• Xerographica's Avatar
    01-16-2018, 02:05 PM
    The group that receives the modern medical care will have the largest survival rate. Regarding testing the Visible Hand... it's just a committee... or a dictator. Congress is just a committee. There are plenty of other committees... such as the PTA. Your boss isn't a committee... he's a dictator. The point is, society is full of Visible Hands. The problem is that nobody sees the point in trying to replace any of them with the Invisible Hand. Not sure if you saw this thread... We Win. In that thread I described the purpose of this website that I created... IdeaPlug.org Ideas/links/pages are ranked by spending rather than by voting. Right now I'm IdeaPlug's treasurer. Let's say that you want to be the treasurer. Can I solely decide that you shouldn't be the treasurer? If I did this, then I'd be a dictator. I don't want to be a dictator. From my perspective, it's better for the market to decide whether you should be IdeaPlug's treasurer. So you'd make your case, message me the link and paypal me your valuation. I'd update the website. If nobody opposes you, then you'll be the new treasurer.
    27 replies | 747 view(s)
  • Xerographica's Avatar
    01-14-2018, 08:37 AM
    Xerographica started a thread We Win in Grassroots Central
    Imagine a 10k race. The race is a contest. The point of the contest is to rank the runners by speed. Now imagine an idea race. It's also a contest. The point of the contest is to rank the ideas. However, we're not interested in how fast an idea is, we're interested in how useful it is. We want all the ideas to be ranked by usefulness. The thing is, unlike runners, ideas don't have legs. This means that ideas can't rank themselves by usefulness. Ideas need to be ranked by people. So the fundamentally important question is... how, exactly, should people rank ideas? Here are some options... 1. The Democratic Hand (DH): voting 2. The Visible Hand (VH): committee 3. The Invisible Hand (IH): spending
    0 replies | 146 view(s)
  • Conza88's Avatar
    01-13-2018, 02:09 AM
    Yo rev-3.0, What are you thoughts on the action axiom? “The attempt to disprove the action-axiom would itself be an action aimed at a goal, requiring means, excluding other courses of action, incurring costs, subjecting the actor to the possibility of achieving or not achieving the desired goal and so leading to a profit or a loss. And the very possession of such knowledge then can never be disputed, and the validity of these concepts can never be falsified by any contingent experience, for disputing or falsifying anything would already have presupposed their very existence. As a matter of fact, a situation in which these categories of action would cease to have a real existence could itself never be observed, for making an observation, too, is an action.” — Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method
    61 replies | 1303 view(s)
  • Conza88's Avatar
    01-13-2018, 02:03 AM
    Embarrassing. He is not, and he literally stated the opposite carte blanche. I mean; you have nothing to object to given his statement that Ought-statements cannot be derived from is-statements. They belong to different logical realms. Hopefully this helps: Separate natures of justification and acting “We now address further the question of whether the APoA a priori of argumentation] and its grounding of the NAP and property theory are part of “ethics” in a normative sense or can be considered a purely descriptive account that can be placed within praxeology as an “is” science. Hoppe’s “normative” formulations of the APoA as applied to the NAP are a priori “is” statements made with regard to certain “norms.” However, these particular norms are inescapable implications of propositional discourse itself. These a priori “normative” statements are therefore not in the form of the “ought” statements commonly associated with the “normative” sphere of ethics. Rather, they delimit the sphere of “is”-level conceptual possibility. That Hoppe’s formulations take the form of “is” statements regarding justifiable norms explains both the magnitude of this innovation and the challenge of interpreting these arguments with conventional categories. A primary Hoppean APoA “is” statement is that the NAP can be justified in propositional discourse, while any conceivable contradictory alternative to the NAP cannot be justified without performative contradiction. This gains additional significance because propositional discourse is the only method through which justification can be accomplished. Therefore, if one wants to justify a norm with regard to the issues addressed by property rights, there is only one possibility, the NAP. Hoppe writes:
    61 replies | 1303 view(s)
  • Conza88's Avatar
    01-12-2018, 06:59 AM
    "monopolizing defense and rights protection (though not necessarily through a"state")" = That's only possible through a state... and that's only understandable if you understand economics. "A and B decide to pay for the building of a dam for their uses; C benefits though he did not pay.... This is the problem of the Free Rider. Yet it is difficult to understand what the hullabaloo is all about. Am I to be specially taxed because I enjoy the sight of my neighbor's garden without paying for it? A's and B's purchase of a good reveals that they are willing to pay for it; if it indirectly benefits C as well, no one is the loser" (I, p. 25). —Murray Rothbard, Logic of Action Go ahead.... tell me how that justifies the state (monopoly of ultimate decision making including conflicts involving itself w/ the ability to tax).
    714 replies | 11775 view(s)
  • Conza88's Avatar
    01-12-2018, 06:48 AM
    Classic. This showcases you don't know what Hoppe's A priori of argumentation (APoA) actually is. “Second, there is the logical gap between “is-” and “ought-statements” which natural rights proponents have failed to bridge successfully—except for advancing some general critical remarks regarding the ultimate validity of the fact-value dichotomy. Here the praxeological proof of libertarianism has the advantage of offering a completely value-free justification of private property. It remains entirely in the realm of is-statements and never tries to derive an “ought” from an “is.” The structure of the argument is this: (a) justification is propositional justification—a priori true is-statement; (b) argumentation presupposes property in one’s body and the homesteading principle—a priori true is-statement; and (c) then, no deviation from this ethic can be argumentatively justified—a priori true is-statement.
    61 replies | 1303 view(s)
  • Xerographica's Avatar
    01-11-2018, 12:44 PM
    The violence of government taxation? So in the world that you live in... the tax collector is the bad guy? He's the villain in your story? The thing is, it's not like he's doing his job for free. He's getting paid to do his job. The IRS's funding is entirely determined by congress. So is congress the villain in your story? The thing is, every congressperson is chosen by voters. So are voters the villain in your story? Voters are the villain in my story. Taxpayers are the victim in my story.
    27 replies | 747 view(s)
  • Xerographica's Avatar
    01-08-2018, 01:20 AM
    Coercion is just one of the many things that the government supplies. Right now taxpayers don't have the opportunity to decide for themselves how they divide their tax dollars between coercion and everything else that the government does. But this aspect is identical to Netflix. Subscribers don't have the opportunity to decide for themselves how they divide their subscription dollars between horror movies and all the other content. The issue is supply and demand. The demand for coercion is unknown like the demand for horror movies is unknown. Since the demand is unknown, how can the supply possibly be correct? Netflix and the government are both command economies. What would happen if Netflix became a market economy? In this case, subscribers could decide for themselves how they divide their dollars among the content. The demand for content would be known and the supply would adjust accordingly. If Netflix proved that the Invisible Hand is superior to the Visible Hand, then this would be relevant to the government.
    27 replies | 747 view(s)
  • Xerographica's Avatar
    01-07-2018, 04:39 PM
    From my perspective, the issue isn't whether the administration of protection is public or private. The issue is the accountability. You seem to agree... In the private sector we use our money to keep administrators accountable. If you hire a security company to protect your business, and they fail to do so, then you are free to fire them. You have the freedom to stop giving the security company your money. The security company knows this. This knowledge provides the security company the maximum incentive to protect your business. It can be generalized like so... money is a measure of usefulness. The more useful a security company is, the more money it will receive. In the public sector, on the other hand, we use voting to keep administrators accountable. If you don't think the police are adequately protecting your neighborhood... then you can certainly call and complain to the police and the city council and the local newspaper. But really the only real action you can take is try and "vote the bums out". This method is incredibly defective. As a pragmatarian, I want to apply the private sector's method to the public sector. People would still have to pay taxes, but they could use them to measure the usefulness of public servants. If you think the police are useless, then you wouldn't give them any of your own tax dollars. The more taxpayers who agreed with you that the police are useless, the less tax dollars the police would receive. However, the police really don't want less funding. Nobody wants less funding. Everybody wants more funding. This is what would provide the police and all the other public servants with the maximum incentive to be more useful to taxpayers.
    27 replies | 747 view(s)
  • Xerographica's Avatar
    01-07-2018, 05:05 AM
    You said that your scientist friend is a conservative. Does he also believe that the government is entirely unnecessary?
    27 replies | 747 view(s)
  • Xerographica's Avatar
    01-06-2018, 10:36 PM
    Conservatives do not want to abolish the government. Any conservative who does want to abolish the government is not a conservative. He is an anarchist. Perhaps he is an anarcho-capitalist. In any case, he is definitely not a conservative. Conservatives do not want people to choose where their taxes go. Any conservative who does support this is not a conservative. He is a pragmatarian. Anarchists and pragmatarians are the only people who do not perceive the need for the Visible Hand. Does David Friedman perceive the need for the Visible Hand? Nope. He is an anarcho-capitalist. Does Gary Johnson perceive the need for the Visible Hand? Yup. He is a libertarian.
    27 replies | 747 view(s)
  • Xerographica's Avatar
    01-06-2018, 06:03 PM
    You will have to be much more specific. Please specify exactly which statement you doubt... 1. Our country is currently a mixed economy. 2. We have a market economy (Invisible Hand) in the private sector and a command economy (Visible Hand) in the public sector. 3. Socialists, liberals, conservatives and libertarians all believe that we need to have a Visible Hand.
    27 replies | 747 view(s)
  • Xerographica's Avatar
    01-05-2018, 08:55 PM
    You said that your friend is a conservative. Here's a list of all the people who believe in the effectiveness of the Visible Hand... 1. Socialists 2. Liberals 3. Conservatives 4. Libertarians Here's a list of all the people who do not believe in the effectiveness of the Visible Hand... 1. Anarcho-capitalists
    27 replies | 747 view(s)
  • Xerographica's Avatar
    01-05-2018, 04:21 PM
    This is a pretty good and short video about falsifiability... It's especially good because it uses Marxism as the main example.
    27 replies | 747 view(s)
  • Xerographica's Avatar
    01-05-2018, 04:05 PM
    Your conservative friend, by definition, believes in the effectiveness of the Visible Hand. Has he ever scientifically tested his belief? Has he ever shown any interest in scientifically testing his belief? Please ask him and let us know what he says. Here's what I just wrote to a liberal... ************************** You and the conservative both believe in the effectiveness of the Visible Hand. However, the fact of the matter is that the effectiveness of the Visible Hand has never been scientifically tested. The conservative that I replied to did not reply back and say, “I’d hate to believe in bullshit, I’m very motivated for the Visible Hand to be scientifically tested.” Instead, he did not reply back at all. Obviously he’s not at all interested in scientifically verifying the accuracy his belief.
    27 replies | 747 view(s)
  • Xerographica's Avatar
    01-03-2018, 12:13 PM
    In nearly all cases, the real reason that anybody is retarded about anything is because of central planning. Central planning is the root of the problem. We have to strike the root.
    27 replies | 747 view(s)
  • Xerographica's Avatar
    01-03-2018, 10:05 AM
    Here's part of my Medium response to a conservative... ************************** Of course, in order to be a conservative, you must, by definition, have a natural aversion to science. Which is really strange given that one of the very best stories in the Bible is all about science. The Israelites weren’t quite sure whether Baal or God was the real god. So Elijah devised a simple test. He would pray to God, the prophets of Baal would pray to Baal, and whichever god responded with fire would be the real god. Why did it matter whether Baal or God was the real god? It mattered because, if you’re going to make significant sacrifices to a god, you actually want even greater blessings in return. Otherwise, your sacrifices are simply a waste. The Bible isn’t a fan of waste. Nobody is a fan of waste. Even liberals aren’t a fan of waste. They hate getting ripped off just as much as the next person. Nowadays nobody who is truly anybody debates whether God or Allah or Shiva or Buddha is the real god. Instead, the significant people, the people who actually matter, such as the Nobel prize winners, debate whether the Visible Hand or the Invisible Hand is the real god.
    27 replies | 747 view(s)
No More Results

2 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    It's Ian Curtis from Joy Division! My favorite band. Hehe
  2. View Conversation
    :-)
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 2 of 2
About Anarcho-Capitalist

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
25
Posts Per Day
0.01
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
2
Most Recent Message
04-01-2012 02:54 PM
General Information
Last Activity
09-27-2012 03:18 PM
Join Date
02-29-2012
Referrals
0

6 Friends

  1. Conza88 Conza88 is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via MSN to Conza88
    Conza88
  2. Crystallas Crystallas is offline

    Member

    Crystallas
  3. noneedtoaggress noneedtoaggress is offline

    Member

    noneedtoaggress
  4. Qdog Qdog is offline

    Member

    Qdog
  5. Rothbardian Girl Rothbardian Girl is offline

    Member

    Rothbardian Girl
  6. Xerographica Xerographica is offline

    Member

    Xerographica
Showing Friends 1 to 6 of 6
No results to display...
No results to display...
No results to display...