View Poll Results: Rights vs Results

Voters
12. You may not vote on this poll
  • "Results" matter more than "Rights"

    1 8.33%
  • "Rights" matter more than "Results"

    6 50.00%
  • I assume that "Rights" will produce the best "Results"

    0 0%
  • I know that "Rights" will produce the best "Results"

    5 41.67%
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Choices vs Coercion

  1. #1

    Choices vs Coercion

    In the thread on political labels CCTelander had this to say about pragmatarianism...

    Quote Originally Posted by CCTelander View Post
    Being allowed to choose my rapist IN NO WAY renders the fact that I'm to be raped more tolerable.
    Anarcho-capitalists hate coercion. But what is coercion? Coercion is the limitation of somebody's freedom. And what is freedom? Freedom is the ability to make choices for oneself.

    Pragmatarianism advocates that taxpayers should be allowed to choose how their taxes are allocated. Giving taxpayers a choice how their taxes are allocated would increase their freedom. By increasing their freedom we would reduce the degree of coercion to which they are subjected.

    So if anarcho-capitalists hate coercion...and pragmatarianism can reduce coercion...shouldn't anarcho-capitalists appreciate pragmatarianism? Isn't reducing coercion a step in the right direction?

    When I was stationed in Afghanistan I had to give capabilities briefings to various commanders. The point of the briefings was to help the commanders understand how my team could help them accomplish their missions. It was fairly easy to pick out the ineffective commanders because they did not demonstrate any interest in considering alternative approaches. Of course, their lack of interest could have reflected my own ineffectiveness at conveying the value of my team's abilities.

    In the fight against socialism Ludwig von Mises was an intellectual general. But in 1922, when he launched his first major offensive, he wrote that there were no third solutions; the choices were either socialism or capitalism. He steadfastly maintained this position in his later books. The problem was that his dichotomy was false.

    Let's get algebraic...

    A = private ownership of the means of production
    B = public ownership of the means of production
    1 = market economy
    2 = command economy

    Capitalism: A1
    Socialism: B2
    Mixed economy: A1B2
    Pragmatarianism: A1B1

    Our current economy and that of most of the world's is A1B2. Mises said that A1B2 was unfeasible because it would eventually collapse. The current problems in Europe certainly seem to lend credence to his predictions. But is it possible to consider that both A1 and B2 might have their respective flaws?

    Extrapolating from these trends, either to the conclusion that "capitalism can't do anything right" (as it appeared in say, 1932) or that "government can't do anything right" (as it may appear today) is simply unwarranted. The truth could lie somewhere in the middle; that is what makes the social-democratic order so difficult for simplistic forms of libertarianism to challenge effectively. - Jeffrey Friedman, What's Wrong with Libertarianism (PDF)
    Mises' tunnel vision prevented him from seeing possible alternatives. He told the world...these are your choices...A1 or B2. His failure to offer A1B1 as a possible choice reflected that he had inadvertently intellectually coerced himself...and the the rest of the world.

    What, exactly, does it mean for action and thought [to] be individualistic? Clearly it is possible for people to act collectively, whether through cooperation or coercion; and it is even possible for them to "think" collectively, by learning from, or being brainwashed by, each other and their predecessors. - Jeffrey Friedman, What's Wrong with Libertarianism (PDF)
    What were the unintentional consequences of Mises' unintentional coercion? What if in 1922 he had offered A1B1 as a possible choice?

    When people were committed to the idea that in the field of religion only one plan must be adopted, bloody wars resulted. With the acknowledgement of the principles of religious freedom these wars ceased. The market economy safeguards peaceful economic co-operation because it does not use force upon the economic plans of the citizens. If one master plan is to be substituted for the plans of each citizen, endless fighting must emerge. Those who disagree with the dictator's plan have no other means to carry on than to defeat the despot by force of arms. - Ludwig von Mises, Socialism
    Doesn't pragmatarianism allow for the greatest possible political freedom? How many bloody wars would have been adverted if Mises hadn't coerced himself and others into believing that there were only two possible choices?

    When I was in a remote village in Afghanistan a very distraught lady told us that a couple days earlier the Taliban had beat her husband to death for refusing to give them his family's only food. Is it moral for Americans to be thrown into jail for refusing to make small sacrifices towards preventing situations where people in other countries are killed for refusing to make big sacrifices?

    Oversimplifying morality is self-coercion. There will always be lesser evils and greater goods. If you were given the choice, wouldn't it be wholly immoral if you allowed your taxes to support greater evils?

    What is the value to society when each and every taxpayer is given the freedom to either maximize the benefit or minimize the harm of their taxes? What is the value of forcing taxpayers to consider the opportunity costs of their tax allocation decisions? What is the value of applying the invisible hand to the public sector? Here are some additional pragmatarian questions.

    When you tell people that their only choices are capitalism or socialism you are engaging in intellectual coercion. You present a false dichotomy and intentionally limit people's choices. I'm not asking that you tell people that pragmatarianism is a good choice...I'm just asking that you offer it to them as a possible choice.

    The moment a libertarian leaves libertarianism behind, reality loses its threatening aspect; his intellectual marginality becomes a precious sources of fresh insight into every aspect of politics and culture. It seems paradoxical but true that high seriousness can be enjoyable, and that political disengagement can produce genuine insights into politics. The paradoxes may be dispelled, however, by realizing that disengagement is equivalent to alientation. Alienation plants seeds of doubt, doubt nourishes serious thinking, and serious thought is the only alternative to an intellectual complacency that must always be shadowed by fear of its own simplifications. - Jeffrey Friedman, What's Wrong with Libertarianism (PDF)
    For the a list of passages where Mises directly references a "third solution" scroll down my blog entry on the third solution.
    Last edited by Xerographica; 11-12-2011 at 08:50 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Anarcho-capitalists hate coercion.
    No, they hate aggression. So... you're in error from your very first point. Doesn't bode too well does it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    But what is coercion? Coercion is the limitation of somebody's freedom. And what is freedom? Freedom is the ability to make choices for oneself.
    Coercion.

    Daily Bell: How, then, does one define freedom? As the absence of state coercion?

    Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: A society is free, if every person is recognized as the exclusive owner of his own (scarce) physical body, if everyone is free to appropriate or "homestead" previously un-owned things as private property, if everyone is free to use his body and his homesteaded goods to produce whatever he wants to produce (without thereby damaging the physical integrity of other peoples' property), and if everyone is free to contract with others regarding their respective properties in any way deemed mutually beneficial. Any interference with this constitutes an act of aggression, and a society is un-free to the extent of such aggressions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Pragmatarianism advocates that taxpayers should be allowed to choose how their taxes are allocated.
    Why would the mafia allow it's victims to choose where it's stolen funds should go? It kind of defeats the whole point of being the mafia.

    The proposition is quite literally, clinically delusional... and operates under the notion that the 'state' is 'we the people'... and that politicians legitimately represent anyone other than themselves. It clouds the proper class analysis of rulers vs. ruled.

    And constitutionalists advocate limiting government, but we all know how well that works... great sentimentality, sure. Ron Paul especially knows it doesn't work, see his comment in End the Fed. So how about dropping the utopianism? And advocating a proposal that has some kind of basis in reality. That's be great, thanks... because there is nothing pragmatic about your proposal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    *Blah blah blah, nothing I've said alters the above fact.*
    Fixed.
    Last edited by Conza88; 11-13-2011 at 03:12 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:

  4. #3
    Hey Conza, remember that time we had that great discussion on strategy?

    Remember that time you inadvertently shared a video that provided great supporting evidence for my argument? Recently I learned that Milton Friedman actually developed that concept of other people's money. Did you already know that Friedman had discussed the concept? Milton Friedman was awesome.

    Thanks for "coercing" me into visiting that blog...lotsa good content...I left three comments.

    Ok...now that the pleasantries are out of the way let's get down to business. So...I "messed up" and used "coercion" when I should have used "aggression". Your hero agrees with my basic point though..."Any interference with this constitutes an act of aggression, and a society is un-free to the extent of such aggressions." The greater the aggression...the less free a society is. Reducing aggression increases freedom. Giving taxpayers a choice how their taxes are allocated increases their freedom.

    One thing I heard over and over when I was growing up was that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I don't think some ancient and debatably relevant historical examples are sufficient evidence to justify pushing "Rothbard's button". You are welcome to disagree. Personally...when I studied development theory I learned that it was a huge mistake to assume that just because something works for one country it will necessarily work for another country. But...you could have access to some information that convinces you that we are complete fools for not rushing in.

    There's a ton of theories and debate regarding the feasibility of anarcho-capitalism. But there's no consideration of the feasibility of pragmatarianism. Pragmatarianism would allow us to dip our feet into the waters of freedom...perhaps we could wade in a bit...maybe discover that the water is too shallow for diving. Pragmatarianism would allow us to safely test the anarcho-capitalist theory. We would be able to see just how anarcho-capitalist our society could safely go.

    Why would the Mafia allow its victims to decide how their taxes were spent? I have two answers to this question...

    Answer #1

    I guess you missed my response to Stefan Molyneux. Stefan loves to challenge anybody to provide a single example of somebody that infiltrated an organization and completely turned it around. Fortunately, my area of focus was China so I am able to respond to his challenge by offering up my hero...Deng Xiaoping.

    Deng Xiaoping "infiltrated" the communist party and managed to turn the entire country and economy around. Communist China during Mao's rule was considerably more of a "mafia" than our country currently is. Now China is where it is today because of Deng Xiaoping. Is China "free"? Well...as Hoppe said...freedom is a matter of degree. China is a whole hell of a lot freer than it was during Mao's leadership.

    How did Xiaoping "successfully infiltrate the mafia"? He went around saying that he didn't care whether a cat was black or white...what mattered was whether it caught mice. He cared more about "results" than rigid adherence to ideology. He was a pragmatic consequentialist.

    Can you imagine what the results would have been if Xiaoping had argued for anarcho-capitalism or democracy? He never would have been able to steer the country in the right direction. You want to give everybody more freedom but you care more about "rights" than "results". You care more that the cat is white than whether it can catch mice. But people want cats to catch mice.

    Answer #2

    Why would the king have allowed barons to decide how taxes were spent? If the barons were happy that the king was producing "results" then they never would have had sufficient "motive" to strip this power from the king.

    What was the tax allocation disparity between the king allocating taxes and the barons allocating taxes? What is the tax allocation disparity between A) 535 congresspeople allocating "other people's money" and B) millions and millions of taxpayers allocating their own money? According to Hayek's accepted concept of partial knowledge the disparity between the two allocations should be very significant.

    This "divine disparity" is the "motive" that we need to share with taxpayers. Let's convince them that as a whole they can allocate their taxes more efficiently than congress can. Let's at least encourage them to consider the possibility that they can provide our entire country with better "results".
    Last edited by Xerographica; 11-13-2011 at 05:34 AM.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Hey Conza, remember that time we had that great discussion on strategy?
    Yeah I do, you're as clueless then as you are now. Nothings changed... you still think you've made some kind of insight, LOL!! ->

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Remember that time you inadvertently shared a video that provided great supporting evidence for my argument? Recently I learned that Milton Friedman actually developed that concept of other people's money. Did you already know that Friedman had discussed the concept? Milton Friedman was awesome.

    Thanks for "coercing" me into visiting that blog...lotsa good content...I left three comments.
    The video doesn't support your case at all. Your case consists of proposing a fictitious scenario that has no basis in reality. You require a change in the nature of the state.

    What else more needs to be said? Your operation consists on la la land in your head. There is nothing a priori about it. It's mere conjection and postulation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Ok...now that the pleasantries are out of the way let's get down to business. So...I "messed up" and used "coercion" when I should have used "aggression". Your hero agrees with my basic point though..."Any interference with this constitutes an act of aggression, and a society is un-free to the extent of such aggressions." The greater the aggression...the less free a society is. Reducing aggression increases freedom. Giving taxpayers a choice how their taxes are allocated increases their freedom.

    One thing I heard over and over when I was growing up was that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I don't think some ancient and debatably relevant historical examples are sufficient evidence to justify pushing "Rothbard's button". You are welcome to disagree. Personally...when I studied development theory I learned that it was a huge mistake to assume that just because something works for one country it will necessarily work for another country. But...you could have access to some information that convinces you that we are complete fools for not rushing in.
    More like you agree with his... otherwise you come off as having an over inflated sense of importance, acting as if you're some kind of pioneer making 'advancements'... which I'll concede, it's just that they're in the wrong direction.. (clouding the rulers vs. ruled class analysis).

    But no, seriously, the market works regardless of place, time, geography. Do you not understand what the market is? Well there's another thing you've got clearly wrong, and messed up... so you deny historical examples as sufficient evidence, and yet go on to proclaim that you support historicism... (which ya learnt via development theory).

    LOL. Glaring contradiction...

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    There's a ton of theories and debate regarding the feasibility of anarcho-capitalism. But there's no consideration of the feasibility of pragmatarianism. Pragmatarianism would allow us to dip our feet into the waters of freedom...perhaps we could wade in a bit...maybe discover that the water is too shallow for diving. Pragmatarianism would allow us to safely test the anarcho-capitalist theory. We would be able to see just how anarcho-capitalist our society could safely go.
    It might have something to do with pragmatism not being worthy... because it necessitates a change in the nature of the state. And if you're assuming that someone favourable has got into office like RP, then instead of abolishing the FED, IRS, CIA, FBI, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Labor etc... YOU WOULD LET THEM REMAIN via PRAGMATISM.

    Fail.

    I'm sorry, HOW is that a step towards liberty compared to what RP would do.. in any sense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Why would the Mafia allow its victims to decide how their taxes were spent? I have two answers to this question...

    Answer #1

    I guess you missed my response to Stefan Molyneux. Stefan loves to challenge anybody to provide a single example of somebody that infiltrated an organization and completely turned it around. Fortunately, my area of focus was China so I am able to respond to his challenge by offering up my hero...Deng Xiaoping.

    Deng Xiaoping "infiltrated" the communist party and managed to turn the entire country and economy around. Communist China during Mao's rule was considerably more of a "mafia" than our country currently is. Now China is where it is today because of Deng Xiaoping. Is China "free"? Well...as Hoppe said...freedom is a matter of degree. China is a whole hell of a lot freer than it was during Mao's leadership.

    How did Xiaoping "successfully infiltrate the mafia"? He went around saying that he didn't care whether a cat was black or white...what mattered was whether it caught mice. He cared more about "results" than rigid adherence to ideology. He was a pragmatic consequentialist.

    Can you imagine what the results would have been if Xiaoping had argued for anarcho-capitalism or democracy? He never would have been able to steer the country in the right direction. You want to give everybody more freedom but you care more about "rights" than "results". You care more that the cat is white than whether it can catch mice. But people want cats to catch mice.
    You're also on my ignore list, so, yeah, I probably missed it. Right, ok... so you suggestion / recommendation is to abandon the campaign for liberty? Yes? How is that not the logical conclusion of your proposal. You're suggestion is to go 'underground', by joining the state?

    You do understand that the idea of communism was shattered, and that the state needed a different justification. They 'turned it around', to survive and prosper more AS THE STATE. Chinese rulers aren't stupid, they've realised they can make a killing via interventionism, parasitism after entrepreneurial actions.

    Those in Vietnam are the same, no-one believes in communism, although they're all in the communist party (only one party). It's merely a justification.

    You're "evidence" doesn't prove jack squat. He wasn't going against the status quo against it's will, he remained apart of it, they just changed shirts.

    Sorry, back to the drawing board.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Answer #2

    Why would the king have allowed barons to decide how taxes were spent? If the barons were happy that the king was producing "results" then they never would have had sufficient "motive" to strip this power from the king.

    What was the tax allocation disparity between the king allocating taxes and the barons allocating taxes? What is the tax allocation disparity between A) 535 congresspeople allocating "other people's money" and B) millions and millions of taxpayers allocating their own money? According to Hayek's accepted concept of partial knowledge the disparity between the two allocations should be very significant.

    This "divine disparity" is the "motive" that we need to share with taxpayers. Let's convince them that as a whole they can allocate their taxes more efficiently than congress can. Let's at least encourage them to consider the possibility that they can provide our entire country with better "results".
    Private government ownership (absolute Monarch) i.e King, is different to public ownership. Wrong again... if you want to understand the consequences this has for strategy, again... go read Hoppe's "What Must be Done". Protip: Converting the king, no longer an option.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hoppe
    The defining characteristic of private government ownership is that the expropriated resources and the monopoly privilege of future expropriation are individually owned. The appropriated resources are added to the ruler’s private estate and treated as if they were a part of it, and the monopoly privilege of future expropriation is attached as a title to this estate and leads to an instant increase in its present value (“capitalization” of monopoly profit).

    Most importantly, as private owner of the government estate, the ruler is entitled to pass his possessions onto his personal heir; he may sell, rent, or give away part or all of his privileged estate and privately pocket the receipts from the sale or rental; and he may personally employ or dismiss every administrator and employee of his estate.

    In contrast, in a publicly owned government the control over the government apparatus lies in the hands of a trustee, or caretaker. The caretaker may use the apparatus to his personal advantage, but he does not own it. He cannot sell government resources and privately pocket the receipts, nor can he pass government possessions onto his personal heir. He owns the current use of government resources, but not their capital value.

    Moreover, while entrance into the position of a private owner of government is restricted by the owner’s personal discretion, entrance into the position of a caretaker-ruler is open. Anyone, in principle, can become the government’s caretaker.

    From these assumptions two central, interrelated predictions can be deduced:

    • A private government owner will tend to have a systematically longer planning horizon, i.e., his degree of time preference will be lower, and accordingly, his degree of economic exploitation will tend to be less than that of a government caretaker; and
    • subject to a higher degree of exploitation, the nongovernmental public will also be comparatively more present oriented under a system of publicly owned government than under a regime of private government ownership.



    http://mises.org/daily/4068
    So, no. Your analogy fails again, need a new one.

    *yawn* bro, *yawn*.
    “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:

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    The video doesn't support your case at all. Your case consists of proposing a fictitious scenario that has no basis in reality. You require a change in the nature of the state.
    *yawn* bro, *yawn*.
    coming from a person who can only point to ancient Ireland as an example of his ideal, what hypocrisy and irony.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    In the fight against socialism Ludwig von Mises was an intellectual general. But in 1922, when he launched his first major offensive, he wrote that there were no third solutions; the choices were either socialism or capitalism. He steadfastly maintained this position in his later books. The problem was that his dichotomy was false.

    Let's get algebraic...

    A = private ownership of the means of production
    B = public ownership of the means of production
    1 = market economy
    2 = command economy

    Capitalism: A1
    Socialism: B2
    Mixed economy: A1B2
    Pragmatarianism: A1B1

    Our current economy and that of most of the world's is A1B2. Mises said that A1B2 was unfeasible because it would eventually collapse. The current problems in Europe certainly seem to lend credence to his predictions. But is it possible to consider that both A1 and B2 might have their respective flaws?
    I don't agree that our economy is A1B2. A market economy would demand real money. Fiat money is the driving force of a command economy. Today our economy is A2B2, imo. Mises is right. A1 offers the most liberty and least coercion.

    Personally, I wouldn't have any problem with public ownership of assets such as unowned land, parks, unproductive and uninhabitable land. However, public production of goods is oppressive and should not be allowed.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  8. #7
    Conza...when you shared your link to Hoppes' strategy I took the time to look through the entire document in order to identify what his strategy actually was. You never even mentioned the details of his strategy in your own post. When you shared your video concerning the problem of "other people's money" I took the time to watch the entire video. You can tell I watched the video because I wrote out the transcript. When you shared your link on "coercion" I took the time to read the content. When you shared the Daily Bell link I read through the transcript and found this...

    All states must begin small. That makes it easy for people to run away. Yet states are by nature aggressive, as I have already explained. They can externalize the cost of aggression onto others, i.e., hapless tax-payers. They don't like to see productive people run away and try to capture them by expanding their territory.
    Do you sense a pattern here? Why do I take the time to try and understand your arguments? The reason that I do so is because I'm genuinely interested in learning.

    The thing is...the primary person you share...Hoppe...never considered allowing "hapless tax-payers" to directly allocate their taxes. When I e-mailed him and asked him what his thoughts were on pragmatarianism his only response was that this question was more interesting. Of course I clicked on the link...read over the article...realized it was the same thing as anarcho-capitalism...and left a comment. Then I sent my reply to Hoppe and never heard back from him. Your hero ran away and never even addressed my question. Is that a surprise? Nope. Hoppe was a student of Rothbard and Rothbard was a student of Mises...who unintentionally coerced his followers into believing that there was no third solution.

    The pattern is that I make an effort to understand your arguments. You, on the other hand, do not make any effort to try and understand my arguments. As a result you assume that I have no idea how markets work. If I didn't understand how markets work why would I advocate applying the invisible hand to the public sector?

    Let's see if you understand how markets work... If you had to choose between Ron Paul being elected president or applying the invisible hand to the public sector...which would you choose?

    Regarding Deng Xiaoping...again, here we see the same pattern. If you had told me about Deng Xiaoping I would have read his Wikipedia entry before making a single comment. You, on the other hand, have no interest in learning and end up with theories that have no basis in reality. Here's the link that describes the prosecution that Deng Xiaoping endured during Mao's rule...Deng Xiaoping's two purges. You're probably not going to bother reading the link but I shared it for anybody else genuinely interested in learning.

    I did read Hoppe's "What Must Be Done" again for the second time...

    First, the idea of democracy and majority rule must be delegitimized. Ultimately, the course of history is determined by ideas, be they true or false. Just as kings could not exercise their rule unless a majority of public opinion accepted such rule as legitimate, so will democratic rulers not last without ideological support in public opinion.
    Hoppe and I both agree that the problem lies with voters and congress. My strategy is simply to allow taxpayers to use their taxes to check and balance voters and congress. Hoppe's strategy consists of disenfranchising all voters...except taxpayers...who he wants to give a weighted vote according to how much taxes they pay. Then he wants to sell off or get rid of all the public organizations.

    Hoppe's on the right track but his entire ideological foundation is built upon a false dichotomy. There's no need to even try to disenfranchise voters if you allow taxpayers to decide how to allocate their individual taxes.

    Here's what you said...

    Private government ownership (absolute Monarch) i.e King, is different to public ownership. Wrong again... if you want to understand the consequences this has for strategy, again... go read Hoppe's "What Must be Done". Protip: Converting the king, no longer an option.
    I understand the value Hoppe assigns to private government ownership (short term vs long term strategy approaches to resource management, avoiding excessive tax burdens, etc. ) and I understand how his ideas of private government tie into his strategy...

    Given that I understand Hoppe's reasoning I can tell you with a high degree of confidence that your response did not address...even in the smallest degree...my point regarding control of taxes being transferred from the king to parliament.

    To guard against despotic royal rule, parliament sought to limit the kings’ powers to impose taxes so as to curtail their ability to maintain a standing army beyond times of war and immediate external threat - The evolution of parliament’s power of the purse
    All states must begin small. That makes it easy for people to run away. Yet states are by nature aggressive, as I have already explained. They can externalize the cost of aggression onto others, i.e., hapless tax-payers. They don't like to see productive people run away and try to capture them by expanding their territory.
    Regarding the same pattern...here's a quote from my blog entry on power on control...which I shared on our strategy debate page...

    When that "divinity" which "doth hedge a king," and which in our day has left a glamour around the body inheriting his power, has quite died away - when it begins to be seen clearly that, in a popularly-governed nation, the government is simply a committee of management; it will also be seen that this committee of management has no intrinsic authority. The inevitable conclusion will be that its authority is given by those appointing it; and has just such bounds as they choose to impose. Along with this will go the further conclusion that the laws it passes are not in themselves sacred; but that whatever sacredness they have, is entirely due to the ethical sanction - an ethical sanction which, as we find, is derivable from the laws of human life as carried on under social conditions. And there will come the corollary that when they have not this ethical sanction they have no sacredness, and may be rightly challenged.

    The function of Liberalism in the past was that of putting a limit to the powers of kings. The function of true Liberalism in the future will be that of putting a limit to the powers of Parliaments - Herbert Spencer, Contemporary review, Volume 46
    Let's review...back in the day the "despotic royal rule" was dealt with when control of taxes was transferred from the king to parliament. Your hero Hoppe is concerned with the aggressive nature of the state and recognizes that "hapless tax-payers" bear the cost of this aggression. Isn't the answer obvious here? To protect against the present or future "despotic" or "aggressive" actions of the state we need to transfer control of taxes from congress to taxpayers.

  9. #8
    whoever picked "Results" matter more than "Rights" is a DOUCHE BAG.

    If you believe that, you are the antithesis of the RP movement.

    Go be an automaton in the Kremlin.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Oh and...

    Freedom = productive people.

    Nothing motivates you more than knowing your hard work will be duly paid to you so that you can acheive your dreams.

    I KNOW that rights and freedoms = productivity.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    No, they hate aggression. So... you're in error from your very first point. Doesn't bode too well does it?
    So we can at least agree that neither you nor me have a problem with force and coercion?

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Seraphim View Post
    whoever picked "Results" matter more than "Rights" is a DOUCHE BAG.

    If you believe that, you are the antithesis of the RP movement.

    Go be an automaton in the Kremlin.
    yes, anybody who disagrees with you is a douchebag and communist, that's the spirit!

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    In the thread on political labels CCTelander had this to say about pragmatarianism...



    Anarcho-capitalists hate coercion. But what is coercion? Coercion is the limitation of somebody's freedom. And what is freedom? Freedom is the ability to make choices for oneself.

    Pragmatarianism advocates that taxpayers should be allowed to choose how their taxes are allocated. Giving taxpayers a choice how their taxes are allocated would increase their freedom. By increasing their freedom we would reduce the degree of coercion to which they are subjected.

    So if anarcho-capitalists hate coercion...and pragmatarianism can reduce coercion...shouldn't anarcho-capitalists appreciate pragmatarianism? Isn't reducing coercion a step in the right direction?

    When I was stationed in Afghanistan I had to give capabilities briefings to various commanders. The point of the briefings was to help the commanders understand how my team could help them accomplish their missions. It was fairly easy to pick out the ineffective commanders because they did not demonstrate any interest in considering alternative approaches. Of course, their lack of interest could have reflected my own ineffectiveness at conveying the value of my team's abilities.

    In the fight against socialism Ludwig von Mises was an intellectual general. But in 1922, when he launched his first major offensive, he wrote that there were no third solutions; the choices were either socialism or capitalism. He steadfastly maintained this position in his later books. The problem was that his dichotomy was false.

    Let's get algebraic...

    A = private ownership of the means of production
    B = public ownership of the means of production
    1 = market economy
    2 = command economy

    Capitalism: A1
    Socialism: B2
    Mixed economy: A1B2
    Pragmatarianism: A1B1

    Our current economy and that of most of the world's is A1B2. Mises said that A1B2 was unfeasible because it would eventually collapse. The current problems in Europe certainly seem to lend credence to his predictions. But is it possible to consider that both A1 and B2 might have their respective flaws?



    Mises' tunnel vision prevented him from seeing possible alternatives. He told the world...these are your choices...A1 or B2. His failure to offer A1B1 as a possible choice reflected that he had inadvertently intellectually coerced himself...and the the rest of the world.



    What were the unintentional consequences of Mises' unintentional coercion? What if in 1922 he had offered A1B1 as a possible choice?



    Doesn't pragmatarianism allow for the greatest possible political freedom? How many bloody wars would have been adverted if Mises hadn't coerced himself and others into believing that there were only two possible choices?

    When I was in a remote village in Afghanistan a very distraught lady told us that a couple days earlier the Taliban had beat her husband to death for refusing to give them his family's only food. Is it moral for Americans to be thrown into jail for refusing to make small sacrifices towards preventing situations where people in other countries are killed for refusing to make big sacrifices?

    Oversimplifying morality is self-coercion. There will always be lesser evils and greater goods. If you were given the choice, wouldn't it be wholly immoral if you allowed your taxes to support greater evils?

    What is the value to society when each and every taxpayer is given the freedom to either maximize the benefit or minimize the harm of their taxes? What is the value of forcing taxpayers to consider the opportunity costs of their tax allocation decisions? What is the value of applying the invisible hand to the public sector? Here are some additional pragmatarian questions.

    When you tell people that their only choices are capitalism or socialism you are engaging in intellectual coercion. You present a false dichotomy and intentionally limit people's choices. I'm not asking that you tell people that pragmatarianism is a good choice...I'm just asking that you offer it to them as a possible choice.



    For the a list of passages where Mises directly references a "third solution" scroll down my blog entry on the third solution.
    This post seems to indicate that pragmatarianism supports both interventionism and elasticity of the money supply. Is that a correct analysis?
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  15. #13
    Xerographica, this is not a rhetorical question. If pragmatarianism advocates counterfieting, then that is important information. Pragmatarianism seems to support the "Nobel Lie." What say you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    This post seems to indicate that pragmatarianism supports both interventionism and elasticity of the money supply. Is that a correct analysis?
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  16. #14
    Travlyr, pragmatarianism is all about ceteris paribus. The only thing it advocates is that taxpayers have the freedom to directly allocate their taxes. It's kind of like how the more items a president includes on a bill the less likely it is that congress will pass it.

  17. #15
    So wait, your goal is to give people more control over money that was forcibly taken from them? What's the point?

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Do you sense a pattern here? Why do I take the time to try and understand your arguments? The reason that I do so is because I'm genuinely interested in learning.
    No, you're interested in defending your pseudo-philosophy, i.e untenable position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    The thing is...the primary person you share...Hoppe...never considered allowing "hapless tax-payers" to directly allocate their taxes. When I e-mailed him and asked him what his thoughts were on pragmatarianism his only response was that this question was more interesting. Of course I clicked on the link...read over the article...realized it was the same thing as anarcho-capitalism...and left a comment. Then I sent my reply to Hoppe and never heard back from him. Your hero ran away and never even addressed my question. Is that a surprise? Nope. Hoppe was a student of Rothbard and Rothbard was a student of Mises...who unintentionally coerced his followers into believing that there was no third solution.

    The pattern is that I make an effort to understand your arguments. You, on the other hand, do not make any effort to try and understand my arguments. As a result you assume that I have no idea how markets work. If I didn't understand how markets work why would I advocate applying the invisible hand to the public sector?
    Drop the assertions, I understand your position clearly. Applying the invisible hand to the public sector; would involve

    Public ownership of the means of production, or private ownership. Only logical choices mate. Interventionism is neither here, nor there. Operating within the framework put forward by the state, doesn't mean you can then call it THE FREE MARKET. Which is what you are implying.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Let's see if you understand how markets work... If you had to choose between Ron Paul being elected president or applying the invisible hand to the public sector...which would you choose?
    Go link to the thread you created and get my response there. Your 'invisible hand' is complete bs, and has nothing to do with reality and how it has been used previously, it's a misnomer and your attempt to co-opt the term for your usage is illegitimate.

    I'd choose someone who would push the button and ABOLISH the depredations upon liberty, not say ILLEGITIMATE WARS ARE OK IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE FUNDING DEATH ABROAD. KEEP THE MONEY COMING TO THE NATIONAL SOCIALIST DEATH CAMPS, and that's alright if that's how you want your tax dollars to be spent.

    No, END the FED, the CIA, the IRS, the FBI, the Dept. of Education, the Dept. of Labor etc etc. Your proposal would see these things continued.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Regarding Deng Xiaoping...again, here we see the same pattern. If you had told me about Deng Xiaoping I would have read his Wikipedia entry before making a single comment. You, on the other hand, have no interest in learning and end up with theories that have no basis in reality. Here's the link that describes the prosecution that Deng Xiaoping endured during Mao's rule...Deng Xiaoping's two purges. You're probably not going to bother reading the link but I shared it for anybody else genuinely interested in learning.
    No, see, nothing but conjecture. I realised that, and it changes nothing. Go on, what does it change from what I said earlier?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    I did read Hoppe's "What Must Be Done" again for the second time...

    Hoppe and I both agree that the problem lies with voters and congress. My strategy is simply to allow taxpayers to use their taxes to check and balance voters and congress.

    Hoppe's strategy consists of disenfranchising all voters...except taxpayers...who he wants to give a weighted vote according to how much taxes they pay. Then he wants to sell off or get rid of all the public organizations.

    Hoppe's on the right track but his entire ideological foundation is built upon a false dichotomy. There's no need to even try to disenfranchise voters if you allow taxpayers to decide how to allocate their individual taxes.
    That's not the major difference at all. His is a local strategy, yours is the one talking about congress etc. Maybe you need to read it for a third time, aye? "My strategy is simply to allow taxpayers to use their taxes to check and balance voters and congress.", yeah HOW? Never touched upon this mate. And no, Hoppe's position doesn't disenfranchise voters, since they are not being deprived of something illegitimately. They have no right to vote on other peoples property.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Here's what you said...

    I understand the value Hoppe assigns to private government ownership (short term vs long term strategy approaches to resource management, avoiding excessive tax burdens, etc. ) and I understand how his ideas of private government tie into his strategy...

    Given that I understand Hoppe's reasoning I can tell you with a high degree of confidence that your response did not address...even in the smallest degree...my point regarding control of taxes being transferred from the king to parliament.
    Absolute monarchy doesn't have a parliament dude. It's different to Constitutional Monarchy... once again, your ignorance shows and you are wrong. So your "point" is erroneous.

    More so, they talked about limiting it... that was a 'justification' but it's not reality. In reality, the move from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy, or with facets of democracy and elected public officals resulted in an increase in taxation etc. The standing army grew bigger. War, bigger and worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Regarding the same pattern...here's a quote from my blog entry on power on control...which I shared on our strategy debate page...
    Quit linking to discussions you haven't responded to. To review your link and conclusions; it's nothing but non sequiturs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    Let's review...back in the day the "despotic royal rule" was dealt with when control of taxes was transferred from the king to parliament. Your hero Hoppe is concerned with the aggressive nature of the state and recognizes that "hapless tax-payers" bear the cost of this aggression. Isn't the answer obvious here? To protect against the present or future "despotic" or "aggressive" actions of the state we need to transfer control of taxes from congress to taxpayers.
    That wasn't all he was concerned about. "To protect against the present or future "despotic" or "aggressive" actions of the state we need to transfer control of taxes from congress to taxpayers." /facepalm. How? Ohhh by controlling congress? But if that's the case, then why the f#% not abolish said evil departments, not continue their illegitimate funding?!

    You explicitly by your actions put forward higher considerations than true liberty. You'd keep funding the death camps if that's what the taxpayers wanted to be done with their money.

    Both disgusting and tyrannical.
    Last edited by Conza88; 11-16-2011 at 03:12 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:



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    kuckfeynes, that you have to ask what the point is of pragmatarianism is the point of pragmatarianism. The biggest obstacle to anarcho-capitalism isn't that people like coercion...it's simply that they do not understand how the invisible hand works. How can you tell if somebody truly doesn't understand how the invisible hand works? If they do not understand the point of pragmatarianism.

    If what I'm saying doesn't make any sense...or if you disagree with what I'm saying...then check out my response to Stefan Molyneux's Beautiful Freedom video.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    kuckfeynes, that you have to ask what the point is of pragmatarianism is the point of pragmatarianism.
    LOL. Circular logic fail.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    The biggest obstacle to anarcho-capitalism isn't that people like coercion...it's simply that they do not understand how the invisible hand works. How can you tell if somebody truly doesn't understand how the invisible hand works? If they do not understand the point of pragmatarianism.
    For starters they fundamentally don't like aggression. Point out the gun in the room, and they'll recoil. You're one of the folks who don't understand how the invisible hand works, hence your misconception / misapplication of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    If what I'm saying doesn't make any sense...or if you disagree with what I'm saying...then check out my response to Stefan Molyneux's Beautiful Freedom video.
    There's substantial to check out. Appeal to your own authority essentially.

    Your response here is an abysmal dodge.
    “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:

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerographica View Post
    The only thing it advocates is that taxpayers have the freedom to directly allocate their taxes.
    So what it advocates is that the victims of robbery have the "freedom" to allocate where their stolen money goes.

    I think I will stick to supporting not being stolen from in the first place.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
    For starters they fundamentally don't like aggression. Point out the gun in the room, and they'll recoil.
    This is surprisingly effective.

    The very simple fact is that when you support the government, you are supporting violence on peaceful people. It is effective to point this out because most people are able to detach themselves from this reality thanks to decades of government propaganda but do not consciously support violence. Once they see reality, their support for the violent monopoly is very likely to stop.

    Some people will still support drug laws even after you point out the violence. Very few people are willing to use violence themselves to stop drug behavior. What this says to me is that they do not actually think violence is justified here. If you can't find it morally acceptable for yourself to initiate violence on drug users, where is the magic line where it becomes moral? There isn't one. They really deep down oppose it, they just need guidance.

  24. #21
    No it's not about disagreeing with me.

    Troll.

    Quote Originally Posted by Becker View Post
    yes, anybody who disagrees with you is a douchebag and communist, that's the spirit!



Similar Threads

  1. Bernie Sanders: Don’t Need 23 Choices of Deodorant, 18 Choices of Sneakers
    By RonPaulFanInGA in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 09-18-2015, 12:41 PM
  2. The Demand For Coercion
    By Xerographica in forum Austrian Economics / Economic Theory
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-25-2014, 04:51 AM
  3. What Is the Demand for Coercion?
    By Xerographica in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 08-19-2013, 05:49 PM
  4. COERCION
    By JK/SEA in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-04-2012, 07:13 PM
  5. Is Christmas Coercion?
    By Xerographica in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 12-06-2011, 07:04 AM

Posting Permissions

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