NationStates Jolt Archive

Planning can occur as you're typing. You're figuring out what you want to say.Right, but then at the last second I decide not to send the message at all, for whatever reason.

I don't see how that matters, since not everyone chooses the government they are under.But nearly everyone chooses to live under a government (provided the government allows emigration), regardless of whether they choose the government itself.

Non sequitur.How so?

Socializing with others is not a service.There are specific examples where it is - escort services, for instance. I see no reason why it couldn't be applied to the whole of socialization.

By provides you means "foists upon the citizens".There's a certain amount of foisting, yes.

It's quite well supported.Really? Where was there an anarchic community that controlled its own factory?

Right, but then at the last second I decide not to send the message at all, for whatever reason.
You still had a reason.


But nearly everyone chooses to live under a government (provided the government allows emigration), regardless of whether they choose the government itself.
So what?


How so?
What possible link is there between socializing qua socializing and having to pay for it? Answer: none.


There are specific examples where it is - escort services, for instance.
So?


I see no reason why it couldn't be applied to the whole of socialization.
I see no reason why it could.


There's a certain amount of foisting, yes.
Certain amount? Certain amount?

Try 100%


Really? Where was there an anarchic community that controlled its own factory?
Don't you silly walking-contradiction left-anarchists like to point to mid-1930s Spain?

But what is the value of other losses within that? [QUOTE]

Meaning?

[QUOTE]
By generally you must mean "historically". However, there's absolutely no reason to assume generally needs to mean "would happen anyway".


Ok.


Not when it's called "market failure". Then it is to condemn man for not knowing everything and for simply acting, because the solution is to prevent people from freely interacting.

No, because the market failure is not usually identified and remedied until after the causal relationship has been established. We know what causes air pollution and global warming, and therefore we can assign responsibility for it.

What I find interesting is that if the Austrians believe that indivdiuals are autonomous and independent, I would have thought that personal responsiblity would be a corrolary of that. But instead, you (and they) seem to be arguing the opposite. That somehow, if the impacts of our actions are cumulative or collective, then there is no personal responsbility.

What I find interesting is that if the Austrians believe that indivdiuals are autonomous and independent, I would have thought that personal responsiblity would be a corrolary of that. But instead, you (and they) seem to be arguing the opposite. That somehow, if the impacts of our actions are cumulative or collective, then there is no personal responsbility.
Not quite.

http://www.mises.org/story/2120

But what is the value of other losses within that?
Meaning?
Meaning that it's difficult to quantify the subjective estimations of those who are claimed to have lost.



No, because the market failure is not usually identified and remedied until after the causal relationship has been established. We know what causes air pollution and global warming, and therefore we can assign responsibility for it.
And how would that be "market failure"?


What I find interesting is that if the Austrians believe that indivdiuals are autonomous and independent, I would have thought that personal responsiblity would be a corrolary of that.
It is. Whatever gives you the stupid idea that I'm arguing against it?

How does this happen without governmental fiat?

Use your head! If you we're a shareholder of a major corporation, wouldn't it be in your rational self-interest to crowd a company that used an alternative organization system that did away with private investment and shareholder appointed managers?

That's currently. Think out of the box.

How would it cost any less or be any more effective in litigating under a country using Austrian school style "anarcho" capitalism or some other right-libertarian anti-intervention system?

Use your head! If you we're a shareholder of a major corporation, wouldn't it be in your rational self-interest to crowd a company that used an alternative organization system that did away with private investment and shareholder appointed managers?
If employees were the shareholders, guess who'd be appointing the managers...

And again, even if this were to happen, this new model of corporation may also collude to resist traditional corporations. It is in their rational self-interest.

How would it cost any less or be any more effective in litigating under a country using Austrian school style "anarcho" capitalism or some other right-libertarian anti-intervention system?
Supply cannot keep up with demand -- if more suppliers of justice were to enter the market, prices would be driven down.

Use your head! If you we're a shareholder of a major corporation, wouldn't it be in your rational self-interest to crowd a company that used an alternative organization system that did away with private investment and shareholder appointed managers?
Again I ask: how does this happen without governmental fiat?


How would it cost any less or be any more effective in litigating under a country using Austrian school style "anarcho" capitalism or some other right-libertarian anti-intervention system?
Fewer legal loopholes. More efficient contract-based law. No infinite appeals.

You still had a reason.But not a previously planned one.

So what?So your statement that not everyone chooses the government they live under is irrelevant given that (nearly) everyone who lives under a government chooses to do so.

What possible link is there between socializing qua socializing and having to pay for it? Answer: none.What difference is there between escort services and other forms of socialization other than that the escort accepts payment personally whereas most other forms of socialization result in government payment?

So?So those specific instances are recognized as services, and those instances aren't fundamentally different than other forms of socialization.

I see no reason why it could.Because there isn't any major difference between them.

Certain amount? Certain amount?

Try 100%Logically impossible. If it were 100%, nobody would choose to live under a government. Given the fact that people choose to live under governments when they could leave, the government must be providing them something.

Don't you silly walking-contradiction left-anarchists like to point to mid-1930s Spain?Oh, I thought you were referring to an anarchist society that collapsed because of the ideas relating to left-anarchism and not because of some outside force.
Right-anarchism would also have this problem to contend with; I see no reason why this represents a failure of left-anarchism. We don't say that representative democracy is a failure because France fell a couple years later.

But not a previously planned one.
Irrelevant.


So your statement that not everyone chooses the government they live under is irrelevant given that (nearly) everyone who lives under a government chooses to do so.
Something like that.


What difference is there between escort services and other forms of socialization other than that the escort accepts payment personally whereas most other forms of socialization result in government payment?
Most other? I don't know how you socialize, but, for instance, if you have a party in your own house, you're not paying the government one fucking cent. And the party is socialization. So please--Think. Before. You. Post.


So those specific instances are recognized as services, and those instances aren't fundamentally different than other forms of socialization.
So why do we have to pay for socialization? I've yet to see a valid answer from you.


Because there isn't any major difference between them.
Bullshit.


Logically impossible.
No, it's logically possible.


If it were 100%, nobody would choose to live under a government.
They don't.


Oh, I thought you were referring to an anarchist society that collapsed because of the ideas relating to left-anarchism and not because of some outside force.
It didn't collapse because of some outside force. It collapsed from within. But you silly walking contradictions hate when that's pointed out.
Right-anarchism would also have this problem to contend with; I see no reason why this represents a failure of left-anarchism. We don't say that representative democracy is a failure because France fell a couple years later.[/QUOTE]

Irrelevant.Given that the quote I picked from your article specified previously planned actions, and I asked how we could tell the difference between a previously planned action and another action, it's completely relevant.

Most other? I don't know how you socialize, but, for instance, if you have a party in your own house, you're not paying the government one fucking cent. And the party is socialization. So please--Think. Before. You. Post.Uh, they're called property taxes. Of course there isn't a specific socialization fee, but that doesn't mean people don't pay for it.

So why do we have to pay for socialization? I've yet to see a valid answer from you.In what way is socializing with a friend different than with a paid escort other than the payment up front?

Bullshit.Them what's the major difference?

No, it's logically possible.Nope. If people were 100% dissatisifed with governments, they'd move somewhere without them. It's no different than being dissatisfied with an employer.

They don't.They don't make the choice to leave, therefore they make the choice to live under governments.

It didn't collapse because of some outside force. It collapsed from within. But you silly walking contradictions hate when that's pointed out.How is an invading army not an outside force?
I'll not comment further on your erroneous (and once again, unsubstantiated) remark about 'walking contradictions'.

Given that the quote I picked from your article specified previously planned actions, and I asked how we could tell the difference between a previously planned action and another action, it's completely relevant.
No, it isn't.


Uh, they're called property taxes. Of course there isn't a specific socialization fee, but that doesn't mean people don't pay for it.
So how is it a socialization fee?


In what way is socializing with a friend different than with a paid escort other than the payment up front?
In what way is it the same?


Them what's the major difference?
What's the similarity? You posit--you prove.


Nope.
False.


If people were 100% dissatisifed with governments, they'd move somewhere without them.
False.


It's no different than being dissatisfied with an employer.
Then you admit that there's no such thing as exploitation and that workers aren't forced to work anywhere. Good. I'll never see you lie about that again.


They don't make the choice to leave, therefore they make the choice to live under governments.
Non sequitur.


How is an invading army not an outside force?
It collapsed before then.

No, it isn't.Fine, then I'll posit my question again. How do we differentiate between previously planned actions and other actions without empirical testing?

So how is it a socialization fee?Because one of the reasons that most people pay property taxes is so that they can socialize with others in their property.

In what way is it the same?

What's the similarity? You posit--you prove.The similiarity is that both are forms of socialization.

False.Why is that?

Then you admit that there's no such thing as exploitation and that workers aren't forced to work anywhere. Good. I'll never see you lie about that again.I admit that there's no difference between being dissatisfied with an employer and being dissatisfied with a government, as long as you have the option to leave both places.

Non sequitur.How so?

It collapsed before then.When?

Fine, then I'll posit my question again. How do we differentiate between previously planned actions and other actions without empirical testing?
Why does that matter?


Because one of the reasons that most people pay property taxes is so that they can socialize with others in their property.
Wrong.


The similiarity is that both are forms of socialization.
And the similarity between a halo and a cigar band is that they are both circular.


Why is that?
Why is it true?


I admit that there's no difference between being dissatisfied with an employer and being dissatisfied with a government, as long as you have the option to leave both places.
Thus you must admit that employees have an option to leave.

Sometimes the roundabout method works wonders when you lead someone into a trap. Just as you've been led to.


When?
When it collapsed, it did so from the inside. Then the outside forces came.

Hey, if you walking contradictions can re-write history (vis-a-vis communism has never been tried, etc.), why can't I?

Why does that matter?Why else would the author of the article you posted have specified previously planned actions if it didn't matter?

Wrong.Really? Most people don't wish to use their property to socialize, amongst other things?

And the similarity between a halo and a cigar band is that they are both circular. You asked for a similarity I gave one.
At least the one I gave is intrinsic to the two.

Why is it true?Because either people agree to live under a government, or they move to a deserted island.

Thus you must admit that employees have an option to leave.

Sometimes the roundabout method works wonders when you lead someone into a trap. Just as you've been led to.Er...no. When did I say employees didn't have the option to leave?

When it collapsed, it did so from the inside. Then the outside forces came.Which forces on the inside caused it to collapse?

Hey, if you walking contradictions can re-write history (vis-a-vis communism has never been tried, etc.), why can't I?Communism has been tried, just not on a large scale. This is historical fact, not revisionism, as you're attempting.

Why else would the author of the article you posted have specified previously planned actions if it didn't matter?
That doesn't really give me anything useful.


Really?
Yes. Property taxes have nothing to do with allowing socialization.


You asked for a similarity I gave one.
And I provided an intrinsic similarity between a halo and a cigar band.


Because either people agree to live under a government, or they move to a deserted island.
Non sequitur.


Er...no. When did I say employees didn't have the option to leave?
Oh they never do, according to you walking contradictions. They work or starve. And starving isn't an option.


Which forces on the inside caused it to collapse?
The same ones that didn't cause the large-scale communism of the USSR and Communist China, revisionist.

That doesn't really give me anything useful.<shrug> It's your article.
I suppose perhaps he meant that all actions are undertaken with the intention of making the actor's situation better, but of course that isn't true.

Yes. Property taxes have nothing to do with allowing socialization.One of the functions of these taxes (as well as most taxes) is to allow socialization, so yes, I'd say they have plenty to do with it.

And I provided an intrinsic similarity between a halo and a cigar band.And if I were to argue that all circular things should be paid for, you'd have a point.

Non sequitur.Nope. Either people consent to living under a government that allows emigration, or they emigrate. The same way that either people consent to work for an employer, or they leave.
It must be both, it can't be one but not the other.

Oh they never do, according to you walking contradictions. They work or starve. And starving isn't an option.Starving is an option, but not one that people should have to consider.

The same ones that didn't cause the large-scale communism of the USSR and Communist China, revisionist.Nope. It's revisionist to say that something that is not X is X, (and is also a logical fallacy) which is what you're doing. Given the fact that communist countries don't exist and haven't existed, it's revisionist to say they do or have.

Logically impossible. If it were 100%, nobody would choose to live under a government. Given the fact that people choose to live under governments when they could leave, the government must be providing them something.
Leave to where? Tiny islands or the middle of the sea? Most of the world is government-controlled. Most left- and right- libertarians would love to form their own communities. That they can't doesn't mean they acquiesce to the sick status quo.

Right-anarchism would also have this problem to contend with; I see no reason why this represents a failure of left-anarchism. We don't say that representative democracy is a failure because France fell a couple years later.
Unfortunately, that much is true. Anarchism from either side suffers from the immense threat of external intervention.

As for "representative democracy", it isn't a failure, but a contradiction in terms. Representative oligarchy is the best term I could use to describe it.

<shrug> It's your article.
I suppose perhaps he meant that all actions are undertaken with the intention of making the actor's situation better, but of course that isn't true.
How is it not?

Leave to where? Tiny islands or the middle of the sea? Most of the world is government-controlled. Most left- and right- libertarians would love to form their own communities. That they can't doesn't mean they acquiesce to the sick status quo.Yes, they can move to tiny islands. Of course, such a move wouldn't be very pleasant...but I don't see that as being fundamentally different than the choice a worker makes between working or starving, in a place without a welfare safety net.

Unfortunately, that much is true. Anarchism from either side suffers from the immense threat of external intervention.

As for "representative democracy", it isn't a failure, but a contradiction in terms. Representative oligarchy is the best term I could use to describe it.I don't have a qualm about referring to it as representative oligarchy, but representative democracy is the commonly accepted term, so I used it to avoid confusion.

How is it not?Well, there are a few reasons. One of which is that not all actions are undertaken consciously.

Yes, they can move to tiny islands. Of course, such a move wouldn't be very pleasant...but I don't see that as being fundamentally different than the choice a worker makes between working or starving, in a place without a welfare safety net.
Or, they could concentrate in any large number in a society, and secede; all it is is a group of individuals "unsubscribing" from government services, and declaring its autonomy. Less fuss, better results. Any genuine democracy would have no issue with this. Totalitarian oligarchies, on the other hand, wouldn't be able to bear the thought of losing a little land. As long as our dear nations desire to maintain their precious titles, they will allow secession, or prove their true nature.

Well, there are a few reasons. One of which is that not all actions are undertaken consciously.
That doesn't mean they aren't being undertaken to ameliorate a situation though. Mises does briefly mention that it is unknown whether or not all actions are conscious actions -- he is more concerned with why they take place.

Or, they could concentrate in any large number in a society, and secede; all it is is a group of individuals "unsubscribing" from government services, and declaring its autonomy. Less fuss, better results. Any genuine democracy would have no issue with this. Totalitarian oligarchies, on the other hand, wouldn't be able to bear the thought of losing a little land. As long as our dear nations desire to maintain their precious titles, they will allow secession, or prove their true nature.True, but wouldn't the lack of an attempt by somebody to do this indicate that they're fine with the government?

That doesn't mean they aren't being undertaken to ameliorate a situation though. Mises does briefly mention that it is unknown whether or not all actions are conscious actions -- he is more concerned with why they take place.In that case I repeat what Soheran said earlier in the thread: instincts or reflex. Reflexive actions aren't always undertaken to improve a situation.

True, but wouldn't the lack of an attempt by somebody to do this indicate that they're fine with the government?
Given most nations' attitudes towards secession, and their histories with regard to it, I think most people feel that such an action wouldn't even work, or would be crushed forthwith. Most are indeed for the status quo, but surely there are enough anarchists in a given country, that if they were to band in their own communities they could secede. The question is, why aren't they doing so?

In that case I repeat what Soheran said earlier in the thread: instincts or reflex. Reflexive actions aren't always undertaken to improve a situation.
Aren't these then merely actions ingrained into the brain due to constant repetition (becoming innate via evolutionary mechanisms)? For instance, a reflex to dodge a blow would achieve the satisfaction of not being struck, conscious or not.

Aren't these then merely actions ingrained into the brain due to constant repetition? For instance, a reflex to dodge a blow would achieve the satisfaction of not being struck.

Yes, but that isn't actually why we undertake the action. It's just a reflex.

Whether or not it actually achieves for us the satisfaction, we will still do it.

<shrug> It's your article.
<shrug> What does that matter?


One of the functions of these taxes (as well as most taxes) is to allow socialization,
No it isn't; it's to line the coffers of the state. Socialization has jack-squat to do with it.


And if I were to argue that all circular things should be paid for, you'd have a point.
And I do have a point, since you're just being quite superficial.


Nope.
Certainly is. People do not have to consent to live under a government to live there.


Starving is an option, but not one that people should have to consider.
Which means that you do consider that workers have no option but to work for a certain place.


Nope.
Yep. You're trying to revise history, and I led you right down the road into the trap.

Given the fact that communist countries have existed, you're just revising history. And I love letting you trap yourself.

Given most nations' attitudes towards secession, and their histories with regard to it, I think most people feel that such an action wouldn't even work, or would be crushed forthwith. Most are indeed for the status quo, but surely there are enough anarchists in a given country, that if they were to band in their own communities they could secede. The question is, why aren't they doing so?Because they don't want to?

<shrug> What does that matter?Because typically when people present articles in defense of their positions, they defend those articles.

No it isn't; it's to line the coffers of the state. Socialization has jack-squat to do with it.Nope, given the fact that one of the reasons people come together in groups at all is to socialize.

And I do have a point, since you're just being quite superficial.Not at all. One of the reasons people come together into groups is to socialize. One of the reasons people buy cigars is almost never because they're circular.

Certainly is. People do not have to consent to live under a government to live there.They do, by definition, if they have the ability to leave.

Which means that you do consider that workers have no option but to work for a certain place.Of course they have the option of leaving, just as you have the option of moving and living under a different government, or moving to a deserted island.

Yep. You're trying to revise history, and I led you right down the road into the trap.

Given the fact that communist countries have existed, you're just revising history. And I love letting you trap yourself.Not hardly. You're not allowed to make up your own (or parrot someone else's) strawman definition of communism. If you're going to argue against an ideology, you have to use the definition of the ideology that its proponent use, lest I return the favor and make up my own definition of anarcho-capitalism.

Because they don't want to?
I doubt that is the sole reason -- sounds more like fear to me out of what opposition they might face.

Because typically when people present articles in defense of their positions, they defend those articles.
I already have, though.


Nope, given the fact that one of the reasons people come together in groups at all is to socialize.
Given the fact that taxation is to line the coffers of the state, you're wrong.


Not at all. One of the reasons people come together into groups is to socialize. One of the reasons people buy cigars is almost never because they're circular.
Irrelevant. Halos and cigar bands are similar because they are circular. That's just as superficial as your statement.


They do, by definition, if they have the ability to leave.
No, they do not, by definition, even if they do have the ability to leave.

If they do, I'd love to see you demonstrate that they do actually consent to it.


Of course they have the option of leaving, just as you have the option of moving and living under a different government, or moving to a deserted island.
But then they'd starve. And that's not an option.


Not hardly.
Ah yes...here we go with the No True Scotsman fallacy that you love to use.

I do so enjoy watching you walking contradictions claim that feudalism is the direct predecessor to capitalism, and that capitalists are exploitative and oppressive, all the while denying that communist countries existed. It's fun to see the compartmentalization which allows such self-contradictory beliefs to exist. You want to rip on "capitalism" with your own pet definition and then cling to some definition of communism such that you can define out of existence the communist countries that did exist? Fine. I'll just play your own game on you. And I have. And you fell right into the trap.

I already have, though. Then you can defend why he specified "previously planned actions", or admit that he misspoke.

Given the fact that taxation is to line the coffers of the state, you're wrong.Given the fact that the state is the theoretical representative of society, you're wrong.

Irrelevant. Halos and cigar bands are similar because they are circular. That's just as superficial as your statement.Your analogy is flawed, as is your assertion that my argument is superficial.

No, they do not, by definition, even if they do have the ability to leave.

If they do, I'd love to see you demonstrate that they do actually consent to it.Because it's the only other possible conclusion. Either they don't consent to it and leave, or they do consent to it and stay.

But then they'd starve. And that's not an option.No more or less of an option than moving to a deserted island.

Ah yes...here we go with the No True Scotsman fallacy that you love to use.Here we go with your misuse of what the No True Scotsman fallacy is.

I do so enjoy watching you walking contradictions claim that feudalism is the direct predecessor to capitalism, and that capitalists are exploitative and oppressive, all the while denying that communist countries existed. It's fun to see the compartmentalization which allows such self-contradictory beliefs to exist. You want to rip on "capitalism" with your own pet definition and then cling to some definition of communism such that you can define out of existence the communist countries that did exist? Fine. I'll just play your own game on you. And I have. And you fell right into the trap.When did I pick a definition of capitalism and argue against it?
You do realize that you have to tailor your arguments to the person arguing, as opposed to a guilt-by-association categorization, right?

Then you can defend why he specified "previously planned actions", or admit that he misspoke.
I don't see why I have to.


Given the fact that the state is the theoretical representative of society, you're wrong.
Given the fact that the state isn't the slightest bit the representative of "society", you're wrong.


Your analogy is flawed, as is your assertion that my argument is superficial.
Nope. I just gave you what you gave me. And now you're unhappy with being outed like that. Tough.


Because it's the only other possible conclusion.
No it isn't. They can stay yet not consent.


No more or less of an option than moving to a deserted island.
You just keep walking into the minefield. It's funny.


Here we go with your misuse of what the No True Scotsman fallacy is.
But it isn't.


When did I pick a definition of capitalism and argue against it?
Every time you argue against capitalism. Every time you cry about exploitation and such.

That of course does not invalidate that they are in fact independent, autonomous individuals to begin with.
No, we are born into communities. Man has lived in community for all of his history. A social contract entered into by indepedent autnomus individuals is a fiction.


Only a fool would study economics from the point of view that trade takes place between "collectives" as opposed to individuals. Individuals thereafter become interdependent.

No, interdependence exists from birth.


The only way any anarchist society could deal with externalities is an extension of property rights so as to allow them to sue against violators (verily, an entire community could then sue for the violation of the property rights of those who make it up). If, however, we must have a state tradeable permits are an acceptable solution.
Not everything is amenable to being turned into private property.

Not quite.

http://www.mises.org/story/2120

This seems to suggest that personal responsibility exists only where property rights exist.

No, we are born into communities. Man has lived in community for all of his history. A social contract entered into by indepedent autnomus individuals is a fiction.
That a community can exist without individuals is the most laughable Hegelian fiction there is.


Not everything is amenable to being turned into private property.
Such as...?

Meaning that it's difficult to quantify the subjective estimations of those who are claimed to have lost.

At a certain level, all costs are subjective, even those determined by the market. How is teh damage caused by pollution or global warming any more subjective?


And how would that be "market failure"?


Because (as it is constructed), the costs associated with these problems are not borne by the producer or consumer, but by society at large. Hence "externality".


It is. Whatever gives you the stupid idea that I'm arguing against it?
If I misunderstood your argument, then I apoogize. I thought you were defending the article, in which he clearly argued that people could not be held responsible for individual actions in which there was some kind of collective or cumulative result, because people are individuals, which are not a collective. I disagree with both aspects of that assertion.

At a certain level, all costs are subjective, even those determined by the market. How is teh damage caused by pollution or global warming any more subjective?
You tell me.


Because (as it is constructed), the costs associated with these problems are not borne by the producer or consumer, but by society at large. Hence "externality".
Ok. And how is that market failure?


If I misunderstood your argument, then I apoogize.
You did.


I thought you were defending the article, in which he clearly argued that people could not be held responsible for individual actions in which there was some kind of collective or cumulative result, because people are individuals, which are not a collective. I disagree with both aspects of that assertion.
So you think that collectives exist apart from the individuals which comprise it? How wonderfully Hegelian.

I don't see why I have to.Because otherwise you acknowledge that not all actions are undertaken for the purpose of making one's life better, from a subjective perspective.

Given the fact that the state isn't the slightest bit the representative of "society", you're wrong.That the state isn't representative of society isn't the fault of the theory that the state represents society.

Nope. I just gave you what you gave me. And now you're unhappy with being outed like that. Tough.Nope. My argument was relevant. Yours is not.

No it isn't. They can stay yet not consent.Not if they can leave, they can't.

You just keep walking into the minefield. It's funny.How so?

But it isn't.Exactly. It isn't an example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy to say that there has never been a communist country.

Every time you argue against capitalism. Every time you cry about exploitation and such.Nope. Class differences can only not result in exploitation in theory. This doesn't mean that I've claimed that "true capitalism" has existed.

No, we are born into communities. Man has lived in community for all of his history. A social contract entered into by indepedent autnomus individuals is a fiction.
Then show me a community existing on its own without individuals, or admit how stupid what you saying truly is...

This seems to suggest that personal responsibility exists only where property rights exist.
And guess what kind of rights exist in a market-anarchist society...

You pollute, by creating it you appropriate it -- you harm someone, you violate their negative right not to be harmed. You are liable of committing a tort. If the AS didn't even acknowledge individual responsibility, it wouldn't bother with this analysis. Clearer now?

Yes, but that isn't actually why we undertake the action. It's just a reflex.

Whether or not it actually achieves for us the satisfaction, we will still do it.
I suppose a distinction between conscious and unconscious actions is best then to avoid confusion.

I suppose a distinction between conscious and unconscious actions is best then to avoid confusion.And how would an outsider determine which of another person's actions are conscious and which are unconscious without empirical testing?

Because otherwise you acknowledge that not all actions are undertaken for the purpose of making one's life better, from a subjective perspective.
Why would that be the case.


That the state isn't representative of society isn't the fault of the theory that the state represents society.
So?


Nope. My argument was relevant.
As relevant as mine was.


Not if they can leave, they can't.
Sure they can be consistent even if.


Exactly. It isn't an example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy to say that there has never been a communist country.
No, it is an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy to say that there never has been a communist country, you silly revisionist.


Nope. Class differences can only not result in exploitation in theory.
As if there is such a thing apart from the refuted-to-death labor theory of value.


This doesn't mean that I've claimed that "true capitalism" has existed.
You have whined about it before.

I don't know how you socialize, but, for instance, if you have a party in your own house, you're not paying the government one fucking cent.Well, there is property tax, and sales tax on all the party supplies.

Of course, perhaps more to the point would be the previous taxes paid that allowed your guests to drive on government roads or use public transportation to reach your party.

EDIT: Yes, we all know you right-libertarians want to privatize roads along with everything else. The point is that currently (most) governments subsidize the costs of transportation in a variety of ways, not least of them being the maintenance of public roads. This means that (with relatively minor exceptions) I do not have to constantly be aware of whether or not I have toll money. It means I can socialize with a wide variety of people, many of whom may not be able to afford the costs of public roads (or may not be able to afford them all the time).

It means, as I stressed some time ago, that we don't have to worry about most of these concerns along with many other public goods. It makes much more sense--indeed, economic sense--to put our resources into a public pool from which we pay for most public goods. The alternative would involve constant calculations and financing to do every little thing--including simple socializing.

In this sense "government"--whether the state or left-anarchist modes of organization--is a great liberator: it frees us from calculations which, once information and organizing costs are taken into account, would be quite debilitating to action in anything resembling a modern context.

Left-anarchists want to be MORE free by retaining the economically liberating benefits of government while revolutionizing the mode of government to maximize popular control over expenditures.

Right-anarchists want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Well, there is property tax, and sales tax on all the party supplies.

Of course, perhaps more to the point would be the previous taxes paid that allowed your guests to drive on government roads or use public transportation to reach your party.

Let's assume the government charged for the protection of property, the legal system in general (including the enforcement of rights such as that to property), and whatever else one opted for. So far so good. This would be the provision of certain services which perhaps facilitated socializing. At what point though does the provider of a service gain the right to take your money and give it to others? At what point do they have the right to coerce you into using them as the only provider of said service? The government charges you for a lot more than mere socializing.

And not all us right-libertarians believe that the current corporate model is the best. I'd be fine with something similar to colaborative ownership of certain enterprises. A corporate model where the employees were the shareholders in a sense. Not strictly syndicalism, but akin to it. If it were a functional system I'd endorse it. Therefore I refer to myself as a market-anarchist rather than purely anarcho-capitalist.

Why would that be the case.It's already been determined that not all actions are undertaken with the purpose of making one's life better. I asked how to tell which actions were previously planned from the actions that weren't. You said it didn't matter. The author of the article specified 'previously planned' actions. I asked how we could tell which actions were previously planned from actions that weren't. You refused to answer the question, saying it didn't matter. I said that it did matter, because the article specified that type of action. Again, you refused to answer. So that leaves us with:
Not all actions are undertaken with the purpose of making one's life better.
You can't answer how to tell which actions are previously planned from actions that aren't without empirical testing.
You won't defend the author's article as to why he specified previously planned actions.
That sentence was used as the foundational justification for Austrian economics by the author of the article. It fails. Therefore, that author's justification for Austrian economics fails.

So?So that doesn't detract from the fact that the default position is that there is a right for a society to tax, even if it were the case that the state didn't represent the society.

As relevant as mine was.No. Once again, the reason people purchase escort services is to socialize. The reason people buy cigars is not because their bands are round.
Make an analogy that's relevant to the reason people do things, and it'll make sense. Otherwise, drop it.

Sure they can be consistent even if.Not to the point of having what a state does be 100% foisted upon them.

No, it is an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy to say that there never has been a communist country, you silly revisionist.Well, all right, you won't admit the fact that you're wrong here, so we'll go roundabout.
Define a definition of communism that fits a particular country.
Name a communist theoretician (not an individual communist) who uses that definition.
If you can't do that, I will accept it as your acknowledgement that your argument fails, and that you withdraw your assertion that it's an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

As if there is such a thing apart from the refuted-to-death labor theory of value.There are class differences regardless of which theory of value a person uses, given the fact that there are general examples of economic behavior depending on which economic class a person is in.

Well, there is property tax, and sales tax on all the party supplies.
Some places do not have a sales tax, and there are a few places w/o property taxes.


Of course, perhaps more to the point would be the previous taxes paid that allowed your guests to drive on government roads or use public transportation to reach your party.
So what?


EDIT: Yes, we all know you right-libertarians want to privatize roads along with everything else. The point is that currently (most) governments subsidize the costs of transportation in a variety of ways, not least of them being the maintenance of public roads.
Wasn't always the case, though.


This means that (with relatively minor exceptions) I do not have to constantly be aware of whether or not I have toll money. It means I can socialize with a wide variety of people, many of whom may not be able to afford the costs of public roads (or may not be able to afford them all the time).
So what?


It means, as I stressed some time ago, that we don't have to worry about most of these concerns along with many other public goods.
There's no such thing as a public good.


It makes much more sense--indeed, economic sense--to put our resources into a public pool from which we pay for most public goods.
Non sequitur.


The alternative would involve constant calculations and financing to do every little thing--including simple socializing.
Do you have to constantly calculate and finance a contract that you paid for up-front?


In this sense "government"--whether the state or left-anarchist modes of organization--is a great liberator:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

It doesn't free us from the calculations at all. In fact, it makes us calculate all the more so in order to determine if we can afford such-and-such after the government has stolen our money.


Left-anarchists want to be MORE free by retaining the economically liberating benefits of government while revolutionizing the mode of government to maximize popular control over expenditures.
Now that's quite a delusion.

It's already been determined that not all actions are undertaken with the purpose of making one's life better.
By whom?


So that doesn't detract from the fact that the default position is that there is a right for a society to tax,
That's like saying the default position is that there is a god.


No.
Yes. Once again, your "analogy" was quite superficial. Drop your analogy.


Not to the point of having what a state does be 100% foisted upon them.
Yes, exactly to that point.


Well, all right, you won't admit the fact that you're wrong here,
Because I'm not, Mr. No True Scotsman boy.

Cry all you like, Mr. No True Scotsman--there have been communist countries. I know you hate that fact. I know that it pains you. And I know that's why you deny it.

At what point though does the provider of a service gain the right to take your money and give it to others? At what point do they have the right to coerce you into using them as the only provider of said service?

A provider of a service gets the right to take someone's money when a law is passed that gives them that right. What you mean is "when should the provider of a service gain the right to take your money and give it to others?" Otherwise you are either getting your "is" and "ought" confused, or subscribing to quasi-religious notions about natural rights that somehow exist other than as man-made moral concepts.

Having said that, when phrased with a "should" it is a very valid question to ask, and not one that often gets an airing when politicians debate whether to tax people and spend the money on some new scheme. They never really consider the moral aspect of taxation - only the moral aspect of the spending.

I would say that, like with law enforcement and the courts, there will sometimes come a point where the benefit to be gained would justify the taxation needed to provide a service, and I think that road building could very possibly be one such occasion - particularly as they are so widely and evenly used (in comparison with some spending, which is very niche). In general however, I think that often too much is taken for too little overall benefit.

A provider of a service gets the right to take someone's money when a law is passed that gives them that right. What you mean is "when should the provider of a service gain the right to take your money and give it to others?" Otherwise you are either getting your "is" and "ought" confused, or subscribing to quasi-religious notions about natural rights that somehow exist other than as man-made moral concepts.
And in what world would you give Coca Cola, for instance, the right to force you to consume its products (because this may well be deemed "appropriate")? Why should you be forced to consume any product? Let us at least do away with the delusion that everyone willingly consents to such "service provision"...

And in what world would you give Coca Cola, for instance, the right to force you to consume its products? Why should you be forced to consume any product? Let us at least do away with the delusion that everyone willingly consents to such "service provision"...

If one shouldn't be forced to consume any product then one shouldn't to be forced to pay for the services of a minarchist government.

If one shouldn't be forced to consume any product then one shouldn't to be forced to pay for the services of a minarchist government.
Agreed. That's why I'm moving away from minarchism to market-anarchism.

Agreed. That's why I'm moving away from minarchism to market-anarchism.

Have you also given up your monarchism? If not how do you reconcile it with market anarchism? What is the differance, if any, between anarcho-capitalism and market anarchism? What drove you away from minarchism?

Have you also given up your monarchism? If not how do you reconcile it with market anarchism?
I cannot be both. I look at the two as two alternatives -- I am still reading into market anarchism, but I need more to be completely convinced of its macroviability. In other words, I believe minarchism is somewhat wanting in the consistency department, but I need to read more about anarchist theories to make my choice.

What is the differance, if any, between anarcho-capitalism and market anarchism? What drove you away from minarchism?
Market-anarchism is both a broader category, and also seen as left-anarchism (since it contains certain significant deviations) from contemporary Capitalism. There are minor (to major) differences on property rights. Most market-anarchists agree they should be there -- they just differ on the degree. I'm currently looking into Konkin and the Rothbardian version of it. Here is more on anarcho-capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_anarchism), and agorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism). And as for minarchism, consistency I suppose -- it can never be 100% absolutely consistent.

Agreed. That's why I'm moving away from minarchism to market-anarchism.

What kind? Propertarian market anarchism, or mutualist market anarchism? There are two kinds of market anarchism and both are mutally exclusive. You must specify.

What kind? Propertarian market anarchism, or mutualist market anarchism? There are two kinds of market anarchism and both are mutally exclusive. You must specify.
I am between agorism and anarcho-capitalism. One of those two really. I am undecided.

I am between agorism and anarcho-capitalism. One of those two really. I am undecided.

Justing pointing out that there are a lot of ways to have markets and anarchism. And some don't involve private states. (hint: mutualism)

Justing pointing out that there are a lot of ways to have markets and anarchism. And some don't involve private states. (hint: mutualism)
I think I'll be opting for agorism, but I'll give all three forms of market-anarchism the benefit of the doubt by actually studying them. I'll say no more on this, for now.

I think I'll be opting for agorism, but I'll give all three forms of market-anarchism the benefit of the doubt by actually studying them. I'll say no more on this, for now.

Have fun.

By whom?By anyone who acknowledged that reflexive actions aren't undertaken for that reason.

That's like saying the default position is that there is a god.False. Since there hasn't been any provably objective set of rights, the default position is that they are socially agreed upon; they're subjective.

Yes. Once again, your "analogy" was quite superficial. Drop your analogy.I didn't provide an analogy, I provided an example of socializing being a service, and then stated that the only difference between it and other forms of socializing is that escorting is paid for up front.
You, in turn, decided not to even attempt to disprove me, instead bringing up irrelevancies.

Yes, exactly to that point.Nope. Since a person chooses to live under a government, by default there must be worse places to live. With this being the case, it is impossible to have something worse than a 100% rate of having things being foisted upon them. Therefore, the government that a person chooses to live under is inherently not 100% dissatisfactory.

Because I'm not, Mr. No True Scotsman boy.

Cry all you like, Mr. No True Scotsman--there have been communist countries. I know you hate that fact. I know that it pains you. And I know that's why you deny it.Are you going to substantiate your assertion or not? If you don't do so in your reply to me in this thread, I'll accept that as your acknowledgement that your argument is false.

By anyone who acknowledged that reflexive actions aren't undertaken for that reason.
False.


False. Since there hasn't been any provably objective set of rights, the default position is that they are socially agreed upon; they're subjective.
You've got it right for the wrong reasons.


I didn't provide an analogy,
Liar. You provided an analogy.


Nope. Since a person chooses to live under a government, by default there must be worse places to live.
This being demonstrably false by bringing up North Korea.


Are you going to substantiate your assertion or not?
You haven't substantiated anything yet, so why should I bother?

False.Demonstrate, without using empirical evidence, that people commit any previously planned actions.
Demonstrate, without using empirical evidence, that people commit previously planned actions for the purpose of making their lives better.

Liar. You provided an analogy.In what way is the example I provided an analogy?

This being demonstrably false by bringing up North Korea.North Korea doesn't exactly have the freest emigration policies. Even if it did, I imagine many people would prefer to live there than Antarctica.

You haven't substantiated anything yet, so why should I bother?You know full well that I've given you the definition of what communism is, in other threads. You refuse to admit that this is the definition, instead clinging to some other definition that you either made up or took from someone else, who made it up.
Now prove that the Soviet Union, or China, or some other country was a stateless, classless society where the workers owned or controlled the means of production, or some up with some other definition of communism that fits those countries that a communist theoretician also used.

Now prove that the Soviet Union, or China, or some other country was a stateless, classless society where the workers owned or controlled the means of production, or some up with some other definition of communism that fits those countries that a communist theoretician also used.
They certainly aren't communist, no. However, you did say in that in Marxism the end justifies the means, and that even if it required the death of near-everyone in a nation to bring about Communism, that this would be within the scope of a State trying to reach it. Most so-called Communist nations try to accomplish it, until scarcity hits them hard with a nasty vengeance, after which they turn into something akin to modern-day Russia. That is to say, they abandon the delusion that they are Communist in any sense, or will achieve such a goal whilst scarcity persists.

They certainly aren't communist, no. However, you did say in that in Marxism the end justifies the means, and that even if it required the death of near-everyone in a nation to bring about Communism, that this would be within the scope of a State trying to reach it.I didn't quite say that, no, I said that communism is defined by the end result and not the process.
While it could be true that it could come about as you described, most, if not all communists would reject such an idea.

Most so-called Communist nations try to accomplish it, until scarcity hits them hard with a nasty vengeance, after which they turn into something akin to modern-day Russia. That is to say, they abandon the delusion that they are Communist in any sense, or will achieve such a goal whilst scarcity persists.I'm not convinced that they even tried to accomplish it, given that Lenin had a bunch of communists killed off during the Russian Civil War.

I'm not convinced that they even tried to accomplish it, given that Lenin had a bunch of communists killed off during the Russian Civil War.
There are countless nations out there that have tried/are trying to achieve it. China at one stage, even (although nothing about it has anything to do with Communism nowadays). As you say they are not Communist nations, but to them the end-justification supercedes any other concerns. Although a majority of communists may not desire a state of affairs as I described, a nation in which the ruling body were powerful enough to carry it out without being deterred would prove quite a different scenario indeed; opponents would become obstacles on the path to realizing the ideology (that, and scarcity).