Nope. I'm merely noting the impotence . That would require an anarchist perspective. It's merely reality to note that fake libertarian enabled greater rent seeking behaviour through the state: Thatcherism and Reaganomics provide two examples.
For myself libertarianism is an exercise in re-inventing the wheel. Advocating for a society in which private property is respected and conflicts of interest are resolved non violently basically brings us to where we are now. These are moral concepts entirely in keeping with our current society and very much the basis upon which it was built. The root from which we have Darwinianly evolved to this point in time. For myself, anything I can't protect I do not own. Earning it, acquiring it, is only part of the battle. Preventing others taking it from me is perhaps almost as hard. I would like to advocate for the complete dissolution of the state, but as with Animal Farm I simply believe that another state will immediately manifest in it's place.
So, I'm still curious as to how you think that you have the right to use violence against your fellow man. Are you sui generes or something?
My own justifications for violence go along these lines. Number 1: It works. Number 2: I'm good at it. Number 3: Sometimes arguing doesn't provide conclusion. Not all people are reasonable. You for example are currently arguing with a person who will never stop arguing. Never concede to reason alone. Number 4: Sometimes circumstance require rapid resolution. Gun training. Kids running out into traffic. No time for lectures. Number 5: Some things in my life are worth more than my life. My family, my home. My heirlooms. Wealth that has taken more than one lifetime to acquire. Number 6: Monsters exist. Real monsters. 4 legged and 2. They must be slain. Their capacity for destruction removed. Number 7: The price of life is cheaper than you would like to think. I am an animal. Territorial by nature. A savage.
You're not curious. You're merely interested in using silly questions to hide from your lack of economics content. We know that fake libertarianism is bankrolled by the rich. We also know that is has enables greater economic rents (which can only exist due to coercion and conflict). My position is consistent with the Austrian school, with focus on individual choice and the power of the entrepreneur. It integrates economic reality and pluralism in economic analysis. It's of course the basic minimum for constructing sound comment, rather than one based on ideological inconsistency
So you advocate the initiation of violence against peaceful people. How else would you implement your post-Heyekain socialism?
Post Hayekian socialism refers to the importance of protecting property rights and economic choice. I do appreciate, mind you, that those notions aren't really understood by fake libertarians
Excellent. So you are in favor of protecting property rights. Me too. Looks like we're on the same page.
Again we are not. I adopt a libertarian perspective genuinely focused on delivering economic choice. You do not. You are happy, for example, for economic rents based on labour market coercion to continue.
I'm not in favor of any coercion. So you're wrong. So it sounds like we're not on the same page. You are in favor of the initiation of aggression against peaceful people?
You adopt the standard approach by fake libertarians: ignore the coercion that the pressure groups, funded by the rich, tell them to ignore.
I'm actually opposed to coercion. If you were to show me an example, I'm sure we'd agree that it's wrong. It does appear that you are in favor of using aggression against your fellow man
Coercion- the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. In what world does this fit the definition of coercion?
libcommies can always find new things that ought to be free to some and paid for by others. How can a person avail themselves of a free education without, firstly, good food, clothing, shelter, transportation, vacations, medical care, and child care for their kids. And what good is a free education unless unless it is a top quality free education on a beautiful campus?
Wheel out the "there's no such thing as a free lunch" cliche. Neatly advertises a failure to understand the definition of a public good...
WORD-PLAY Wanna play with words? In my dictionary, the word means this: One does not need necessarily apply force to compel people to do something. Nobody "forces" YOU to work for less than the minimum-wage except the necessity to feed your kids. You think you are not being coerced when the law does not forbid anyone to pay less than the minimum wage for work performed? I do ...
For Longshot: When you come back to earth (from orbit), maybe we can have a cogent exchange of opinion. This is a debate-forum, not a message board for exchanging one-liner sarcasm. Some people need absolutely to have the last word, to salve their ego. So, over and out ...
Correct. You are not being forced to work for less than minimum wage. When I do so, it is my choice. I may feel myself to be a victim of poor circumstance when I choose to do so, but my employer neither physically forces me too, nor threatens to do so. Since they are typically old ladies and the like who quite frankly couldn't pay minimum wage without starving themselves. Slavery is when you are being forced. You know? A guy with a whip? Someone beating you. A guy with a gun held at you or your family. That sort of thing. So coercion need either force or the threat of force, the inherent threat of starvation, homelessness or poverty, that is not an act of coercion. No violence and no threat of violence is used against you.
A distinction without a difference. Again I will ask: how does this fall under the definition of coercion? An act of coercion still requires a positive action (not force, as defined) by an actor, specifically those undertaking the coercion. And before you go there, the market place can not coerce as it is not a person.
