mises.org---it's all good---so many great thinkers and writers imo---all credit goes to them.

Thanks. Ha. Yea, that sounds like a BIG project.

MissileDog,

Sorry dude. Please accept my apology. I shouldn't have lost my temper. You're a good guy. I just got frustrated with your line of line of debate. My bad.

missile dog,

1. Appreciate reading your honest style of debate.

2. I don't think austrians/acists treat "government" differently than "people". On the contrary their entire premise is that people's actions shouldn't be treated differently because they call themselves a government. That it's not ok for a state to do anything it wouldn't be ok for you or me to do.

OK you said the state bought my apartment and evicted me. Sounds legitimate at first but wait, where'd they get the money? If it was the chess club those were voluntary contributions, if it's a state not so much. When all of an organizations funds are confiscated it's hard to hypothesize them taking an action that's entirely legitimate. That's not treating the state as anything other than a group of people - it would also be illegitimate for the chess club to run an extortion ring and start buying up property.

TYVM. The Austrian/Libertarian crowd doesn't care for it however. For example Hank_Henry ITT characterized my style of debate as...

Now I know why no one respects your posts, and refuses to debate with you: up is down, black is white, what you said you didn't say, this means that but only until it means something else, I don't have a dog in this fight btw fu.

Or consider this exchange zan nen from last months LC thread...

And the ACists still don't get it (or do, and don't want to "go there")...

#1 So my first question here, and it is open to the ACistas as well, is why do you characterize my style of debate as honest, while the ACers have quite a different point of view.

That's not what I am getting at when I say they have a fetish with the word "etats" backwards. They would be able to identify a human actor in the case of the Chess Club... the president of the chess club. And if a mafia bought the house with "dirty" money, they would be able to identify a human actor ... the Godfather.

But if it happens to be a government, they will dogmatically refuse to identify a human actor. It is always just the ETATS BACKWARDS, and if you can't understand that you are a dirty TSITATS BACKWARDS SAVAGE, WTF!

And these dudes have some more "special words" like this. You might notice they spend about 100% of their time arguing about what the "one, true and only" meaning of a few words are. Sounds kinda cultish to me.

#2 So my second question, regarding the "special words" is... why?

I haven't heard that sort of reasoning and false dichotomy since Bush was in office. Thanks for the flashbacks!

There are a lot of ACists on this board and I read a lot of the AC threads and I don't think I've seen anyone do what you're saying. If you are honest and open-minded as you appear you should read some old AC threads, or wait til the next one, and point out where our resident ACists are guilty of this.

Edit: if you can find examples of what you're talking about in Rothbard or somebody I could understand what you're talking about, and it would probably generate an interesting discussion. But it may be a bit underwhelming as if you can show Rothbard to be wrong ACists will not defend his writing as a fundamentalist would the Bible or anything.

Lol...

Well, that certainly qualifies them to be excellent philosphy professors.

Not sure that means they have the faintest clue about administering a population of 300 million though.

They do it all the time, you just haven't noticed. And this is where Hank_Henry messed up the patter, as I will point out. Here is how the typical ACist line works. Lets say we are talking about the slave literacy in the US Southeast. According to Wikipedia...

South Carolina passed the first laws ... in 1740 .. illegal to teach slaves to write. ... followed the Stono Rebellion. As fears spread among plantation owners ... the need to restrict slaves’ ability to communicate with one another became more pronounced. ... The most oppressive limits on slave education were a reaction to Nat Turner's Revolt ... during the summer of 1831. ... caused shock waves across the slaveholding South ... The fears of slave insurrections ... led to radical restrictions on gatherings, travel, and—of course—literacy. The ignorance of the slaves was considered necessary to the security of the slaveholders ... they did not want slaves to question their lot; thus, reading and reflection were to be prevented at any cost.

a few examples are especially illustrative. ... Mississippi already had laws designed to prevent slave literacy ... required all free African-Americans to leave the state so that they would not be able to educate ... any black preacher would have to be given permission to speak before appearing a congregation. Delaware passed ... prevented the meeting of a dozen or more blacks late at night; additionally, black preachers were to petition a judge or justice of the peace before speaking before any assembly... Alabama ... fined anyone who undertook a slave's education ... the law also prohibited any assembly of African-Americans—slave or free—unless five slaveowners were present or an African-American preacher had previously been licensed ... By 1835, the public education of all African-Americans was strictly prohibited.

To most normal people this is just another shocking example of the cruel in-human depths that the Chattle-Capitalists of the era sunk to, they had education itself outlawed to keep their farm animals (slaves) docile and exploited. But to an ACist, its just another example of the ETATS interfering in the Free Market...

To them the ETATS is mainly interfering with the plantation owners right to teach their farm animals tricks (roll over for a dog, reading for a black child) which is against the NAP! Second, what about those poor black preachers, having to get the permission to hold mass, see the ETATS is suppressing freedom of association! And finally what about the poor farm animals, those black children might enjoy reading. See every time the ETATS interferes in the Free Market things get worse!

To an ACist is it important to hold at all times the ETATS is under nobodies control or influence, that the ETATS has evil intent, and that everyone always loses from it's intervention in the Free Market. And that's where Hank_Henry messed up the patter. He said that unions were able to change the governments laws to their advantage. And if unions can influence governments so can management, and this can never be admitted. DUCY?

As for Rothbard, his truly bizarre and misleading treatment of the of the US railroad nationalization 1917-1920, summarized by Dr Chris Matthew Sciabarra in his Government and the Railroads During World War I: Political Capitalism and the Death of Enterprise shows the same kind of reasoning. Clearly the ETATS for Rothbard and Sciabarra is more than the some of it's parts.

No problems. I said I was just teasing! No need to apologize. You're a good guy too. I really am not trying to "deprogram" anyone. I really do like you guys! All in good fun! !

Awwwe, we're friends, yay!!

Are you basing all this on your philosophical disagreement with libertarianism? I don't understand the connection between your view that libertarians see the state as "monolithic evil Hobbesian monster" and this stuff about dualism / Objectivism. Could you please explain the logical connection for those who are behind the curve regarding philosophy?

OK, didn't have to wait long. This one from the The Wire is a Critique of Capitalism. In fact, that entire thread makes my point about that their cult-like use of "special" words. In that thread, OP is confused why the creator of The Wire called it a critique of capitalism. The producer obviously meant the every day meaning of the word "capitalism": living under modern Industrial Capitalism like in real world Baltimore, MD.

The ACist crowd completely missed the point because they define the word capitalism in their own non-standard and goofy way. To us English speakers, the use of the term refers to the capitalistic system as a whole, to both the private institutions (big business) and the public institutions (big governments). To the ACist crowd the term only applies to the private institutions. The interlocking, designed, and required enabling public institutions are somehow imagined to be outside of the entire capitalistic system itself, and never controlled or influenced by the significant owners of capital period. Consider...

Notice how ianlippert admits governments are most interested in the owners of capital. So in other words, he is saying that The Capitalists (significant owners of capital) are the power behind the governments. But still ianlippert is claiming there is someone else, not the Capitalists who control the governments, and it's obviously not the people being scammed. So if it is not The Capitalists or their governments, and it is not the Workers, then...

Who are the people who are the main cause of the problem?
How are they running the show while making it "seem" the Capitalists are.
How are the able to subvert the Capitalist controlled governments?
How are they able to make ensure we are brought to believe the "state" is necessary?
Why do they want people to draw an anti-capitalist message?
Why should we not consider them just better capitalists, as their means and ends are exactly the same: using governments and corporations to gain personal power and wealth?
We see the profit flowing to The Capitalists, how are these others profiting?
Etc...

As I already mentioned, we can read through the loony-tunes bizarre Rothbardian "treatment" of the US Railroad nationalization during WWI to see the same exact headless horseman explanation of the "state". Would you like to read through this nonsense together? Or have I made my point?

Well yes, very good question. There are two philosophical features I brought up, "Non-dualism" or not believing in the absolute thought/thing divide. Libertarianism explicitly denies the absolute thought/thing divide, hence the name Objectivism. In most religions, and to be clear Libertarianism is not a religion, non-dualism is the basis for the "power of prayer". The second is "Mysticism", which in most religion is the basis for "seeing" beings that are not there (gods, angels, etc). Libertarianism has a secular version of a being that is not there, called the "state". To the Libertarians, the "state" is more than the some of it's parts, like ianlippert directly demonstrated above.

The mistake both you and ianlippert made in the "libertarian patter" is that you admitted anyone ever can influence any governments. Which means they are just ordinary organizations of people, and not something "more" or special. And that can never do. DUCY?

objectivism !=libertarianism

Didn't say they were the same. I said they share the same underlying "non-dualism", like lots of other believes. Do you disagree?

Are you making an argument along the same lines that George Stigler makes? i.e...."Social institutions are efficient. This includes government because, hey, government is an instrument of the people and therefore does what the people want, after all, LDO."

No, I am not making any argument about any institutions being efficient or not. I am making an observation about the way libertarians(&etc) view the world and use certain words. Consider what ianlippert is saying above...

* Governments mostly serve interests of the capital owning groups.
* [Governments schools] bring us up to believe in the necessity of the "state".
* This belief makes it almost impossible to question the main cause of the problem.
* This belief makes it seem the capital owning groups are running the show.
* This belief scams workers into servitude, profiting the those behind the current system.

This is what I am getting at...

1. What is the main cause?
2. Who is really running the show?
3. Who is profiting from the current system?

This is the question, the Mystical question of libertarianism (&etc)... ?? who does these things ??

As per the bolded, I don't think this is an accurate interpretation. I don't think Ian Lippert argues that workers are being exploited and thus need to ban together...Instead, I think he is putting into words what he believes your argument to be. However, this is a minor point imo. I just wanted to point out my interpretation.

Hmm. I still don't follow. You seem to be arguing that libertarianism is "incorrect" because it misidentifies cause and effect.

Specifically, your argument contra libertarianism seems to be that when libertarians complain about the evils of government, the complaints are misplaced because, in reality, it's the "capitalists" who are calling the shots and government is simply responding to their will. Therefore, you seem to argue, the problem is not the behavior of government, but the behavior of capitalists who misuse government.

Please confirm or deny that this is your argument.

Yes, this is what I am saying. Confirmed.

(Explaining my FYP: A liberal would think they are misusing government, an anarchist knows that's what governments actually do).

Well, I'm with you on the capitalists thing for the most part I think. I'm not sure that certain capitalists are the only ones whose special interests are being served by government though. I mean, politicians seek votes, and while I imagine there's a strong correlation to this translating into the need for money (and therefore paying attention to capitalists' interests), I also imagine the seeking of votes necessitates that politicians pander also to many non-monied interests.

Bottom line in this regard, then, for me: don't hate the player(s), hate the game.


Edit: On second thought, in my case, it's more corrct to say I hate the players AND the game. I wish the players didn't act in the manner they do. At bottom, however, the problem is the government game and its warped incentives imo.

Heh....Media Matters has a post on Napolitano hanging out and agreeing with Alex Jones.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201010080030

Unrelated money quote from Jones:

You are correct, there are other inputs on the politicians. The wackjob religious right gets all sorts of mileage by getting the vote out, and to a lesser degree environmentalists, the conservative labor movement, etc get some influence. And remember, major decisions are never not up for debate, only the edge issues and details, which is basically subjected to an auction. You've almost have de-programmed yourself...

...but you didn't get there. You do agree that everything a government does is because somebody is making it happen, don't you? You need to not hate the governments, which are after all just another human group, and hate the people who caused and are benefiting from your "warped incentives". If a mafia was causing "warped incentives" you would have no trouble identifying the person(s) causing this to happen, correct? Why do you stop dead, and dogmatically refuse to identify anyone, just because an organization uses the word "ETATS" ???

You seem to be suggesting something along the lines of, well, if Senator Jones does X, and X is harmful to the common good, we can just vote the bastard out. The problem isn't government, it is Senator Jones.

However, for the scope of the "government problem" to be limited to individual government actors, I have to be aware of what Senator Jones is doing 24/7, and so do a majority of my neighbors. The game is rigged for him to cheat---he nails votes down for himself whenever he promises Group A, Group B, and Group C to sponsor legislation which benefits them (usually to the detriment of the common good). And, often, the detriment caused to the common good is difficult for people to recognize.

But, not only do I have to be aware of the doings of Senator Jones, I need to follow Representatives Smith and Johnson. But also my state representatives, and local officials. Now, I have a full time vocation.

All of a sudden, I have a (fraction A) * (fraction B) * (fraction C) * (fraction D) situation.

(fraction A) = I'm WILLING to follow the dealings of all these politicians whose decisions are affecting my life.
(fraction B) = I'm ABLE to follow their dealings. (This is going to be nearly impossible.)
(fraction C) = I'm able to CORRECTLY understand whether these decisions are in the common good or not.
(fraction D) = And so (a) willing; (b) able; and (c) correct are enough of my neighbors to make a difference in the outcome of government actions.

The result = ain't gonna happen = hate the game.


Freedom for its own sake is an even more compelling argument for hating the game, however: freedom for the sake of individual choice, expression, and autonomy. This is because the game curbs, mitigates, stifles, and supresses me as an individual. The game, invariably, requires me submitting to the will of other (individuals) whose decision was made without inquiring as to my preference, thank you. My submission is required, of course, because that decision is backed by their exclusive access to coercive force.

No. The problem isn't government or any particular politicians, by itself. The problem is the people that are using the government and own the politicians. None of this stuff just happens, someone is making it happen. Some grouping of people are behind every government/politician. And remember, I'm a Syndicalist, so I don't believe governments or politicians are the good. However, I do understand that they always work for the ruling elite. And in a Capitalist society that means they work for the owners of significant capital.

We Syndicalists agree with this 100%. Now we just need to identify who causes "the game" to be played and who profits from it... and attack them! In a Capitalist society you know who needs attacking, right?

Sure, that's one way to do it. But...
(1) If you do nothing about the warped incentives associated with government, what prevents the problem from happening all over again?

(2) Why do you give individuals in government a free pass? What's so different about individuals in government (vs. private sector capitalists) that they escape your criticism?

(3) If instead one focuses on changing the game...i.e. getting rid of government altogether (or, at least, nearly so depending on which libertarians or anarchists one is speaking to) why wouldn't this solve the problem? ...Or is this not an option because, in your view, government is necessary for certain reason(s).

Get rid of the ruling elite, then their governments go away. These "warped incentives" don't happen by accident. The ruling elite likes things this way.

Well the individuals in government, the politicians, don't get a free pass. But neither do the people they work for, the significant owners of capital. They are on the same side: the politicians work for the capitalists. You can shuffle politicians all you want, bur unless you attack the ruling elite, nothing will ever change.

That is what we are trying to do as Syndicalists! Building the new world in the shell of the old, firing the boss (and by extension, the boss's governments). We don't believe any hierarchical and coercive organization is ever necessary, and are always the bad. All forms of hierarchical and coercive organization have gotta go!

First of all, to be clear, I don't advocate any type of violence to achieve any civilized end...unless it's violence of a self-defensive nature, which I don't consider this case to be.

Second, your idea of "attacking" people seems super unrealistic and undesirable to me. After all, there will ALWAYS be an "elite" class of people who, by definition, hold a preponderance of resources.

What do you propose to do---redistribute seized property so that everyone is equal, and therefore dissolve the problem of the existence of an "elite"?

Or, instead, do you propose to design a new system in which an elite still exists, but is unable to effectively "rule" everybody else?

I don't understand what kind of society you propose.