Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 91 to 119 of 119

Thread: Free Markets with no control = the law of the jungle.

  1. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Optatron View Post
    Reading doesn't mean I'll agree or accept it as answers.

    I'm wrong according to you, or according to every standard of reason if you say so.

    But being wrong alone won't get me hurt, because I live in reality.

    I know you think you know what you're talking about, have you once admitted you made a mistake? When somebody tries to correct you, or rephrase, you only blame them, you're NEVER wrong.
    Maybe he wasn't, and you are the one who is wrong in this thread. You can't judge someone's personality or their entire life from the contents of one thread, especially a flame-fest like this thread.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by tmosley View Post
    Maybe he wasn't, and you are the one who is wrong in this thread.
    Being wrong according to the standards of him, and/or you.

    You can't judge someone's personality or their entire life from the contents of one thread, especially a flame-fest like this thread.
    agreed, you can't, and I don't.

  4. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Optatron View Post
    Being wrong according to the standards of him, and/or you.



    agreed, you can't, and I don't.
    Lol, sliding standards for truth. That's dandy.

  5. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by tmosley View Post
    THINK about what a law does. Emphasis on think, because you aren't using your brain right now. Laws don't stop crime, nor do they undo crime. They punish criminals. They punished the Nazis (though total extermination), they punished the United States (remember 9/11, bombing of the barracks in Lebanon, and/or any other terrorist attack that has occured in the last 40 years, we violated lots of people's rights for such a backlashes to occur), the IRA punished Britain, Haitian slaves punished their "masters" during their uprising, etc. All resistance movements are seeded through violations of natural rights.
    So what? All resistance movements are justified?

    My point is not everybody is punished and those who are are not always the ones who committed the crime. Reality does not ask whether you did right or stood for right, it asks if you're lucky enough to be on the side of safety (if surviving was your goal).

    Laws don't punish criminals of criminals have enough friends. I AM using my head, and I'm looking right out my window, and flipping history books. People whose skulls are on display in Cambodia don't care whether they were unjustly, illegally, unreasonably or immorally killed, they don't care if their murderers were of bad intentions or violated natural laws. If they had a chance, they'd wish they could fight back, and no law, no talk could've helped them (or they'd never been killed).

    What exactly are you saying that the globalists are "getting away with" right now? If they are violating anyone's rights, they are doing it in such a way that it isn't apparent that they are responsible.
    So what if they are? What or who would punish them? What punishment would be just? Hanging?

    Just because you violate a natural right doesn't mean that nature herself will punish you
    Finally a truthful statement about NATURAL LAW.

    , it means that those who see you violate those rights will tend to seek vengeance on you (at least, those who aren't complicit in such acts), as would anyone else whom you had done those same wrongs to.
    And if people think violating what you believe are natural law is a good thing (in other words, if majority of society were on the side of criminals), you'd be fine.

    Everybody will seek vengeance against those they disagree with, criminals continue to seek vengeance against good people until they're dead or convinced they're wrong.

    In fact, it is the ones who do the actual deed that tend to pay the price (think of all the soldiers killed by roadside bombs in Iraq).
    Yes, Iraq is where there's SOME justice, where soldiers have to answer to retaliation. US government officials never have to, because we have nothing to offer them but silence and support.

    Putting morality of Iraq war aside, how many people deserved to die in Iraq? How many US soldiers? How many Iraqi civilians? How many so called "terrorists"?

    What have ANY of these people done to each other? Does the fact no party and participants intended to do wrong change the fact they were killed? Does it matter who was right or wrong?

    NO. Reality never fails to remind us, fate or faith, luck or God, if you keep talking (and keep telling people talking will matter), guns will do rest for you.

    What you believe may help humanity in the long run, but I choose to think of myself, here and now, because it's the only life I have.

  6. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by Optatron View Post
    Reading doesn't mean I'll agree or accept it as answers.

    I'm wrong according to you, or according to every standard of reason if you say so.

    But being wrong alone won't get me hurt, because I live in reality.

    I know you think you know what you're talking about, have you once admitted you made a mistake? When somebody tries to correct you, or rephrase, you only blame them, you're NEVER wrong.
    I have an open mind and I am forever open to persuasion by logic and reason.

    Your arguments have none.

    Your nihilism fails remarkably.

    I am ignorant on many things, but that is part of my knowledge - I KNOW what I am ignorant on... I don't ever speak out on a subject I believe I'm ignorant on.

    I have a passion for self-righteousness. I don't like being wrong.

    So when I experience someone with better arguments than me etc. When I AM proven wrong, I accept it - and adopt it myself, as a new more powerful argument - I don't want to be wrong again!

    You're a fcken joke.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  7. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    I have an open mind and I am forever open to persuasion by logic and reason.
    Ok, so what would convince you that a State is a good thing?

    What would convince you your libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism is not the best system?

    What would get you to admit that your views are naive and utopian?

    Your arguments have none.

    Your nihilism fails remarkably.
    I am ignorant on many things, but that is part of my knowledge - I KNOW what I am ignorant on... I don't ever speak out on a subject I believe I'm ignorant on.
    Ok, thanks, you don't see me quoting this out of context, do you?

    Just because you believe you're not ignorant of a subject doesn't mean you know it all either, but no need for me to pick on that.

    I have a passion for self-righteousness. I don't like being wrong.
    Thanks for admitting that, that makes me feel less bullied and beat down.

    So when I experience someone with better arguments than me etc. When I AM proven wrong, I accept it - and adopt it myself, as a new more powerful argument - I don't want to be wrong again!
    Has that happened here?

    You're a fcken joke.
    Oh no, you called me a name again, can you not always hurt my feelings? That's not nice!



  8. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  9. #97
    Quote Originally Posted by Optatron View Post
    So what? All resistance movements are justified?
    From their own point of view, yes, or they wouldn't exist.

    My point is not everybody is punished and those who are are not always the ones who committed the crime. Reality does not ask whether you did right or stood for right, it asks if you're lucky enough to be on the side of safety (if surviving was your goal).
    Reality doesn't ask anything, it just exists. If you stick your hand into an anthill, you are going to get bitten by ants. If you rape a six year old in front of her father, he will probably spend the rest of his life trying to kill you. That is natural law. It comes from humans. What are people willing to give their life for? Is everyone willing to kill or to die for this thing?

    Laws don't punish criminals of criminals have enough friends. I AM using my head, and I'm looking right out my window, and flipping history books. People whose skulls are on display in Cambodia don't care whether they were unjustly, illegally, unreasonably or immorally killed, they don't care if their murderers were of bad intentions or violated natural laws. If they had a chance, they'd wish they could fight back, and no law, no talk could've helped them (or they'd never been killed).
    Did you ever see Kill Bill? Do you remember the part where the yakuza guys killed the little girl's parents in front of her? The fact that they had friends didn't stop her from getting her revenge.

    The dead don't care, but their families do, as do their friends, neighbors, and countrymen. Murder a child in the street, and you are likely to be torn apart by a mob. This is natural law, and it is incredibly violent. The reason for social contracts is to prevent this violence. By allowing a less violent outlet through the legal system, you can reduce bloodshed, and put a stop to those endless cycles of bloodshed you mentioned. When social contracts recognize natural law and take it into account, you create a civil society, relatively free from bloodshed.

    So what if they are? What or who would punish them? What punishment would be just? Hanging?
    When people don't recognize natural law, things go to extremes quickly. Hangings are possible, as are stonings, and manual disarticulations.

    Finally a truthful statement about NATURAL LAW.
    There are plenty of statements about natural law in this thread that are true. You just haven't understood the difference between natural law enforcement with and without a social contract. All of the violence associated with armed conflict stems from a lack of respect for natural law on the part of one or more parties.

    And if people think violating what you believe are natural law is a good thing (in other words, if majority of society were on the side of criminals), you'd be fine.
    No. The surviving victims or their families will say otherwise. If there is no civil outlet where justice can be found, they will generally take matters into their own hands, and you'll get some dead criminals, regardless of what society thinks.

    Everybody will seek vengeance against those they disagree with, criminals continue to seek vengeance against good people until they're dead or convinced they're wrong.
    Exactly. This is why a court system that recognizes natural law is so important! It stops the cycle of bloodshed.

    Yes, Iraq is where there's SOME justice, where soldiers have to answer to retaliation. US government officials never have to, because we have nothing to offer them but silence and support.
    That's because in Iraq, there isn't a completely open (ie widely recognized as legitimate) judicial system that recognizes natural law. The violence that you see stems from individuals seeking justice in their own haphazard way.

    Putting morality of Iraq war aside, how many people deserved to die in Iraq? How many US soldiers? How many Iraqi civilians? How many so called "terrorists"?
    That doesn't enter into the equation. Even if it did, it's totally subjective. Each side thinks that the other deserves worse, because they have each violated each other's natural rights, and neither side really hears much or talks about the crimes they themselves have perpetrated, so each side sees an imbalance. A judiciary would bring all the facts to light, and everyone would come to an agreement. Some people might be put to death, others put in a box, while others are allowed to go free.

    What have ANY of these people done to each other? Does the fact no party and participants intended to do wrong change the fact they were killed? Does it matter who was right or wrong?
    Natural law is natural the same way a lion attack is natural. If you set up a mechanism to protect yourself, you don't have to deal with nasty situations like that.

    NO. Reality never fails to remind us, fate or faith, luck or God, if you keep talking (and keep telling people talking will matter), guns will do rest for you.

    What you believe may help humanity in the long run, but I choose to think of myself, here and now, because it's the only life I have.
    A system which takes natural laws into account stops bloodshed in its tracks. It is good over the short, medium, and long terms. This is perfectly evident in the sliding scale between the US judicial system and others, whose societies are violent in almost exact proportion to the extent that they have an open, widely recognized judicial system that recognizes the natural rights of men. Each deviation, each case of corruption, each miscarriage of justice increases the level of violence in that society, until you wind up with a society based entirely on right by violence.

  10. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by tmosley View Post
    From their own point of view, yes, or they wouldn't exist.
    So not, from your point of view, so why do you bring up their root as if that makes it OK?

    Reality doesn't ask anything, it just exists. If you stick your hand into an anthill, you are going to get bitten by ants.
    Not if you crush them fast enough.

    If you rape a six year old in front of her father, he will probably spend the rest of his life trying to kill you.
    Not if you have another gun in front of him, his hands tied.

    Or, he can try, if you don't run fast enough.

    That is natural law. It comes from humans.
    Another truth statement, THANK YOU.

    What are people willing to give their life for? Is everyone willing to kill or to die for this thing?
    People are willing to die for whatever they find worthy.


    Did you ever see Kill Bill? Do you remember the part where the yakuza guys killed the little girl's parents in front of her? The fact that they had friends didn't stop her from getting her revenge.
    first of all, that's fiction.
    secondly, that doesn't always happen in real life.
    thirdly, tell that to people who are still owed justice.


    The dead don't care, but their families do, as do their friends, neighbors, and countrymen. Murder a child in the street, and you are likely to be torn apart by a mob.
    just depends on who the mob is, doesn't it?


    This is natural law, and it is incredibly violent.
    Thanks again.

    The reason for social contracts is to prevent this violence. By allowing a less violent outlet through the legal system, you can reduce bloodshed, and put a stop to those endless cycles of bloodshed you mentioned. When social contracts recognize natural law and take it into account, you create a civil society, relatively free from bloodshed.
    I fully agree. However , I don't believe violence is always wrong, and I don't believe peace is always good.

    [quotes]
    When people don't recognize natural law, things go to extremes quickly. Hangings are possible, as are stonings, and manual disarticulations.
    [/quote]



    There are plenty of statements about natural law in this thread that are true. You just haven't understood the difference between natural law enforcement with and without a social contract. All of the violence associated with armed conflict stems from a lack of respect for natural law on the part of one or more parties.
    I don't deny at all that conflicts are based on disagreements and lack of respect for what one expects to be upheld.

    No. The surviving victims or their families will say otherwise. If there is no civil outlet where justice can be found, they will generally take matters into their own hands, and you'll get some dead criminals, regardless of what society thinks.
    Then good luck to them, and hopefully society was smart enough to see it coming.

    Exactly. This is why a court system that recognizes natural law is so important! It stops the cycle of bloodshed.
    WOW, THANKS SO MUCH. Keywords : "system that recognizes" "court" (or any power structure)

    That's because in Iraq, there isn't a completely open (ie widely recognized as legitimate) judicial system that recognizes natural law. The violence that you see stems from individuals seeking justice in their own haphazard way.
    And to them, that's the best they got.

    That doesn't enter into the equation. Even if it did, it's totally subjective.
    Exactly.

    Each side thinks that the other deserves worse, because they have each violated each other's natural rights, and neither side really hears much or talks about the crimes they themselves have perpetrated, so each side sees an imbalance. A judiciary would bring all the facts to light, and everyone would come to an agreement. Some people might be put to death, others put in a box, while others are allowed to go free.
    Which goes to show natural law is not sufficient, but definitely necessary.

    Natural law is natural the same way a lion attack is natural. If you set up a mechanism to protect yourself, you don't have to deal with nasty situations like that.
    Yep.,

    A system which takes natural laws into account stops bloodshed in its tracks.
    "Kill all people so no people can be killed again" is one of the options, correct?


    It is good over the short, medium, and long terms. This is perfectly evident in the sliding scale between the US judicial system and others, whose societies are violent in almost exact proportion to the extent that they have an open, widely recognized judicial system that recognizes the natural rights of men.
    I don't believe peaceful societies necessarily recognize natural law. They simply have more agreement.

    Each deviation, each case of corruption, each miscarriage of justice increases the level of violence in that society, until you wind up with a society based entirely on right by violence.
    or. until you wind up with a society who knows violence doesn't solve problems.

  11. #99
    Quote Originally Posted by Optatron View Post
    Ok, so what would convince you that a State is a good thing?

    What would convince you your libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism is not the best system?

    What would get you to admit that your views are naive and utopian?
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    - Humans do not act.
    - Humans have no individual interests.
    - Nobody wants to better their own situation.
    - Value is not subjective.
    - Producing more of something will not deflate the value of the existing stock of it.
    - Business cycle is caused by investors having an irrational freak out

    Good luck.

    - The benefits from the division of labor are not natural
    - Coercion and the threat therein is moral
    - Self defense, of justly acquired property is not justified
    - Freewill is not inalienable

    Ok, thanks, you don't see me quoting this out of context, do you?

    Just because you believe you're not ignorant of a subject doesn't mean you know it all either, but no need for me to pick on that.
    “Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.” ~Confucius

    I suggest you check yourself, before you wreck yourself. OH, wait... TOO late..

    Thanks for admitting that, that makes me feel less bullied and beat down.
    It shouldn't... you've been unable to face the contradictions of your arguments. Nor present a valid argument for any of it. Each time, I teared yours down.. and don't just say I think that... because it's obvious I ain't the only one.

    See:
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrew-Austin View Post
    You know, you would be better off taking that quote out of your signature. Conza kinda easily beat you in that debate.
    lol...

    Has that happened here?
    No. And why would it? Hahah, your arguments are fundamentally retarded. And the more you kling to them, the more I think you are.

    YOU EVEN ADMITTED THEY WERE! You said it yourself, you were trolling and don't actually believe in rights.. By your own god damn admission you're a FAKE.

    Oh no, you called me a name again, can you not always hurt my feelings? That's not nice!
    Cry me a river.
    Last edited by Conza88; 06-28-2009 at 09:57 PM.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  12. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post

    Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    - Humans do not act.
    Humans do act, just not all the same way

    - Humans have no individual interests.
    Some don't, or they wouldn't be charity.

    Some choose to force others for their individual interests

    - Nobody wants to better their own situation.
    Some better their own by hurting others

    - Value is not subjective.
    Not all value is subjective, or you'd allow life and property to be subjectively respected and enforced

    - Producing more of something will not deflate the value of the existing stock of it.
    It won't if the demand isn't constant


    - Business cycle is caused by investors having an irrational freak out
    possibly, sometimes it's based on bad information

    - The benefits from the division of labor are not natural
    and benefits from forcing and robbing are not natural?

    - Coercion is moral
    that's a good one!

    Where do you get your morality?
    Utilitarianism? ten commandments? golden rule?

    - Freewill is not inalienable
    Free will may inalienable as it's all in your head.
    But actions are certainly alienable.

  13. #101
    Let's do a checklist of the things you were able to 'refute.' This should be fun.

    Quote Originally Posted by Optatron View Post
    Humans do act, just not all the same way
    - They all act. Always. Just like you are now. It is self evident. It is axiomatic. Your attempt at a qualifier fails remarkably, it is completely irrelevant. And if you read Human Action, it elaborates as to why.

    Failed to refute. [1]

    Some don't, or they wouldn't be charity.

    Some choose to force others for their individual interests
    Charity is self interest motivated. See: http://mises.org/humanaction/chap10sec1.asp

    X. EXCHANGE WITHIN SOCIETY
    1. Autistic Exchange and Interpersonal Exchange


    Failed to refute. [2]

    Some better their own by hurting others
    Failed to refute. [3]

    Not all value is subjective, or you'd allow life and property to be subjectively respected and enforced
    Information / ideas within the meta-physical realm are a non-scare resource. And thus not subject to the laws of supply and demand.

    Those within the physical realm and that can actually be homestead and obtained justly - derive themselves from self ownership. This flows from Natural Law -> Natural Rights -> Natural justice.

    Failed to refute. [4]

    It won't if the demand isn't constant
    Ceteris paribus.

    Failed to refute. [5]

    possibly, sometimes it's based on bad information
    Government failure, not market failure. Market distortions due to government / state intervention.

    Failed to refute. [6]

    and benefits from forcing and robbing are not natural?
    Nope.

    Failed to refute. [7]

    that's a good one!

    Where do you get your morality?
    Utilitarianism? ten commandments? golden rule?
    Natural Law -> Natural rights -> natural justice. Essentially, self ownership and thus property rights.

    Ethics of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard

    Failed to refute. [8]

    Free will may inalienable as it's all in your head.
    But actions are certainly alienable.
    And? lmfao

    Failed to refute. [9]
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  14. #102
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    Let's do a checklist of the things you were able to 'refute.' This should be fun.
    Your usual defense mechanism & self righteous ego gets to you.

    When did I say I was trying to REFUTE anything?

    I was simply pointing out how your standards are either unreachable, or doesn't necessarily follow your views are the only right ones.



    - They all act. Always. Just like you are now. It is self evident. It is axiomatic. Your attempt at a qualifier fails remarkably, it is completely irrelevant. And if you read Human Action, it elaborates as to why.

    [COLOR=""]Failed to refute. [1][/COLOR]
    I never said they don't always act, how is my qualifier fail?

    Humans act, THAT'S A DISCOVERY? Animals act too, so what?

    Human action differs in diversity, THAT was my point!


    Charity is self interest motivated. See: http://mises.org/humanaction/chap10sec1.asp

    X. EXCHANGE WITHIN SOCIETY
    1. Autistic Exchange and Interpersonal Exchange


    [COLOR=""]Failed to refute. [2][/COLOR]
    Not all charities are self interest, and not all are self benefiting.
    This goes to show point #1, that humans always act, but quite different EVEN IF self interest came first.

    [COLOR=]Failed to refute. [3][/COLOR]
    wasn't meant to be a refutation, pointing out the fact that humans DO want to better their situation, but in no way means hurting others is out of the question, thus this is a POOR way to judge whether capitalism or communism is the better system, as a FACT does not FOLLOW

    Information / ideas within the meta-physical realm are a non-scare resource. And thus not subject to the laws of supply and demand.

    Those within the physical realm and that can actually be homestead and obtained justly - derive themselves from self ownership. This flows from Natural Law -> Natural Rights -> Natural justice.

    [COLOR=""]Failed to refute. [4][/COLOR]
    In nowhere did I ever say information, supply and demand.
    I was simply stating that YOU YOURSELF do not believe all values are subjective
    YOU'RE NOT EVEN DENYING THAT NOW.

    Ceteris paribus.

    [COLOR=""]Failed to refute. [5][/COLOR]
    Ok, then things devalue, so what?
    Things change, demand changes, tides change, value changes (since it's subjective).

    Government failure, not market failure. Market distortions due to government / state intervention.

    [COLOR=""]Failed to refute. [6][/COLOR]
    Did I say market failure? Did I mention government?
    Market distortions can be due to other things such as media, rumors, catastrophes (oh of course, everything is the government, duh!)
    Do investors not make stupid mistakes?
    Do some mistakes not cost so much to justify regulation?

    Nope.

    [COLOR=""]Failed to refute. [7][/COLOR]
    Oh, that was easy! Now I see how you debate, when you have no answer, simply say "nope" or "fail" and hope I'll let you go.

    Natural Law -> Natural rights -> natural justice. Essentially, self ownership and thus property rights.

    Ethics of Liberty by Murray N. Rothbard

    [COLOR=""]Failed to refute. [8][/COLOR]

    What such aggressive violence means is that one man invades the property of
    another without the victim's consent.


    There is no coercion or morality unless there's an agreed standard.

    You call it coercion, I call it morality.


    And? lmfao

    [COLOR=""]Failed to refute. [9][/COLOR]
    AND? That's a ridiculous standard. Nobody needs freewill to be alienated or violated to have a belief system.

    What do you mean by INALIENABLE?

  15. #103
    Quote Originally Posted by Optatron View Post
    Your usual defense mechanism & self righteous ego gets to you.

    When did I say I was trying to REFUTE anything?

    I was simply pointing out how your standards are either unreachable, or doesn't necessarily follow your views are the only right ones.
    Quote Originally Posted by Optatron View Post
    Ok, so what would convince you that a State is a good thing?

    What would convince you your libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism is not the best system?

    What would get you to admit that your views are naive and utopian?

    OH, so you're not trying to refute anything?

    How about you do me a favor and TRY refute it, OHHH what would that then look like? I dunno, something exactly like the responses you have just made? Hahah!!!

    Keen on Round 2? I can add more axioms if you want... that was off the top of my head. The reason they are "unreachable" is because they are AXIOMS, THEY ARE SELF EVIDENT. YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO REFUTE THEM, BUT PLEASE - WASTE YOUR TIME!!!

    This is in answer to your origional question:

    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    - Humans do not act.
    - Humans have no individual interests.
    - Nobody wants to better their own situation.
    - Value is not subjective.
    - Producing more of something will not deflate the value of the existing stock of it.
    - Business cycle is caused by investors having an irrational freak out
    - The benefits from the division of labor are not natural
    - Coercion and the threat therein is moral
    - Self defense, of justly acquired property is not justified
    - Freewill is not inalienable

    Good luck.
    Last edited by Conza88; 06-29-2009 at 04:19 AM.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  16. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    OH, so you're not trying to refute anything?

    How about you do me a favor and TRY refute it, OHHH what would that then look like? I dunno, something exactly like the responses you have just made? Hahah!!!
    They're FACTS that may appear in different forms and can be used for different ends, so no, I don't need to refute what are facts, but I can show that they can be used to justifiy other systems (just not to your standard)

    humans act, in their interest, markets up/down by irrational decisions, not all value is subjective, people DO want to benefit themselves and better themselves (doesn't mean they deserve to), coercion CAN be moral to some people in some cases, and why is benefit from distribution of labor natural, but robbery not?


    Keen on Round 2? I can add more axioms if you want...
    Not necessary, all points taken and made if you need to add axioms.

    that was off the top of my head. The reason they are "unreachable" is because they are AXIOMS
    Actually, they're closer to facts.

    You can add more axioms to further your argument though.

    , THEY ARE SELF EVIDENT. YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO REFUTE THEM, BUT PLEASE - WASTE YOUR TIME!!!
    I think you're confusing facts with axioms.

    Axioms are assumed and taken, facts are provable & falsifiable.



    This is in answer to your origional question:
    Listing facts that do not directly support your system is easy.
    Admitting the facts does not follow we will agree on conclusions (especially if we don't agree on foundational axioms)
    I can say unless you prove to me roses are not blue, I'm right, that wouldn't make any sense, would it?

    The only thing I was trying to "refute", or argue, was that your standards cannot be met, and I won't try to convince you you're wrong if that's what it takes. I CAN show you that the same facts logically can lead to other justifications of other systems (under different axioms).



  17. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  18. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by Optatron View Post
    They're FACTS that may appear in different forms and can be used for different ends, so no, I don't need to refute what are facts, but I can show that they can be used to justifiy other systems (just not to your standard)
    Nope, they are a priori. You don't even know what this means, so lol.

    humans act, in their interest, markets up/down by irrational decisions, not all value is subjective, people DO want to benefit themselves and better themselves (doesn't mean they deserve to), coercion CAN be moral to some people in some cases, and why is benefit from distribution of labor natural, but robbery not?
    Nope. You twisted most of those. And thus moved the goal posts. And you call that justifying other systems? Wow, what a retarded "system", it's not even comprehensible. All you've done is string one big question together... hahaha

    The axioms provided were part of the foundation of Austro-Libertarianism.

    - Humans act.
    - Humans have individual interests.
    - Everybody has an aim / goal.
    - Value is subjective.
    - Producing more of something will deflate the value of the existing stock of it.
    - Business cycle is not caused by investors having an irrational freak out
    - The benefits from the division of labor are natural
    - Coercion and the threat therein is immoral
    - Self defense, of justly acquired property is justified
    - Freewill is inalienable

    Not necessary, all points taken and made if you need to add axioms.

    Actually, they're closer to facts.

    You can add more axioms to further your argument though.
    Actually.. do you know how to Define an idea? Actually, do you even know what axioms are?

    I think you're confusing facts with axioms.

    Axioms are assumed and taken, facts are provable & falsifiable.

    Listing facts that do not directly support your system is easy.
    Admitting the facts does not follow we will agree on conclusions (especially if we don't agree on foundational axioms)
    I can say unless you prove to me roses are not blue, I'm right, that wouldn't make any sense, would it?
    Sorry, if by "facts" you mean empiricism - via the scientific method, like some bs models trying to prove the minimum wage is good, or rent control, or any other Keynesian - POSITIVIST crap, then no - your listing "facts" that do not directly support your system is irrational, wrong, fallacious and dumb.

    I can say, there are no married bachelors, if you contend otherwise - I'm right and you are wrong. That would make sense, wouldn't it?

    You don't need to then interview every bachelor in the world and see if there is one that is married.

    IT IS A PRIORI. PWNED. And that is what we have here...

    The only thing I was trying to "refute", or argue, was that your standards cannot be met, and I won't try to convince you you're wrong if that's what it takes. I CAN show you that the same facts logically can lead to other justifications of other systems (under different axioms).
    The Austrian School is built on axioms. Game, set, match.

    You fail with your epistemology. Look, here is one for you! High school level!

    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    No, it means nothing until you have the correct epistemology for economics.

    Which you don't.

    An Introduction to Economic Reasoning by David Gordon

    "As the only text of its kind, this book is engaging, funny, filled with examples, and never talks down to the student. It is perfect for homeschoolers, but every student, young or old, will benefit from it. Indeed, a student familiar with its contents will be fully prepared to see through the fallacies of the introductory economics texts used at the college level."

    Epistemological Problems of Economics by Ludwig Von Mises

    "The science of human action that strives for universally valid knowledge is the theoretical system whose hitherto best elaborated branch is economics. In all of its branches this science is a priori, not empirical. Like logic and mathematics, it is not derived from experience; it is prior to experience. It is, as it were, the logic of action and deed."

    Economic Science and the Austrian Method by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
    Praxeology and Economic Science:

    Sec I : "It is well-known that Austrians disagree strongly with other schools of economic thought..."
    Sec II : "Non-praxeological schools of thought mistakenly believe that relationships between certain events are well-established empirical laws..."

    On Praxeology and the Praxeological Foundation of Epistemology

    Sec I : "As have most great and innovative economists, Ludwig von Mises intensively and repeatedly analyzed the problem of the logical status of economic propositions..."
    Sec II : "Let me turn to Mises's solution..."
    Sec III : "I shall now turn to my second goal: the explanation of why and how praxeology also provides the foundation for epistemology..."
    Sec IV : "In so establishing the place of praxeology proper, I have come full circle in outlining the system of rationalist philosophy as ultimately grounded in the action axiom..."

    The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science by Ludwig Von Mises

    There are two senses in which this book is indeed ultimate: it deals with the very core of economics as a science, and it is the last book that he wrote.

    As his career was coming to a close, Mises saw that that fiercest battles over economic questions come down to issues of epistemology: how do we determine what is and what is not true in economics? How do we even know that economics is a valid science? What are the methods we should use in studying economics? What constitutes a true proposition and how do we know?

    These questions matter because, as Mises says, the very future of freedom and civilization itself depend on economic science, the development and application of which was "the most spectacular event of modern history."
    What books have you read on Austrian Economics?
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  19. #106
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    Nope, they are a priori. You don't even know what this means, so lol.
    yes I do. it means it's independent, before and without reason, observation, or experience. a priori means you take it as it is, and not ask why.

    and THAT is why I ask you for further justification, (you have none), THAT is why I don't buy many things you say (because "they just are" axioms are the best you got).

  20. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post


    Nope. You twisted most of those. And thus moved the goal posts. And you call that justifying other systems? Wow, what a retarded "system", it's not even comprehensible. All you've done is string one big question together... hahaha
    I didn't twist them, I added facts from what I know.

    I didn't move the goalpost, you just never understood my goalpost.

    Besides, goalpost is for people who DEMAND the proof, since YOU are the one who's asking for proof or convicing, YOU are the one who's able to move the goalpost.

    *unless you're saying I was moving the goalpost closer for my own sake, which wasn't what I was trying anyway.

    You're the one who thought I was trying to REFUTE your standards and then ask me to try what's either logically or factually or axiomatically impossible?

  21. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post

    The Austrian School is built on axioms. Game, set, match.

    You fail with your epistemology. Look, here is one for you! High school level!

    No, it means nothing until you have the correct epistemology for economics.

    What books have you read on Austrian Economics?
    built on axioms, nothing until I correct my epistemology

    GOOD, that's the answer I wanted.

    And be thankful I'm willing to learn and listen, good luck with the rest of the world who talks with guns.

  22. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    Actually, do you even know what axioms are?


    In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.


    In short, something you cannot or unwilling to justify by external means.

  23. #110
    Fractional reserve lending without leverage limits = systematic fraud.

    THE ONLY WAY FRL can theoretically work is if it is kept under control through "regulation", so in a sense, "regulation" IS what is needed. Yet that word is somewhat intellectually dishonest since so much stuff that is called "regulation" is completely irrelevant because it doesnt address the core problems and is really just corporatist nonsense.

    Gold Standard aside.

    As a matter of fact, a gold standard (with 1:1 reserve ratio) would require much more "regulation" since you would have to make sure that each bank isnt lying about their balance sheets, and maintaining that standard would be so important.

    Just wanted to chime in, because so many libertarians tend to say we need "deregulation" as opposed to smart regulation. "Deregulation" in the last 20 years, especially the removal of leverage limits at banks really was what let fractional reserve lending go out of control, and much of it was orchestrated straight from the Fed itself.

    So in essence, what we have is the regulation that mattered; glass-steagall, leverage ratios, etc. stripped away in the name of the free market, and BS regulation that doesnt do anything but clutter the books or provide crony capitalist government interference pushed as the answer for all of our woes over the years.

    In the presence of out of control fractional reserve lending, all this talk about deregulation or regulation and such is irrelevant if the fundamentals are not kept intact.

  24. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by Wadesc View Post
    Fractional reserve lending without leverage limits = systematic fraud.

    THE ONLY WAY FRL can theoretically work is if it is kept under control through "regulation", so in a sense, "regulation" IS what is needed.
    Regulation only to prevent fraud and keep the books honest? Agreed

    Yet that word is somewhat intellectually dishonest since so much stuff that is called "regulation" is completely irrelevant because it doesnt address the core problems and is really just corporatist nonsense.
    Yes, and that's not the only word misused or misunderstood that way.


    Gold Standard aside.

    As a matter of fact, a gold standard (with 1:1 reserve ratio) would require much more "regulation" since you would have to make sure that each bank isnt lying about their balance sheets, and maintaining that standard would be so important.
    How many people are willing to admit that?

    They'd argue though, that the regulation would be no more than a quick check list, either you have it or you don't, which sounds nice as there's no room for if/and/but, BUT it means banks will open their vaults so much more often that they're vulnerable to theft and robbery.

    (Yep, banks are either in secret and safe to fraud others, or exposed and ready to rob, they can't win both)

    Just wanted to chime in, because so many libertarians tend to say we need "deregulation" as opposed to smart regulation. "Deregulation" in the last 20 years, especially the removal of leverage limits at banks really was what let fractional reserve lending go out of control, and much of it was orchestrated straight from the Fed itself.
    Parrot says : so we get rid of the fed! deregulate but keep leverage limits, leverage limits is just a ceiling against fraud!

    there are several levels of regulation, not all are the same and not all work in the same manner. Nobody believes in fraud, but some believe fraud is a type of freedom.

    So in essence, what we have is the regulation that mattered; glass-steagall, leverage ratios, etc. stripped away in the name of the free market, and BS regulation that doesnt do anything but clutter the books or provide crony capitalist government interference pushed as the answer for all of our woes over the years.

    In the presence of out of control fractional reserve lending, all this talk about deregulation or regulation and such is irrelevant if the fundamentals are not kept intact.
    agreed, regulation and deregulation are meaningless unless we understand the beast of the money supply.

  25. #112
    Apparently, some people have a hard time understanding that free markets come complete with innumerable, built-in controls. And, thos controls function much better, and more reliably than the much touted "checks and balances" in the CONstitution.
    Chris

    "Government ... does not exist of necessity, but rather by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy, opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility, praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life's terms." Wolf DeVoon

    "...Make America Great Again. I'm interested in making American FREE again. Then the greatness will come automatically."Ron Paul



  26. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  27. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    Apparently, some people have a hard time understanding that free markets come complete with innumerable, built-in controls. And, thos controls function much better, and more reliably than the much touted "checks and balances" in the CONstitution.
    apparently, some people have a problem seeing that free markets as far as roads and lands haven't existed so until it happens, it's all perfect on paper.

    work better than the Constitution? HELL YES
    good enough? fool proof? NO.

  28. #114
    Quote Originally Posted by Optatron View Post
    apparently, some people have a problem seeing that free markets as far as roads and lands haven't existed so until it happens, it's all perfect on paper.

    work better than the Constitution? HELL YES
    good enough? fool proof? NO.
    All that needs to be seen is history.

    Where intervention into markets is minimized, innovation, growth, and prosperity will be found.

    Where intervention is maximized, waste, stagnation, or worse will thrive.
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  29. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    Apparently, some people have a hard time understanding that free markets come complete with innumerable, built-in controls. And, thos controls function much better, and more reliably than the much touted "checks and balances" in the CONstitution.
    Evaluation of the status quo is no condemnation of the Constitution -- to the extent that the Constitution has not been followed.
    Last edited by nayjevin; 06-30-2009 at 12:28 AM.
    I'm a moderator, and I'm glad to help. But I'm an individual -- my words come from me. Any idiocy within should reflect on me, not Ron Paul, and not Ron Paul Forums.

  30. #116
    Everybody see if you can guess which question Optatron didn't respond to.

    Then ask yourselves.. "Why?"

    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  31. #117
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.

    I'm getting some popcorn for this one.

  32. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    A very good question.

    “Truth is not only violated by falsehood; it may be equally outraged by silence.”
    ~ Henri Frederic Amiel

    Unfortunately.. I love justice, and the truth too much...

    Or I'm too stupid / stubborn / unwise / unable to turn away.
    “I will be as harsh as truth, and uncompromising as justice... I am in earnest, I will not equivocate, I will not excuse, I will not retreat a single inch, and I will be heard.” ~ William Lloyd Garrison

    Quote Originally Posted by TGGRV View Post
    Conza, why do you even bother? lol.
    Worthy Threads:

  33. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    A very good question.

    “Truth is not only violated by falsehood; it may be equally outraged by silence.”
    ~ Henri Frederic Amiel

    Unfortunately.. I love justice, and the truth too much...

    Or I'm too stupid / stubborn / unwise / unable to turn away.
    your version of not turning away for justice and truth is to post on a message board? Man do we owe you some medals!

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234


Similar Threads

  1. Free Markets or Fair Markets?
    By Christian Liberty in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-19-2016, 09:48 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-29-2011, 04:22 PM
  3. Governments are about to lose control of the markets
    By PeacePlan in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-08-2011, 07:45 PM
  4. Transparent/Free Markets Vs. Shadow/Black Markets
    By AlexMerced in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-16-2010, 09:29 PM
  5. Democrat Control; Free Markets; MSM Ratings
    By Deborah K in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-16-2009, 03:11 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •