contain anything different from individual action.

"Major_Freedom: No, it's a value judgment."

"Yes. Saying that there are no distinctions between the government of FDR and Hitler that are worth knowing about is vacuous handwaving."

I never said there are no distinctions between the fascist FDR and the even more fascist Hitler.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: But he unfortunately lived in a country that at the time had enough restraints on the President.

Interesting. So the government in the U.S. restrains the president through some sort of distribution of power.

Zachriel: It really is the worst of all systems (except for all the rest).

Major_Freedom: Democracy is not as bad as monarchy, but both monarchy and democracy cannot compete with a private law society.

Ah, so it is reasonable to note differences between types of governments. You might want to explain that to Bala.

Major_Freedom: It's not an axiom, and it's not dogmatic.

You keep saying that, but you don't show us why "property rights are absolute" without arguing yourself in a circle.

Major_Freedom: Fallacy ad populum.

It's not a fallacy as we are merely pointing out that others do not share your predisposition.

Zachriel: The vast majority of people want some sort of representative democracy. If you live within those societies, you are expected to pay taxes and obey the laws. While you will have a say in those taxes and laws, you can leave if you want.

Major_Freedom: You are conflating government with society.

Nope, but it turns out that a democratic government is meaningless without the institutions of a democratic society. Non-governmental structures act as balances to the government. That's why it is difficult to impose a democracy on a country without established institutions.

Major_Freedom: One can in principle live and act in society without obeying or paying the state, but nevertheless be an individual who takes part in the division of labor society.

Of course. You could be a scofflaw, not pay your taxes, and break laws whenever it suits you and you think you can get away with it.

Zachriel said...

Zachriel: You can leave if you want.

Major_Freedom: No, one is not free on the basis that one can leave his own property and have it confiscated by violent people who have no right to impose their rule on him.

You can repudiate your citizenship in what you consider an evil and abhorrent society, sell your property at fair market value, then seek the freedom you desire. It's up to you. Democratic societies allow people to emigrate.

Major_Freedom: I am not a dictator. You don't understand that it's not my job to resolve everyone's problems. I don't think like you do.

We appreciate your advice on the situation of the bounced ball. The kids went over to Corporal Freedom's house to peaceably demand their ball back. Corporal Freedom muttered something, then shot one of them dead and the other kids ran away. Corporal Freedom was warned by the Home Association to keep down the noise and to remove the body from his front lawn per his written Home Association Agreement, Article 3, Part 2, Section vii, "removal of debris".

Later, the ball was thrown back over the fence.

Major_Freedom: The people upstream can engage in a trade with the people downstream, and trade water for, say, a specialty item that the people downstream can focus on producing.

You don't seem to understand markets very well. If one party controls an essential supply, then the party can charge any price. But the upstreamers are not uncivilized. They just want the downstream children as slaves.

Major_Freedom: Snowflakes contain different energy, different entropy, different fluidity, i.e. different chemistry, than water molecules.

Sorry, that doesn't make any sense as snowflakes are water! The energy, entropy and chemistry of snowflakes is exactly the energy entropy and chemistry of water. As for fluidity, individual molecules don't have fluidity, so this comparison is nonsensical rather than vacuous. But we can say that collections of water molecules (whether in liquid or solid form) have the emergent property of fluidity not found in individual molecules.

Bala said...

"Ah, so it is reasonable to note differences between types of governments. You might want to explain that to Bala."

Ha!! Ha!! Ha!! Bala too said that he recognises THE difference - TIME. So stop clutching at straws, Statist buffoon.

Bala said...

"You keep saying that, but you don't show us why "property rights are absolute" without arguing yourself in a circle. "

And when were property rights ever "discussed"? Did anyone out here ever define the concept "property" in this discussion? Statist buffons are extremely hilarious.

Bala said...

"Nope, but it turns out that a democratic government is meaningless without the institutions of a democratic society. Non-governmental structures act as balances to the government. That's why it is difficult to impose a democracy on a country without established institutions."

B only if A does not mean that the truth of A automatically implies the truth of B. Similarly, the mere existence of social institutions does not give legitimacy to government. That's very much part of your fallacious thinking.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Major_Freedom: But he unfortunately lived in a country that at the time had enough restraints on the President."

"Interesting. So the government in the U.S. restrains the president through some sort of distribution of power."

It is the ideas that are primary, not "the laws." The laws are by choice based on an organic practise of certain ideas put into effect. Pieces of paper are not binding unless the people choose to bind themselves to those laws.

"Major_Freedom: Democracy is not as bad as monarchy, but both monarchy and democracy cannot compete with a private law society."

"Ah, so it is reasonable to note differences between types of governments. You might want to explain that to Bala."

He knows. He knows democracy is inherently evil because it oppresses the minority, to whatever degree.

""Major_Freedom: It's not an axiom, and it's not dogmatic."

"You keep saying that, but you don't show us why "property rights are absolute" without arguing yourself in a circle."

"Us"? Who else is there besides you?

Property rights is not a circular logic paradigm. It is linear based on irrefutable conceptual truths. I am not about to reinvent the wheel to you here. The literature exists.

"Major_Freedom: Fallacy ad populum."

"It's not a fallacy as we are merely pointing out that others do not share your predisposition."

It is a fallacy because you clearly insinuated that there is a truth value behind the fact that a certain quantity of people believe a certain thing, or else you would now have brought it up. There is no significance of identifying what most people happen to believe, other than the obvious fallacy of believing that it contains some sort of truth value to it. Why else bring it up? What good can possibly come out of telling me what most people happen to believe?

"Major_Freedom: You are conflating government with society."

"Nope, but it turns out that a democratic government is meaningless without the institutions of a democratic society."

Yup, you are conflating society with democracy, or else you would not have implicitly accused me of being anti-society for being anti-government.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:


"Non-governmental structures act as balances to the government."

There is no "balance" between someone who successfully robs a victim, and the victim. There is an imbalance. The aggressor has the upper hand.

"That's why it is difficult to impose a democracy on a country without established institutions."

Established institutions are a product of ideas, which means you cannot hold established institutions as primary to what allows fro democracy.

"Major_Freedom: One can in principle live and act in society without obeying or paying the state, but nevertheless be an individual who takes part in the division of labor society."

"Of course. You could be a scofflaw, not pay your taxes, and break laws whenever it suits you and you think you can get away with it."

It is not immoral to avoid paying money to violent goons who have no right to any authority over me.

What you call a "scofflaw" is a moral and ethical action to engage in.

"Major_Freedom: No, one is not free on the basis that one can leave his own property and have it confiscated by violent people who have no right to impose their rule on him."

"You can repudiate your citizenship in what you consider an evil and abhorrent society, sell your property at fair market value, then seek the freedom you desire. It's up to you. Democratic societies allow people to emigrate."

It is not my obligation to sell my property, if I do not want to sell my property.

"Major_Freedom: I am not a dictator. You don't understand that it's not my job to resolve everyone's problems. I don't think like you do."

"We appreciate your advice on the situation of the bounced ball."

"We"? Who else is there besides you?

I didn't give you any "advice" of any situation. I am still trying to make clear the issue of property rights, which you of course want to avoid because you don't want to respect other individuals in deciding for themselves what they can and cannot do, and how to constrain those desires with objective property rights. You want to act like a dictator in knowing what to do and what not to do beyond the basic constraints of property rights, as if people aren't even "allowed" to set up their own agreements with themselves without asking for your permission.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"The kids went over to Corporal Freedom's house to peaceably demand their ball back. Corporal Freedom muttered something, then shot one of them dead and the other kids ran away. Corporal Freedom was warned by the Home Association to keep down the noise and to remove the body from his front lawn per his written Home Association Agreement, Article 3, Part 2, Section vii, "removal of debris"."

Does Corporal Freedom have the right to shoot them?

"Later, the ball was thrown back over the fence."

Was there a violation of property rights when the ball was tossed into the person's property?

"Major_Freedom: The people upstream can engage in a trade with the people downstream, and trade water for, say, a specialty item that the people downstream can focus on producing."

"You don't seem to understand markets very well."

The shoe is on the other foot. It is precisely you who doesn't know markets very well. You believe markets are about who has the biggest guns, when in reality the market is about mutually beneficial exchanges and respect for private property rights.

You are in no position to lecture me on the issue of markets. I am in every position to lecture you on the topic, because I clearly know more than you on the subject. You don't know economics to the degree that I do. I know far more than you. You are not well read. You don't know how economics and the market work. Your view of human life is constant and perpetual antagonism and conflict. You are unable to even consider the possibility of mutually beneficial exchanges. That is why in your example you can only perceive of violent interactions between sovereign people.

Why is that? Why is it that you can only perceive of violence when there is no government to use violence to pick winners and losers?

"If one party controls an essential supply, then the party can charge any price."

False. They cannot charge a price higher than what people are able and willing to pay. You obviously have absolutely no conception of how prices are formed in a free market. You are ignoring the fact that producers are not only competing with other producers in the same industry, but they are also competing with every other producer in every other industry, when it comes to competing for revenues.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:


"But the upstreamers are not uncivilized. They just want the downstream children as slaves."

You are not civilized. If you can only perceive uncivilized behavior in others, then you are uncivilized. Why would people who could benefit from exchanges, through division of labor, and specialization, seek to enslave people? If gains could be made through slavery only, then why did people come to reject slavery? Obviously it is because people can achieve selfish gains by not enslaving others, but by respecting their freedom, and affording them the freedom to produce on their own, such that the others can trade with them in peace, instead of exploiting them through violence and getting short term gains at the expense of long term costs.

"Major_Freedom: Snowflakes contain different energy, different entropy, different fluidity, i.e. different chemistry, than water molecules."

"Sorry, that doesn't make any sense as snowflakes are water!"

False. Water is different from ice.

"The energy, entropy and chemistry of snowflakes is exactly the energy entropy and chemistry of water."

False. The energy is snowflakes are less than the energy of molecules. That's why snowflakes are solid, and why water us fluid.

"As for fluidity, individual molecules don't have fluidity, so this comparison is nonsensical rather than vacuous."

False. Water molecules have fluidity within a range of energy per unit volume. Snowflakes have a different energy per unit volume than water molecules in fluid.

"But we can say that collections of water molecules (whether in liquid or solid form) have the emergent property of fluidity not found in individual molecules?"

Sure, they do, but government does not have any emergent property above and beyond individual human actors.

macroman said...

I suspect that reading Ayn Rand has a bad effect on many young minds. I gave up the Ayn Rand bandwagon when I noticed a tendency to say Milton Friedman was too left-wing. Is that still the view?

Zachriel said...

Bala: Bala too said that he recognises THE difference - TIME.

The governments of FDR and Hitler were contemporaneous.

Bala: Did anyone out here ever define the concept "property" in this discussion?

Yes. But feel free to provide your own definition.

Bala: the mere existence of social institutions does not give legitimacy to government.

That's correct. Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder, but nowadays, it typically refers to some mechanism for people to have a say in their own governments.

Zachriel said...

Zachriel: Interesting. So the government in the U.S. restrains the president through some sort of distribution of power.

Major_Freedom: It is the ideas that are primary, not "the laws." The laws are by choice based on an organic practise of certain ideas put into effect. Pieces of paper are not binding unless the people choose to bind themselves to those laws.

Yes, most Americans bind themselves to their representative system of government, as represented in their constitution, as do most other people in the world today.

Major_Freedom: Who else is there besides you?

We answered this question quite some time ago.

Major_Freedom: Property rights is not a circular logic paradigm. It is linear based on irrefutable conceptual truths. I am not about to reinvent the wheel to you here. The literature exists.

So, you either can't or won't answer a simple question about the foundation of your position.

{snip the remainder of comments that supposedly build on the missing foundation}

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: Water is different from ice.

Ice is water in its solid form.

{snip}

Bala said...

"The governments of FDR and Hitler were contemporaneous. "

Statist buffoon. I have explained before that the Governments of Hitler and FDR were only different in the stage of evolution they were in. I said that if you give the latter some more time, it would evolve into the former. To respond by saying that they were contemporaneous tells me that you (all of you) are extremely retarded.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Major_Freedom: It is the ideas that are primary, not "the laws." The laws are by choice based on an organic practise of certain ideas put into effect. Pieces of paper are not binding unless the people choose to bind themselves to those laws."

"Yes, most Americans bind themselves to their representative system of government, as represented in their constitution, as do most other people in the world today."

"Bind themselves". Yes, they join with the individuals in the government, eradicate their individuality, glue themselves together, and rejoice as The One. No longer making any individual plans.

Constitutions cannot represent people who choose not to be represented.

"Major_Freedom: Who else is there besides you?"

"We answered this question quite some time ago."

"We"? Who else is there besides you?

"Major_Freedom: Property rights is not a circular logic paradigm. It is linear based on irrefutable conceptual truths. I am not about to reinvent the wheel to you here. The literature exists."

"So, you either can't or won't answer a simple question about the foundation of your position."

So, you either can't or won't read.

"Major_Freedom: Water is different from ice."

"Ice is water in its solid form."

Government is not any "form" of humans other than individual humans all along.

Bala said...

"Yes. But feel free to provide your own definition."

Why would I waste any more time engaging a mentally retarded person (assuming you are a person, of course)? Please note that this is not name-calling. I explained in my previous post why I am forced to conclude that you are mentally retarded.

Zachriel said...

Bala: I have explained before that the Governments of Hitler and FDR were only different in the stage of evolution they were in.

Germany no longer has a policy of genocide and more closely resembles FDR's American than Hitler's. Is that what you mean?

Major_Freedom: Property rights is not a circular logic paradigm. It is linear based on irrefutable conceptual truths. I am not about to reinvent the wheel to you here. The literature exists.

So, you *still* either can't or won't answer a simple question about the foundation of your position.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: Water is different from ice.

Zachriel: Ice is water in its solid form.

You should acknowledge your error.

Zachriel said...

Zachriel: feel free to provide your own definition {of property}.

Bala: Why would I waste any more time ...

More people read blogs than post to them. You exhibit little respect for your readers who will note that you can't or won't answer a simple question.

Bala said...

"Germany no longer has a policy of genocide and more closely resembles FDR's American than Hitler's. Is that what you mean? "

Incoherent nonsense.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Major_Freedom: Property rights is not a circular logic paradigm. It is linear based on irrefutable conceptual truths. I am not about to reinvent the wheel to you here. The literature exists."

"So, you *still* either can't or won't answer a simple question about the foundation of your position."

So, you either can't or won't read.

"Major_Freedom: Water is different from ice."

"Ice is water in its solid form."

Ice is not water. Saying ice is "water in its solid form" is not saying ice is water, but rather "water plus X".

You should acknowledge your error.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

Unlike the snowflake, which is water molecules plus X, government is not individual human action plus X. Government is entirely human action.

So the analogy between snowflakes and government is untenable.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: Ice is not water.

Ice is just a name for solid water.

Merriam-Webster: ice, "frozen water."

University of Illinois: "Water is known to exist in three different states; as a solid, liquid or gas."
http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/cld/dvlp/wtr.rxml

Encyclopedia Britannica: "When liquid water or water vapor becomes cold enough, it changes into solid water, called ice."

Wikipedia: "As well as crystalline forms, solid water can exist in amorphous states as amorphous solid water"

New York University: "Winter is a season that you see a lot of solid water."
http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/textbook/snowman.gif

Bala said...

"Ice is just a name for solid water."

And the point is that "solid water" is not water. It is a distinct type of existent that has an identity distinct from the entity "water". For instance, if you just say "water", you would be referring to a substance with a particular composition and which corresponds to a certain range of energy and entropy levels. "Water" exists in the liquid form. By virtue of being a liquid, it has associated properties such as taking the shape of the container it is in, flowing, sticking to surfaces, being miscible with some other liquids, being capable of dissolving certain solids, etc.

Ice, on the other hand, while being made of the same molecules, has entirely different properties on account of the arrangement of the molecules, which in turn is a result of the levels of energy and entropy of the molecules. It has its own shape; it does not flow; it does not stick to surfaces.

Hence, it is wrong to say that because ice is made of water molecules, it is not a distinct thing. It exists distinct from water. Not so for government and acting man. Government has no existence as an independent and distinct entity. It does not have any properties that are not the property of the men that constitute it and their relationship with other men.

Incidentally, do you also insist that chalk is calcium carbonate rather than that it is composed of molecules of calcium carbonate? Do you also say that chalk is not a distinct entity that has properties that are distinct from those of the calcium carbonate molecules that constitute it?

Bala said...

Hey Legion,

Just another point. I guess Carbon, Graphite and Diamond are all the same thing since they are all made of Carbon. There are no such "things" as that which we refer to as "diamonds". That must be a very interesting world to live in. It's no wonder that you sound like the perfect Statist buffoon.

Zachriel said...

Bala: And the point is that "solid water" is not water.

Of course it's water. We've provided multiple citations.

"Water is a chemical substance with the chemical formula H2O. A water molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms connected by covalent bonds. Water is a liquid at ambient conditions, but it often co-exists on Earth with its solid state, ice, and gaseous state (water vapor or steam)."

U.S. Geological Survey: Where is Earth's water located? ... Ice caps, Glaciers, & Permanent Snow 5,773,000 cubic miles, 68.6% of fresh water, 1.74% of total water.
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html

Bala: I guess Carbon, Graphite and Diamond are all the same thing since they are all made of Carbon.

No, they are not the same thing, though they are both carbon. Graphite and diamond are different crystalline forms of carbon, i.e. allotropes. It is the arrangement of the carbon atoms that distinguishes graphite from diamond, and the differing arrangements give them distinct properties. But neither is more carbony than they other.

Iron

Iron

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Major_Freedom: Ice is not water."

"Ice is just a name for solid water."

Solid water is not water. Solid water is solid water. We don't look at what comes out of a freezer and say "that's water." No, we say it's ice.

"Merriam-Webster: ice, "frozen water."

Frozen water is not water.

"University of Illinois: "Water is known to exist in three different states; as a solid, liquid or gas."

DIFFERENT states = DIFFERENT entities.

"Encyclopedia Britannica: "When liquid water or water vapor becomes cold enough, it changes into solid water, called ice."

See above.

"Wikipedia: "As well as crystalline forms, solid water can exist in amorphous states as amorphous solid water"

See above.

"New York University: "Winter is a season that you see a lot of solid water."

See above.

"Bala: And the point is that "solid water" is not water."

"Of course it's water. We've provided multiple citations."

"We"? Who else is there besides you?

No, water is not solid water. Water is water and solid water is solid water.

All the citations you have provided are verbal stipulations, definitions, conventions. I am arguing from a metaphysics perspective, which utilizes the same words, but they mean different things.

Bala said...

"Of course it's water. We've provided multiple citations."

As I always said, the problem is your inverted epistemology. That's why you qualify for the label "insane". I am talking about the concept "ice" and its concrete referrent in reality. Your citations do not address the definitional aspect of "ice" and "water".

Try answering these simple questions - Is ice water or is it made up of water molecules? Is water ice or is it made up of water molecules. Is steam water or is it made up of water molecules? Answering these will reveal your epistemological inversion and thus your insanity.

The power of definitions is immense, you see. They are the guardians of our sanity. When you get it all mixed up, the results are a complete disaster, as is obvious with you.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: Frozen water is not water.

Wikipedia: Ice is water frozen into the solid state.

Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources: glacier ice is water in a natural state.

Encyclopedia of science and technology: Ice is water in a solid state.

National Park Service: Ice is water Ice is water in its solid form.

General Organic and Biological Chemistry: Ice is water in the solid state.

Zachriel said...

Bala: Is ice water or is it made up of water molecules?

Yes and yes.

Bala: Is water ice ... ?

Not necessarily. Water can be found in a solid state (ice), or it can be found as a liquid or gas (vapour).

Bala: ... is it made up of water molecules.

Yes.

Bala: Is steam water or is it made up of water molecules?

Yes and yes.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Major_Freedom: Frozen water is not water."

"Wikipedia: Ice is water frozen into the solid state."

See above

"Alaska Dept. of Natural Resources: glacier ice is water in a natural state."

See above.

"Encyclopedia of science and technology: Ice is water in a solid state."

See above.

"National Park Service: Ice is water Ice is water in its solid form."

See above.

"General Organic and Biological Chemistry: Ice is water in the solid state."

See above.

You continue to ignore the philosophical argument being made here, and you're derailing this into a debate over word definitions.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: See above.

Yes, we note multiple citations above that indicating that "water is ice".

Major_Freedom: You continue to ignore the philosophical argument being made here, and you're derailing this into a debate over word definitions.

We can agree that graphite and diamonds are both made up of the carbon atoms, but that the atoms are in different configurations with respect to one another, and this gives them substantially different properties.

Similarly, while former East and West Germany were both made up of Germans with similar cultural backgrounds, their forms of government were substantially different, and this had measurable effects on the development of their respective economies and social structures.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Major_Freedom: See above."

"Yes, we note multiple citations above that indicating that "water is ice"."

"We"? Who else is there besides you?

Again, see above. You continue to ignore the philosophical argument being made here, and you're derailing this into a debate over word definitions.

"Major_Freedom: You continue to ignore the philosophical argument being made here, and you're derailing this into a debate over word definitions."

"We can agree that graphite and diamonds are both made up of the carbon atoms, but that the atoms are in different configurations with respect to one another, and this gives them substantially different properties."

That is exactly why the analogy with the state is wrong. There is no different properties over and above individual human action, between individuals where there is no government, and individuals where there is a government.

Different properties means different entities.

"Similarly, while former East and West Germany were both made up of Germans with similar cultural backgrounds, their forms of government were substantially different, and this had measurable effects on the development of their respective economies and social structures."

Similar means there are differences. Differences means you are not talking about the same thing any more.

With the state on the other hand, there is nothing different from individual human action. It is still individual human action.

Bala said...

"Yes, we note multiple citations above that indicating that "water is ice". "

That's either a lie or a statement based on complete ignorance of English Grammar. You did not show a single citation that said "Ice is water.". Every citation you showed said "Ice is water frozen ......" or "Ice is solid water". None of them had a period right after "water". So, you are yet to establish the claim that ice is water.

So the Titanic sank after it hit water, did it? Buffoon.

Bala said...

"Again, see above. You continue to ignore the philosophical argument being made here, and you're derailing this into a debate over word definitions."

Even in the realm of definitions, he has failed. He has decided to expose his insanity completely.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: There is no different properties over and above individual human action, between individuals where there is no government, and individuals where there is a government.

We were comparing different governments.

Major_Freedom: Similar means there are differences. Differences means you are not talking about the same thing any more.

The differences between the economic and social systems in East and West Germany are largely due to the different governments. For instance, East Germany had much weaker economic development because of extensive restrictions on markets.

Bala,

Ice is water in its solid state. Not sure how much clearer it can be.

Bala said...

"Ice is water in its solid state. Not sure how much clearer it can be."

I agree it can't be clearer. This sentence is clearly different from the sentence "Ice is water.".

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Major_Freedom: There is no different properties over and above individual human action, between individuals where there is no government, and individuals where there is a government."

"We were comparing different governments."

"We"? Who else is there besides you?

And no, at this point, we were comparing individuals with government, and individuals without government, not individuals with government and individuals with different government. That was before in a different discussion.

If your current position is once again refuted, and you want to slither into a new discussion on different governments, then you would only be making the same error but in a different context.

Between individuals with a government and individuals with a different government, there's still nothing more than individual human action.

"Major_Freedom: Similar means there are differences. Differences means you are not talking about the same thing any more."

"The differences between the economic and social systems in East and West Germany are largely due to the different governments."

The different governments are entirely due to individual human action, the specific content of which differed in each country, which is based of course on different human ideas.

But in both countries, it was entirely individual action.

"For instance, East Germany had much weaker economic development because of extensive restrictions on markets."

LOL, then by that logic, removing even more restrictions should have allowed for even more economic development. And then removing even more restrictions should have allowed for even more economic development than that.

And again, all a product of individual ideas and action. Some ideas prevailed over other ideas, and therefore some actions (fascism) prevailed over other actions (absence of fascism).

"Bala,"

"Ice is water in its solid state. Not sure how much clearer it can be."

Ice is not water. Saying ice is water in its solid state is saying ice is "water plus X." Neither Bala nor myself are making the claim that ice is not composed of H2O (water) molecules. We are saying that you are not correctly integrating concepts, and you are conflating universals with specific concretes.

With the state, there is no "individual action plus X" the way ice is "water plus X." There is only individual action, hence your analogy to snowflakes, ice, and everything else you're hobbling together to conceive of humans as mere cells to some greater organism or entity, fails.

Yes, that probably angers you because you want to view humans as mere means to "society" ends, and you probably hate it that others refuse to see individual humans as something other than what they actually are. The irony is that while you believe libertarians have to grasp and distort and twist concepts, it is precisely you that is doing so. When someone who distorts concepts sees undistorted concepts, they appear as distorted.

Zachriel said...

Bala: This sentence is clearly different from the sentence "Ice is water.".

And yet water melts at 273°K.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-boiling-temperatures-d_390.html

Major_Freedom: And no, at this point, we were comparing individuals with government, and individuals without government, not individuals with government and individuals with different government.

The discussion concerned Bala's comments that "government is a metaphor {1/21}" and "government is not real {1/22}". In fact, governments are organizations with definable characteristics, and the differences between governments can have significant effects on the economic and social development of its people. The government of FDR was not the same as the government of Hitler.

Major_Freedom: LOL, then by that logic, removing even more restrictions should have allowed for even more economic development. And then removing even more restrictions should have allowed for even more economic development than that.

That East Germany stifled markets doesn't mean there should be no regulation whatsoever. In any case, you seem to have admitted to the general principle: There were fundamental differences in the governments of East and West Germany that affected many aspects of life in their respective regions.

Major_Freedom: Ice is not water.

Handwaving. You've been provided multiple citations. If you need more help, then go to your local university and ask a professor of chemistry.

Major_Freedom: Saying ice is water in its solid state is saying ice is "water plus X."

There is nothing added to liquid water to make it into ice. Typically, water freezes when its temperature drops below 0°C, just like iron freezes when its temperature drops below 1536°C.

Major_Freedom: With the state, there is no "individual action plus X" the way ice is "water plus X." There is only individual action, hence your analogy to snowflakes, ice, and everything else you're hobbling together to conceive of humans as mere cells to some greater organism or entity, fails.

There is organization, just as molecules of water become organized when they form into a snowflake. They're still molecules of water, but we can treat the organization as a whole because it has distinguishing characteristics.

Major_Freedom: Yes, that probably angers you because you want to view humans as mere means to "society" ends ...

Your usual strawman. Even if you believe that anarchy is best and all governments are tyrannies over the individual, governments do exist, they are not all the same, they have distinguishing characteristics, and can be studied and understood. Frankly, it makes no sense to argue otherwise.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Bala: This sentence is clearly different from the sentence "Ice is water."."

"And yet water melts at 273°K."

And yet you ignored the footnote:

"1) The melting point of a solid is the temperature at which it changes state from solid to liquid."

In other words, by "water", they meant "solid water". Which contradicts your claim that ice is water.

"Major_Freedom: And no, at this point, we were comparing individuals with government, and individuals without government, not individuals with government and individuals with different government."

"The discussion concerned Bala's comments that "government is a metaphor {1/21}" and "government is not real {1/22}"."

Correct, which is not a discussion on governments compared to other governments. It's a discussion of what government is, i.e. government compared to no government.

"In fact, governments are organizations with definable characteristics, and the differences between governments can have significant effects on the economic and social development of its people."

Again, all governmental systems are a product of ideas, and individual action.

"The government of FDR was not the same as the government of Hitler."

FDR based his choices on the government of Mussolini, who was an Italian fascist.

The only reason why the government of FDR was not like that of Hitler's was because enough people had ideas that differed enough from Hitler to make it impossible.

"Major_Freedom: LOL, then by that logic, removing even more restrictions should have allowed for even more economic development. And then removing even more restrictions should have allowed for even more economic development than that."

"That East Germany stifled markets doesn't mean there should be no regulation whatsoever."

I didn't say no regulation whatsoever. I said no government whatsoever. There is a huge difference.

And if you say the East German government stifled markets, then you have to ask what is it that was stifling of markets. Was it the violence the government used against innocent business owners, compelling them to do what they otherwise would not do for the sovereign consumers' benefit?

"In any case, you seem to have admitted to the general principle: There were fundamental differences in the governments of East and West Germany that affected many aspects of life in their respective regions."

I never denied that, only to later "admit" it. I already knew it. I just added that both governments were entirely the product of individual human action.

"Major_Freedom: Ice is not water."

"Handwaving. You've been provided multiple citations."

No, you have not provided a single citation that "ice is water." You have only provided citations that show "ice is solid water" or "ice is frozen water", etc.

Your latest desperate round of Google searching had you completely ignoring the footnote that explains what "melting" refers to. It of course says melting refers to solid going to liquid, which means all those chemicals in the left column are to be understood as "frozen X" or "solid X", which neither Bala nor myself have denied is the case. You claimed that "ice is water" and you have not provided a single citation for that particular claim.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:


"If you need more help, then go to your local university and ask a professor of chemistry."

LOL, you need help with your ability to research. You lied, then you thought you saved yourself, but you ignored a crucial aspect of that latest citation.

"Major_Freedom: Saying ice is water in its solid state is saying ice is "water plus X."

"There is nothing added to liquid water to make it into ice."

The "plus" is not referring to an addition of something in the physical, or energetic sense. It is meant in the conceptual sense.

Ice as "solid water" is "water plus X", where X = "specific quantity of average energy present in the water molecules not surpassing 273.15 Kelvin" or whatever.

"Typically, water freezes when its temperature drops below 0°C, just like iron freezes when its temperature drops below 1536°C."

Water freezes into what? It can't be itself. It is something different. Ice. Ergo, ice is not water. Ice is different from water.

"Major_Freedom: With the state, there is no "individual action plus X" the way ice is "water plus X." There is only individual action, hence your analogy to snowflakes, ice, and everything else you're hobbling together to conceive of humans as mere cells to some greater organism or entity, fails."

"There is organization, just as molecules of water become organized when they form into a snowflake. They're still molecules of water, but we can treat the organization as a whole because it has distinguishing characteristics."

None of the characteristics of a government system are apart from individual action.

What you call "organization" is not the creation of a new entity apart from the individual actors involved. You are just talking about a different content of individual action.

This is different from water in snowflakes, because frozen water molecules are different from liquid water water molecules in their concrete sense.

Individual actors in a society with a state are not different in the concrete sense of individual action.

"Major_Freedom: Yes, that probably angers you because you want to view humans as mere means to "society" ends ..."

"Your usual strawman."

No, it's exactly what you believe, if your writings are to be taken seriously (yes, that is hard).

"Even if you believe that anarchy is best and all governments are tyrannies over the individual, governments do exist, they are not all the same, they have distinguishing characteristics, and can be studied and understood. Frankly, it makes no sense to argue otherwise."

Nobody here argued otherwise. Before you said there is value in studying them, that they should be studied. Now you're saying that they can be studied. Those are two very different things, and yet you just deftly switched your story and pretended that is what people are arguing against. So it's like you set up a reverse straw man. You set up a straw man for yourself, and then you pretended that the arguments against your original claims, were really arguments against that straw man.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: "1) The melting point of a solid is the temperature at which it changes state from solid to liquid."

That's right. The melting point of a solid is the temperature at which it {in this case, the substance 'water' from the first column} changes state from solid to liquid.

Major_Freedom: Was it the violence the government used against innocent business owners, compelling them to do what they otherwise would not do for the sovereign consumers' benefit?

The legal system was based on the premise that markets were inherently bad.

Major_Freedom: Ice as "solid water" is "water plus X", where X = "specific quantity of average energy present in the water molecules not surpassing 273.15 Kelvin" or whatever.

Or whatever. It depends on pressure. In this case, the X that matters is the organization of molecules into a rigid pattern.

Major_Freedom: Water freezes into what?

Iron freezes into what? Hydrogen freezes into what?

Major_Freedom: This is different from water in snowflakes, because frozen water molecules are different from liquid water water molecules in their concrete sense.

How are they different? By the way, did you make up the adjectival "liquid water"?

Major_Freedom: Before you said there is value in studying them, that they should be studied. Now you're saying that they can be studied.

As the type of government can have a very real effect on people, and if you value or have an interest in people, then there is value in studying government.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Major_Freedom: "1) The melting point of a solid is the temperature at which it changes state from solid to liquid."

"That's right. The melting point of a solid is the temperature at which it {in this case, the substance 'water' from the first column} changes state from solid to liquid."

? So what, you now admit that the citation does NOT say "ice is water"?

"Major_Freedom: Was it the violence the government used against innocent business owners, compelling them to do what they otherwise would not do for the sovereign consumers' benefit?"

"The legal system was based on the premise that markets were inherently bad."

Yes, peaceful exchange and respect for private property rights is "inherently bad" to those who want to engage in violence and disrespect private property rights.

"Major_Freedom: Ice as "solid water" is "water plus X", where X = "specific quantity of average energy present in the water molecules not surpassing 273.15 Kelvin" or whatever."

"Or whatever. It depends on pressure. In this case, the X that matters is the organization of molecules into a rigid pattern."

You have a funny way of capitulating.

"Major_Freedom: Water freezes into what?"

"Iron freezes into what? Hydrogen freezes into what?"

You didn't answer the question.

I know your mind is going mental right now because you are unable to distinguish between universals and concepts that refer to concretes. Worry, but don't worry too much, because this problem has confused philosophers far more intelligent than you for millennia.

"Major_Freedom: This is different from water in snowflakes, because frozen water molecules are different from liquid water water molecules in their concrete sense."

"How are they different? By the way, did you make up the adjectival "liquid water"?

I already explained above in a prior post.

"Major_Freedom: Before you said there is value in studying them, that they should be studied. Now you're saying that they can be studied."

"As the type of government can have a very real effect on people, and if you value or have an interest in people, then there is value in studying government."

According to you.

According to me, the government has a very negative effect on people, and because I value people and have an interest in people, I find there is no value in studying ways people can hurt each other through violence, and there is only value in studying ways to improve people's lives through peaceful methods, while of course recognizing the existence of violent people and violence advocates like you. Peaceful people can find ways to deal with not only physical reality, but social degenerates as well.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: ? So what, you now admit that the citation does NOT say "ice is water"?

The citation indicates that water melts, that is, "changes state from solid to liquid".

Major_Freedom: Yes, peaceful exchange and respect for private property rights is "inherently bad" to those who want to engage in violence and disrespect private property rights.

That's right. The Communists not only suppressed markets, but didn't allow people to speak openly or organize in political opposition.

Major_Freedom: You didn't answer the question.

Sure we did, but you missed. Water freezes (that is, becomes a solid) at 0°C. The frozen state of water is often called "ice".

Now, iron freezes into what again?

Zachriel: How are they different? By the way, did you make up the adjectival "liquid water"?

Major_Freedom: I already explained above in a prior post.

It's can't be that hard to explain again, or provide a link.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Major_Freedom: ? So what, you now admit that the citation does NOT say "ice is water"?"

"The citation indicates that water melts, that is, "changes state from solid to liquid"."

Agreed. It doesn't say "ice is water."

"Major_Freedom: Yes, peaceful exchange and respect for private property rights is "inherently bad" to those who want to engage in violence and disrespect private property rights."

"That's right. The Communists not only suppressed markets, but didn't allow people to speak openly or organize in political opposition."

That's right. The democratic state not only suppressed free markets, but didn't allow the minority to use their property the way they see fit or organize secession in political opposition to the state.

"Major_Freedom: You didn't answer the question."

"Sure we did, but you missed."

"We"? Who else is there besides you?

And no, you didn't answer the question. You wrote two questions in response.

"Water freezes (that is, becomes a solid) at 0°C. The frozen state of water is often called "ice"."

You're just repeating the same thing that does not consider the arguments being made.

"Now, iron freezes into what again?"

Frozen iron.

"Major_Freedom: I already explained above in a prior post."

"It's can't be that hard to explain again, or provide a link."

It can't be that hard to scroll up. If you didn't remember it this time, what's the point of saying what your brain will just have trouble remembering again?

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: It doesn't say "ice is water."

It says the substance "water" melts, that is, solid water (commonly known as ice) changes state to liquid water. Add more energy, and it will change state again to gaseous water.

Major_Freedom: The democratic state not only suppressed free markets, but didn't allow the minority to use their property the way they see fit or organize secession in political opposition to the state.

East Germany was not democratic. The differences between the governments of East and West Germany led to profound differences in economic and social outcomes.

Major_Freedom: Frozen iron.

Is frozen iron still iron?

You used the term "liquid water". Did you make that term up?

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Major_Freedom: It doesn't say "ice is water."

"It says the substance "water" melts, that is, solid water (commonly known as ice) changes state to liquid water. Add more energy, and it will change state again to gaseous water."

I agree. It does not say "ice is water." Like Bala said, you're either lying, or you are butchering the English language.

"Major_Freedom: The democratic state not only suppressed free markets, but didn't allow the minority to use their property the way they see fit or organize secession in political opposition to the state."

"East Germany was not democratic."

I didn't say it was. I made an argument about democratic states because that is the topic of discussion.

"The differences between the governments of East and West Germany led to profound differences in economic and social outcomes."

You keep repeating this like I haven't already read it and like I haven't already added to this that both governments were based entirely on individual action and had no reality apart from individual action.

"Major_Freedom: Frozen iron."

"Is frozen iron still iron?"

Frozen iron is iron plus X.

"You used the term "liquid water". Did you make that term up?"

Actually it was you who brought that term up. I bet you won't acknowledge this, and you'll just move on to the next series of fallacy ridden claims.

Zachriel said...

Major_Freedom: Frozen iron is iron plus X.

X is élan de fer, no doubt.

Major_Freedom: ice is not water

Heh. We are satisfied that the vast majority of our readers understand how empty your position is. Good luck with that.

Major_Freedom said...

Zachriel:

"Major_Freedom: Frozen iron is iron plus X."

"X is élan de fer, no doubt."

It could be. It is anything that distinguishes the concept frozen iron from the concept iron.

"Major_Freedom: ice is not water."

"Heh. We are satisfied that the vast majority of our readers understand how empty your position is."

"We"? Who else is there besides you?

I am satisfied that truth is consistent with what I am saying, and that your position is utterly confused.

The reason why there are two different words "ice" and "water", in this specific case, not saying it's always true, but in this case it is because "ice" is different from "water." We don't drink ice and we don't skate on water.

Bala said...

"As the type of government can have a very real effect on people, and if you value or have an interest in people, then there is value in studying government."

MF has said this and I am only reiterating it. ALL and ANY government is harmful to people. As a person interested in people and their well-being, this much enough. No further "knowledge" of the specific harm caused by specific forms of government is of any value. Zero harm is my goal. Hence, I see no value in studying government.

Major_Freedom said...

Bala:

"MF has said this and I am only reiterating it. ALL and ANY government is harmful to people. As a person interested in people and their well-being, this much enough. No further "knowledge" of the specific harm caused by specific forms of government is of any value. Zero harm is my goal. Hence, I see no value in studying government."

Zachriel is so depraved that he actually finds it "valuable" to study the techniques and strategies of how some people harm other people.

He should have lived in WW2 Germany or Japan. Then he could have applied to be a mailroom clerk at a facility that studies the effects of torturing people to death. Then he could have looked over the shoulders of violent thugs and relished at all the various ways humans can experience pain and torment.

Unfortunately, he has to settle for the watered down version of that called democracy. But his heart is in the torture chamber.

It's tragic how some people in the world have such barbaric and low cognitive awareness. I feel sorry for his parents. They raised a freakshow who not only calls for violence, but refers to himself in the plural.

Major_Freedom said...

And it's all due to his flawed chosen epistemology and the consequent inability to distinguish universals from concretes.

Calvin Brock said...

I also benefit from learning the assessments, but learn that alot of people ought to stay on essay to try and add worth in the direction of the authentic weblog releas. Realtor