He's just trying to be *cute* in my estimation.

The invisible hand does not have an ethos. The invisible hand is merely the invisible hand. What kind of society you get depends greatly on the paradigm of the participants. In fact one can say the invisible hand creates governments. In a free society, the invisible hand creates private laws. There is a rich history of common law.

What do you mean? This happens all the time.


https://www.unicef.org/protection/57929_58005.html

Sure, but you are missing the point that the invisible hand is amoral. It is not as though there is some kind of way to abolish the invisible hand to save the children you know. It is what it is. The only way to actually change how it is is to change how people view things, and what is good, and what is not good. So no, I am not a nihilist if that's what you're driving at, and the invisible hand isn't a moral code either, if that's what you're driving at.

Yes, lets all put the invisible hand on trial while throwing Adam Smith's work on comparative advantage on the fire and rebuild society! I'm glad not to be considered an anarchist by "real anarchists". I cannot comprehend being an anarchist who wishes to forbid the invisible hand on moral grounds. Makes 0 sense.

Please tell me I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say.

No. M.Rothbard would be shelved under "Libertarianism", which would be a subcategory of politics. It most certainly would be nowhere near philosophy. He was a university professor, so he published academically. He was a big business lobbyist, so he wrote propaganda. That gig subsidized his political writings.

However, only a small subset of his writing constituted his creation of ACism. Those writings are better understood as speculative fiction. Either that, or incoherent and self contradictory ramblings quickly assembled to fulfill a neglected publishing contract. Either way, to read them as a blue print of some kinda competing IRL 'system' requires the wilful suspension of disbelieve necessary to all fiction.

Well maybe we have different interpretations of it. I think I would describe the invisible hand as the economic necessity in a capitalist society to perform some action or take on some role. It is an unstoppable driving force that affects everyone.

How would you describe it?

Well that's a lot different than dystopian fiction!



Well first, the same could be said for the bible, and I consider much of it to be pure fiction, some of it pretty decent like the story of Adam and Eve, but fiction none the less. But it's not ficton, it's the bible. (I'm not equating those Rothbard works with the bible.)

What I'm curious about is why specifically you think this way, and I'm also curious if it's a common sentiment?

I don't follow your quip about the invisible hand, and how you perceive its guilt towards child trafficking. I mean, I can imagine the new legal defenses, "but your honor, the invisible hand made me do it." I have no idea what point you are trying to make, or whether you are merely speaking in poetry or what have you.

Well there's a really good show called Mr. Robot, and it made me see the other side of the invisible hand.

I used to think the invisible hand was totally benevolent, and it caused people to voluntarily come together to better themselves and all that. But I see the other side of it now. For example, in one scene, the protagonist of the show, Elliot, goes to his neighbor's apartment. This neighbor is a female character who is a drug dealer, and her supplier is in the apartment with a gun in his underwear. After threatening Elliot and refusing to allow him to see the girl, who is locked in the bathroom passed out in the bathtub, he makes it clear that he had sex with her. He finally leaves, Elliot picks the lock and gets her out and when she comes to he asked what he was doing there, which she didn't remember. He asked if she remembered having sex with him, and she said no, and then came to the realization that she was raped.

After a moment, Elliot mentions going to the police, and she refuses.

She tells him that he gives her a really good deal on the split, and makes good money.

The way I see it, this is the invisible hand.

I cannot fathom perceiving the invisible hand as immoral or moral, as malevolent or benevolent, as Satan or God. I'd recommend putting down the remote and read a book. I should be getting paid to do this work. The invisible hand is not a hard concept. You do it yourself sometime.

You're doing that haven't read any H.Potter, but want me to explain it all to you anyways thingee. Go read For a New Liberty. That's the ACer "bible". It's not that long. Get back to us.

Or, let's put it this way: Imagine a world where it's legal to buy children and then starve them to death, and that's consider a good thing, a cornerstone of liberty. Am I asking you to imagine (a) a serious political movement, or (b) a pitch for a horror movie?

There's almost nothing that ST says that is true. He works for free though, enjoy.

ACEG, your argument is analogous to blaming the wind for tornadoes.

But the important question is why is buying and selling children a good thing? Because it benefits one's self, whoever the self is that is involved in this trade. "You should pursue your own self interest to benefit yourself". Isn't this the argument that he makes?

That's Ethical Egoism.

Why do people work?

Government leads to accumulation of power, which leads to oppression.

Erm no.

It's entirely reasonable for someone who is advocating for some political or economic system to contrast it with the system they are looking to replace or even to just point out why some system is flawed and thus motivates considering alternatives.

This doesn't really explain why believing taxes belong to the government is a slippery slope.

Unfortunately Republicans have latched onto this same idea as a weapon to reduce the welfare state so the idea that charities and fraternal orders were effective welfare organizations has reached beyond ACist circles and so more mainstream historians have looked into it.


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...harity/284552/

Fraternal orders never were as extensive as we imagine a replacement for the welfare state would need to be and there no reason to think they would be. In addition these orders would collapse during recessions, exactly when they were needed the most which is exactly why people pushed for public insurance that would be much more stable and comprehensive.

Like the title of the article says, the idea that we had some substitute for public insurance before the welfare state is a myth that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

You can see hints of that when Beito is talking about these Orders

http://www.heritage.org/political-pr...rty-and-taught

33% coverage is not impressive at all. That's extremely weak, hardly the model for a system more effective than the one we have currently.

Uh, haven't read H.Potter fiction, but trying to claim this is the dialog they spoke. You are doing that again.

Again, no. M.Rothbard didn't produce philosophical writing. Furthermore, just saying "Philosophy X says Y, a peep does Y, therefore that peep "is" an X" is a stupid, stupid, kind of statement. Sure, Descartes famously wrote "I think, therefore I am". This doesn't mean every time someone thinks they are "being" a Cartesian.

Furthermore, being a X, where X is a philosophy, doesn't make you part of some stupid team. If someone said they are an Existentialist, what does that mean? Well strictly it means they are a professional philosopher, they probably hold a professorship, and that what they publish in the academic journals are on subcategory of Existentialism of academic philosophy.

That doesn't fit ACers at all. ACers, universally, think their endless prating about 'morality' is actually doing philosophy. No ACer could give even a high school level explanation regarding any legitimate branch of philosophy. LOL @ACers being into philosophy at all.

I love this nonsense. Here we have system X. System X requires a government or regime to function. When that system inevitably leads to oppression, what do ACers say?

Well, they say it isn't system X which causes oppression, it's the government or regime which system X requires that causes oppression. Like WTF BBQ ??

So, let's "test drive" this 'theory'. Let's say a religious bunch seized power. A religious who feels woman should only go about veiled. This religious bunch organizes a government to enforce their ways, including veiling. What would our ACers say?

"Government leads to enforcement of veiling, which leads to oppression". The ACers would give the religion itself, and this bunch, all a complete pass. LMFAO @ACers !!!1!

Erm no.

What keeps happening with you 'statist' is you keep letting the ACers beg the question. Stop playing that kinda fool.

ACism isn't an "ideology", or a "philosophy", or even a "tendency". The reason it makes no sense for ACers to try to compare ACland -vs- reality, is that ACland makes no sense. ACism is just a childish buncha contradictions and gibberish aptly entitled with an oxymoron.

If ACers *could* compare and contrast ACism -vs- something, they should start with mainstream 'statist' LTism. How is "being" an ACer any different than being a fanboy of the Koch bros?

I'm generally alright with people discussing wtf they want especially when I'm kinda waiting for them to answer so that I can point out their gibberish is gibberish.

I get that Alpha may be bored ****less with ACism/ists but this thread contains it and we weren't all around then. Like your rejecting their criticism of statism because their ACism is gibberish, okay but when their argument with statism is bollocks us statists can point out why.

There are only two ways to proceed with ACers. (1) Point out it's self-contradictory gibberish full stop, or (2) Willfully suspend disbelief regarding said gibberish, and LOL@ the ensuing hilarity.

The rub is this: these fools are universally ignorant of, lazy regarding, and uninterested in ACism. So yes, there will be a ton of waiting. It's like pulling teeth to get these fools to actually chat about ACism. But, when they finally do, we get comic gold like...

Like I'm with you, you can't have anarchism and private property so ACism is self contradictory / oxymoronic, yep you won't get any argument from me, but LoL's claim was that statists defending taxes as belonging to the Govt being a slippery slope is also bollocks and I'm kinda bored but busy so thought I'd have a pop at the easy argument before you and kerowo stepped in.

Bah!

Yeah sure. Us survivors of the bad old days forget, I guess, that everyone hasn't seen this shiz more times than we can remember. Some used to draw up actual flowcharts even.

OKVG. May the "Roof Roads" rise at your feet.

You'll find out soon enough that LTers are quite prone to word soup. They tend to throw in phrases like "slippery slope" randomly as like a seasoning.