19 Jun 2014

Potpourri

Piketty, Potpourri, Shameless Self-Promotion 145 Comments

==> My new Mises CA post catches NPR sounding surprisingly Rothbardian. They need Gene Callahan to vet their broadcasts.

==> Vijay Boyapati discusses his view of Austrian monetary theory and Bitcoin.

==> I know this can’t possibly lend credibility to the people saying the US government has been experimenting with weather control, but anyway…

==> Dan Sanchez on Dick Cheney, prophet on Iraq.

==> This glitch in Super Mario Bros. is awesome. At first you won’t understand what the player is doing, but then it becomes clear.

==> Because it hurts Piketty, now estate tax data must be discredited. (HT2 Phil Magness) Apparently trusts were invented in 1985.

145 Responses to “Potpourri”

  1. Josiah says:

    I know this can’t possibly lend credibility to the people saying the US government has been experimenting with weather control, but anyway…

    This is what confuses me.

    I don’t think anyone on this blog has ever denied that governments have been doing experiments regarding cloud seeding, or research into geoengineering, and so on and so forth.

    What we objected to was the claim that “chemtrails” were part of a secret government conspiracy to control the weather.

    Bob, you are a smart guy. Surely you must be able to distinguish between these claims.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Josiah wrote:

      I don’t think anyone on this blog has ever denied that governments have been doing experiments regarding cloud seeding, or research into geoengineering, and so on and so forth.

      I’m not going to go back, Josiah, but I know I have seen people say, “Oh come on, what possible reason could the government have to do that stuff?” Maybe it was just on other sites, but I’m pretty sure people here said that too.

      And if a story came out saying, “Government admits housing flying saucer in Area 51,” wouldn’t that lend credibility to people saying they saw actual Martians in cells? Even though technically I’m a smart guy and I can tell those are distinct claims?

      • Josiah says:

        Bob,

        You really are a fan of analogies involving space aliens (don’t we all).

        If someone were to say “What possible reason would the government have to try to alter the weather?” then it wouldn’t be necessary to cite Chinese experiments in cloud seeding. You could just say: “ever heard of climate change?”

        Admittedly, it would be fun if it turned out the reason for the so-called “pause” in global warming was that the U.S. government had been secretly pumping anti-warming agents into the air. If would make for a good movie plot.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          Josiah wrote:

          If someone were to say “What possible reason would the government have to try to alter the weather?” then it wouldn’t be necessary to cite Chinese experiments in cloud seeding. You could just say: “ever heard of climate change?”

          Right Josiah, defenders *did* say that, and the response was, “I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear you through your tinfoil hat.”

          I’m not saying I’ve caught you personally in a contradiction, but please stop acting like I’m attacking a strawman. I gave a throwaway line to link to a post on government-backed geoengineering, and for what it was, I stand behind it.

          • Josiah says:

            Bob,

            Recently a guy came up to a friend of mine at a political event and said “you should know that this conversation is being recorded because the government put a listening device in my fillings.”

            That guy is a crazy person. The fact that the government does, in fact, spy on people does not make the guy any less crazy.

            • Matt M says:

              No, I’m with Bob on this one.

              Consider two test cases. In one case, the guy comes up and says “the government implanted listening devices in my teeth” and you know for a fact that the government regularly uses complicated and elaborate means to spy on people, even people of relative unimportance.

              In the other case, the guy comes up and says “the government implanted listening devices in my teeth” and there is no evidence that the government ever spies on anyone at all.

              Obviously case one is more believable. You have to treat the crazy dude as a control. All things being equal, the more we know about government attempts to spy/control the weather, the more believable claims about them doing so (even in absurd fashions) become.

            • skylien says:

              Josiah,

              Hence the saying: just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean someone is not after you.

              • Josiah says:

                Consider two test cases.

                Or consider the case where the guy claims it’s aliens that are listening to him through his fillings, and he doesn’t have any fillings.

                I’m sure there are a lot of scenarios you could come up with that are even more far out. Nevertheless, even in the case where the government does spy on people, it’s still clear that the guy is a kook.

              • skylien says:

                It is the typical being right for the wrong reasons thing, which can be seen especially in economics.

                Economists with opposing opinions usually accuse each other of being basically just lucky if they got something right. It almost never is accepted as prove/indication that the other one really genuinely could be right after all..

        • Bob Murphy says:

          OK Josiah so just to make sure we’re clear:

          (1) I have already posted examples where, in the past, the government did indeed introduce chemicals etc. into a community’s environment without its knowledge. When I brought those up, in response to the attacks on Kristen Meghan, her critics told me, “We already knew about those. That’s public knowledge. She was claiming things that the gov’t hasn’t admitted.”

          (2) You are saying that every single example of the US gov’t ever dumping chemicals for the purposes of weather modification have already been brought to light. You are absolutely convinced that the government has fully admitted everything in this regard that it has ever done, such that anyone claiming otherwise is obviously a kook.

          Do I have it right?

          • Josiah says:

            You are absolutely convinced that the government has fully admitted everything in this regard that it has ever done, such that anyone claiming otherwise is obviously a kook.

            No, Bob. If I think that the guy with the fillings is a kook, it does not follow that I must think every instance of U.S. government spying has already been brought to light.

  2. K.P. says:

    Good catch Bob, enjoyed the article. It makes me wonder how many people who openly support the state would admit that the tactics are largely the same as the Mafia’s.

    • Matt M says:

      Generally it’s an obsession with democracy and an assumption that voting will ensure only “good guys” will be in power, while the in the mafia, we know that family connections and thuggery are the ways up the ladder.

      • Gamble says:

        Constitutional Representative Republic, the only system that allows 51% of the people to elect, multiple unaccountable groups of dictators, to rule your every move, steal and murder.

        • Major-Freedom says:

          It is not surprising that there are those in the 51% who are willing to vote for “representatives” who will cheat, lie, steal, murder, and destroy, to have nothing on their radar that would resemble respecting individuals who want to opt out of the madness.

          I mean, if they had any cognition of respecting individual secession, then chances are they wouldn’tu support 51% rule of death and destruction in the first place.

          Note to any psychopath who claims that individuals can opt out: No, having your house and land “appropriated” by the very lunatics the individual wants to secede from, is not a choice to opt out. It is a “choice” to be robbed a portion of each paycheck, and if you do not consent to that then you’ll be robbed of your home and/or business.

      • K.P. says:

        Right. I won’t argue that where the money goes isn’t different, or that some forms aren’t preferable to others.

        I just wanted to know how many would cede that the tactics in getting the money in the first place are similar. Usually I hear the ugliness spun away as “paying your dues” or something along those lines.

  3. guest says:

    About the SMB glitch:

    Probably a hoax, since there’s a limit to how many lives you can get from the similar “turtles on the stairs” trick before the game kills you off and erases all the 1ups you got (and not because you ran out of time).

    • Darien says:

      If I remember correctly, actually, you don’t instantly die for going over 127 lives (the issue is a buffer overrun on an 8-bit signed variable, causing it to wrap around to -128 at that point); the game only checks your lives remaining when you die. So if you exceed the bounds, everything proceeds as normal (other than minor graphical errors) until your next death, and then it’s an instant game over.

  4. Tel says:

    Dick Cheney, prophet on Iraq.

    I get it, play on words, should have bought Halliburton shares. Oh well there you go I made some gains on gold but not as much as I could have done if I was as smart and well connected as Cheney.

    I’m pretty sure these days that George W Bush wasn’t as stupid as he looked.

    • skylien says:

      Looking stupid can be a very smart thing to do at times.

      • Tel says:

        I changed my perspective when I realized that Bush lived in an architect-designed prepper house.

  5. Tel says:

    From Noah’s blog ( http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/big-ideas-in-macroeconomics-book-review_8748.html ) —

    On the first day of my first-year microeconomics class in grad school, our professor took us down to the experimental econ lab and had us play a game where we all bid on various computerized “goods”. Very quickly, a stable equilibrium price established itself. We didn’t have much information – the prof didn’t tell us who was bidding against whom, whether we had been given asymmetric information, etc. But again and again, prices converged to a stable equilibrium.

    This experiment was meant to show us that “general equilibrium” – which we spent the rest of the semester learning – is not just a fantasy that some economists dreamed up. 

    I remember doing a stats course where we also were instructed to play a game on some lab computers. First question in the tutorial was:

    Devise a test to discover whether the game cheats, and collect enough samples to be confident in your result.

    Needless to say, we were playing a different game to Noah, but then we were living in a somewhat different world.

    • Bob Roddis says:

      In college in the early 70s I took plenty of courses on multi-ethnic genocide, slaughter and pillage which kept me out of group projects and “labs”. On that subject, I guess we finally have an answer to the question of whether those supporting the Iraq invasion had a firm grasp in 2003 of the likelihood of ethnic slaughter resulting from the imposition of big government democracy upon Iraq.

      Who knew?

      • Bob Roddis says:

        Can we call the Iraq invasion a “lab”? Does it count as a social science experiment?

      • Tel says:

        I don’t want to go blaming Noah for the Iraq War, I doubt he was ever an enthusiast of invading other people’s countries, I guess the worst you could say about his is he is a bit of an enabler.

        The point I was trying to make was somewhat different. Perhaps this explains it:

        Over the years, he’s broken a few students’ hearts when they learn of this truth.

        “I have had students who are very strongly pro-the global warming movement in my classes, of course, because most young people have heard this already,” he said. “And when I have them actually do the study, and take apart an IPCC [International Panel on Climate Change] claim, sometimes they break into tears, and they say ‘I can’t believe this is the only class I’ve ever been in in which anyone has ever told me there is even an issue.’”

        “I always enjoy that but, I would enjoy it the other way, too,” he said. “I always really push them to evaluate, dig down and learn the arguments of the other side- that is part of education.”

        http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/18034/

        There’s an old Zen Buddhist phrase to describe students: “Great effort, great faith and great doubt.”

        My point is that our teaching institutions have abandoned the “great doubt” component, and have over-emphasized the faith component. Not so long ago, students were encouraged to be skeptical and ask questions. In a small number of cases (such as Caleb Rossiter describes) this is still the case, but the broad trend is towards obedience, discouraging the asking of questions, and training students to repeat dogma. In Economics class it is Keynesian dogma, in “Science” class it is environmentalist dogma.

        I’m sure that for political interns they get drilled with the “don’t question the war” dogma as well… but like I said above, I only blame Noah for the Keynesian part of the problem, not the entire problem.

  6. Bob Roddis says:

    First, you must first take player one’s Mario to the second level of the game and throw away your first life. With Luigi taking over, player two must traverse all the way to World 5-2 and find the hidden beanstalk block halfway through the stage. Once there, Luigi must start climbing the vines, however, he must await – and take on the chin – an incoming projectile from one of the Hammer Bros. Upon being hit, once player one resumes control of Mario, the beanstalk from World 5-2 will start growing in World 1-2, providing all you need to infinitely kick shells for unlimited bonuses.

    And I thought that the “younger generation”, being unable to understand that the NAP precludes war, rape, pillage, genocide and slavery but not effective non-violent sanctions against racists, was unable to perform abstract thinking.

  7. Philippe says:

    “the NAP precludes war”

    Murray Rothbard:

    “The beauty of nonstate – interprivate, if you want to put it that way, warfare is that it has to be pinpointed—it has to be, in order not to commit suicide in the process—and so that the scale of weaponry has to be reduced to, say, machine-gun level.

    … if you shift from State war – interstate warfare – down to private warfare, the likelihood of doing that, of pursuing this kind of libertarian non-injuring of civilians, will be greatly increased.”

    http://www.antiwar.com/orig/rothbard_on_war.html

    I guess not, huh?

    • Philippe says:

      “the NAP precludes rape”

      “The NAP is not violated when an intiator of violence, recieves equal violence.”

      http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/06/persuasion-is-more-powerful-than-violence.html#comment-632424

      I guess not, huh?

      • Major-Freedom says:

        He meant initiating rape.

      • Bob Roddis says:

        Philippe precisely proves the point I was making. Since he probably can do abstract thinking, he’s purposefully trying to make simple concepts seem complicated and unintelligible. It shows he cannot directly engage those concepts.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Philippe, Super Mario uses commodity money. Case closed.

    • Bob Roddis says:

      Aggressive rape and aggressive war are forbidden, and thus precluded if the NAP is obeyed.

      Philippe reminds me of the old Johnny Rivers song “Obfuscation Man”.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iaR3WO71j4

      Or maybe I mis-heard the lyrics.

      • K.P. says:

        “Aggressive rape” is forbidden?!

        You’re lucky you’re not a politician Bob.

        • Bob Roddis says:

          I believe it was Philippe who suggested the possibility of rape as punishment for rape. How else should one respond to a person such as Philippe who is continuously unable or unwilling to differentiate between aggressive vs. defensive violence and positive vs. negative rights? And who will not differentiate between what is not technically a violation of the NAP and what people will tolerate without imposing non-violent sanctions?

          [Final remarks edited out by RPM as needlessly provocative.]

    • Bob Roddis says:

      Further, because the NAP is limited to the rules of aggressive violence, I would anticipate that most AnCap communities would be governed by voluntary contractual bylaws covering everything else including punishment. There is no reason to believe that all or most of those communities would necessariy adopt rules that most people find odious. Again, we see a purposeful attempt at obfuscation and a concerted refusal to think abstractly about fairly uncomplicated and straight-forward matters.

    • Bob Roddis says:

      It seems to me that our opponents have settled upon two tactics:

      a) Obfuscation (about most everything, the NAP, praxeology, economic calculation); and/or

      b) A pretty hard core commie attack on the notion of private property (go for it, I say).

      That means we’ve won.

    • Major-Freedom says:

      He meant war making.

  8. Philippe says:

    “Aggressive rape and aggressive war are forbidden, and thus precluded if the NAP is obeyed.”

    “Aggressive rape” is already illegal, Bob.

    In your ideal world it would be legal to rape someone as a punishment for prior rape, correct?

    • Major-Freedom says:

      Rape is not illegal according to the state.

      The state occasionally allows its soldiers and police force to rape innocent civilians.

      • Philippe says:

        rape is illegal.

        • Major-Freedom says:

          What is “legal” is what the state enforces.

          The constitution does not matter to them..

  9. Philippe says:

    “Aggressive rape and aggressive war are forbidden, and thus precluded if the NAP is obeyed.”

    “A war of aggression, sometimes also war of conquest, is a military conflict waged without the justification of self-defense, usually for territorial gain and subjugation. The phrase is distinctly modern and diametrically opposed to the prior legal international standard of “might makes right”, under the medieval and pre-historic beliefs of right of conquest. Since the Korean War of the early 1950s, waging such a war of aggression is a crime under the customary international law. Possibly the first trial for waging aggressive war is that of Conradin von Hohenstaufen in 1268.[1]

    Wars without international legality (e.g. not out of self-defense nor sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council) can be considered wars of aggression; however, this alone usually does not constitute the definition of a war of aggression; certain wars may be unlawful but not aggressive (a war to settle a boundary dispute where the initiator has a reasonable claim, and limited aims, is one example).

    The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, which followed World War II, called the waging of aggressive war “essentially an evil thing…to initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”[2] Article 39 of the United Nations Charter provides that the UN Security Council shall determine the existence of any act of aggression and “shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggression

    • K.P. says:

      Philippe, has it not been made clear that Bob and libertarians in general have a strict and distinct understanding of what constitutes “aggression”?

      This seems to come up a lot with you.

      • Philippe says:

        their definition of course includes things which others would not define as aggression.

        • K.P. says:

          So? People disagree.

          Perhaps you should debate the actual merits of one definition versus another instead of *repeatedly* pointing out what is already known.

          • Philippe says:

            I already have.

            • K.P. says:

              So you just post long Wiki quotes for no reason then.

              Fair enough.

              • Tel says:

                Maybe he is trying to say that no one cares much about what the UN thinks, just the same as very few people bother to worry about the NAP?

                That’s the only link I can figure out.

            • Philippe says:

              no, I didn’t post them for no reason.

              • Philippe says:

                Bob keeps posting hysterical nonsense and fantasising about what would happen in his ideal world if only everyone just followed his rules.

              • K.P. says:

                They serve no purpose.

                Everyone involved seems to be aware of the fact that “aggression” isn’t universally understood.

                “Bob keeps posting hysterical nonsense and fantasising about what would happen in his ideal world if only everyone just followed his rules.”

                And the appropriate response is to copy/paste long Wikipedia articles?

              • Philippe says:

                wars of aggression are already illegal under international law.

                genocide is already illegal.

                rape is already illegal. Not just “aggressive rape”.

                slavery is already illegal.

                Now, wars still happen, even wars of aggression. Which indicates that just making something illegal doesn’t necessarily stop it from happening, or mean that criminals necessarily get punished. So saying that people should just follow right-wing ‘libertarian’ rules doesn’t mean anything.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                posting hysterical nonsense and fantasising about what would happen in his ideal world if only everyone just followed his rules

                If the NAP is OBSERVED, by definition, there is no aggressive violence. It’s just logical.

                If the NAP is OBSERVED, people who are not engaging in aggressive violence may not be subject to aggressive or retaliatory violence (another logical proposition).

                If the NAP is OBSERVED, people who are employing non-violent sanctions on others are not engaged in aggressive violence and may not be subject to aggressive or retaliatory violence. It’s only logical.

                Your attacks are endless examples of the same endless name-calling and obfuscation.

              • Philippe says:

                “if only everyone just followed his rules”

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe,

                Yeah, the potential rape victim insisting on rules for their own body is dictatorial because “if only everyone just followed the individual’s rules” for their own body.

              • Philippe says:

                You don’t understand.

                Fantazising about what the world would be like if everyone just followed your rules doesn’t achieve anything in itself.

                You say “there should be no aggressive rape” (you are perfectly fine with rape, just not “aggressive rape”). Yeah, ok. Great.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “Fantazising about what the world would be like if everyone just followed your rules doesn’t achieve anything in itself.”

                Sure it does. It achieves you learning that you’re wrong.

                “You say “there should be no aggressive rape” (you are perfectly fine with rape, just not “aggressive rape”). Yeah, ok. Great.”

                Not an argument.

            • Major-Freedom says:

              Where?

        • Bob Roddis says:

          their definition of course includes things which others would not define as aggression.

          Like what?

          • Philippe says:

            like anything you don’t like, such as government spending , money printing, taxation, regulation.

            • Major-Freedom says:

              No, it’s not based merely on what people “don’t like.”

              You keep straw manning people. You keep trying to accuse them of grounding their entire worldview on mere assumption, opinions, and nothing more.

              You are of course doing so, so as to make the arguments appear as weaker than they really are, because YOUR arguments are weaker.

              • Philippe says:

                yes it is completely based on what you don’t like.

                Your entire worldview is based on assumptions and opinions.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                No it is not based merely on what is not liked.

                I don’t like some of the outcomes of individual liberty. But I advocate for it anyway because it’s the most just.

                No, it’s not mere opinions and assumptions. You only WANT them to be such, because that is what YOUR worldview is based on, and your beliefs wouldn’t otherwise be able to compete.

                Bring others down to the quality of your beliefs, and pretend. That’s all you’re doing.

              • Philippe says:

                No, that is what YOUR worldview is based on.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                No, that is what YOUR worldview is based on.

                Prove me wrong.

              • Philippe says:

                No, that is what YOUR worldview is based on. Prove me wrong.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                No, that is what YOUR worldview is based on. Prove me wrong.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                I don’t want to deal with Obama.

                Why should I have to leave my own home, rather than his hired goons?

                Obama did not trade for my house, nor did he homestead it.

                Your ethics are messed up.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                You still have not provided a logical argument for why the state is not inherently an initiator of violence and morally unjust.

                Are you ever going to make an attempt? Or are you going to continue spewing just your assumptions and opinions all unsubstantiated?

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Bonus points if you will ACT in accordance with your stated ethics, instead of acting like an anarcho-capitalist and respecting my property rights and not initiating force against me, and not assuming we have a de facto contract in place merely by virtue of me existing, or residing on my own land.

                LOL

              • Philippe says:

                “acting like an anarcho-capitalist”

                I don’t act like an anarcho-capitalist. I don’t have a problem with paying taxes for example.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “I don’t have a problem with paying taxes for example.”

                You have no problems with tax money being used to finance the slaughter of innocent people in oil rich countries, and financing the drug war?

                Wow Philippe, and you call anarcho-capitalists morally suspect..

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “Everything seems to indicate that Science was born in the form of Myth. A Myth is a theory — that is, a discursive revelation of the real. Of course, it is supposed to be in agreement with the given real. But in fact, it always goes beyond its givens, and once beyond them, it only has to be coherent — i.e., free of internal contradictions — in order to make a show of truth. The period of Myth is a period of monologue, and in this period one demonstrates nothing because one “discusses” nothing, since one is not yet faced with a contrary or simply different opinion. And that is precisely why there is true or false “myth” or “opinion” (doxa), but no “science” or “truth” properly so-called.

                “Then, by chance, the man who has an opinion, or who has created or adopted a myth, comes up against a different myth or a contrary opinion. This man will first try to get rid of it: either by plugging up his ears in some way, by an internal or external 94 censoring”; or by overcoming (in the non-dialectical sense of the term) the adverse myth or opinion, by putting to death or banishing its propagators, for example, or by acts of violence that will force the others to say the same thing as he (even if they do not think the same thing).

                “But it can happen (and we know that this actually did happen one day, somewhere) that the man begins to discuss with his adversary. By an act of freedom he can decide to want to “convince” him, by “refuting” him and by “demonstrating” his own Point of view. To this end he speaks with his adversary, he engages in a dialogue with him: he uses a dialectical method. And it is by becoming a dialectician that the man of myth or opinion becomes a scientist or a philosopher.” – Kojeve, “Introduction to the Reading of Hegel.”

  10. Philippe says:

    Genocide:

    “In 1946, the first session of the United Nations General Assembly… adopted a resolution that “affirmed” that genocide was a crime under international law, but did not provide a legal definition of the crime. In 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which legally defined the crime of genocide for the first time.[19]

    The CPPCG was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948 and came into effect on 12 January 1951 (Resolution 260 (III)). It contains an internationally recognized definition of genocide which was incorporated into the national criminal legislation of many countries, and was also adopted by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC).”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide#Genocide_as_a_crime

    • Bob Roddis says:

      The answer to your “questions” is that there is not currently a universal regime of an enforced NAP. There are a zillion and one exceptions to self ownership of one’s person and property including massive economic regulation and manipulation. Laws permitting economic regulation and manipulation grant authority those who control the state to loot and murder under the guise of a “you may not question the wisdom of the legislature on economic regulation” theory of the state. As we libertarians never tire of explaining, such a regime tends to engage in the same wars, genocide and rapes as those about which you are complaining because rights are universally violated in the name of an alleged “greater good” and for curing alleged “market failures” that are in fact caused by violent intervention in the first place. There would be none of these exceptions under a regime of a strictly enforced NAP. Thanks again for proving our point.

      • Philippe says:

        “Laws permitting economic regulation”

        Most people don’t consider those to be a form of violence or aggression. You do, because of your particular unusual political and moral ideology.

        “Laws permitting economic regulation and manipulation grant authority those who control the state to loot and murder”

        No, laws permitting ‘economic regulation’ do not grant authority to loot and murder. You are simply using emotive rhetoric without any real argument.

        • Philippe says:

          “such a regime tends to engage in the same wars, genocide and rapes as those about which you are complaining because rights are universally violated in the name of an alleged “greater good” and for curing alleged “market failures” that are in fact caused by violent intervention in the first place.”

          This sentence does not make logical sense. You are sticking words together to express your obsessions and hatreds rather than making a logical argument.

          “market failures” that are in fact caused by violent intervention in the first place”

          You clearly have no familiarity at all with the extensive economics literature on ‘market failure’.

          • Bob Roddis says:

            I am very familiar with the claims of “market failure”. One always finds a violent intervention as the cause of the problem. The analysis is called “Austrian Economics” You might try learning about it one day.

          • guest says:

            You clearly have no familiarity at all with the extensive economics literature on ‘market failure’.

            [Time stamped]
            Is the Free Market to Blame for Booms and Busts?
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbCXdLtcc1M#t=16m18s

            Topic 1: Booms and Busts
            Claims that B-B Are Inherent to the UME
            Market Failure: sticky prices and wages

            Market Failure: inadequate spending

            Market Failure: price deflation

            Also covered in this video:

            Answering the Same Old Arguments Against Sound Money | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
            [www]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-PxMzSyujw

            • Philippe says:

              “I am very familiar with the claims of “market failure”

              Nothing you have written that I have seen has ever indicated this.

              guest, one day you should try watching a video or reading a paper by someone who doesn’t work for the Mises institute.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                guest, one day you should try watching a video or reading a paper by someone who doesn’t work for the Mises institute.

                A typical ad hominem insult without any substance whatsoever.

              • Philippe says:

                the sort of thing you write all the time Bob.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Glad you admit it Philippe.

              • Philippe says:

                my sentence isn’t an admission if you read what it actually says.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                It wasn’t an explicit admission.

                It was like “Nyahh” as a response.

                You’ve never even attempted a logical argument for why the state is not inherently an initiator of violence, and thus morally illegitimate.

                You have only said:

                1. “Most people believe.”

                2. “That is just your opinion.”

                3. “You have strange assumptions.”

                You got nothing.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                You have not provided any logical argument for why the state is not inherently an initiator of violence.

        • Bob Roddis says:

          Most people don’t consider those to be a form of violence or aggression.

          What most people “think” is irrelevant. They are functionally acts of violence and aggression although many people “think” such acts are necessary. The issue is whether this form of violence and aggressivion is good and necessary. The fact that someone wants to argue that it is good and necessary does not change the fact that it is a clear form of violence and aggression.

          Stop distorting the language.

          • Philippe says:

            “What most people “think” is irrelevant.”

            Spoken like a true dictator.

            “They are functionally acts of violence and aggression”

            Your strange political ideology labels them as such for ideological reasons, whilst labelling other things that others would consider to be aggression as non-aggression.

            To label them as aggression you have to make a whole load of right-wing ‘libertarian’ assumptions which most people reject, such as that governments are completely illegitimate organizations which have no right to own anything.

            • Bob Roddis says:

              You are completely wrong, as always. Actually, while violating the Courtesy Code, you are just plain lying. The acts about which we complain are EXACTLY the same acts which if performed by non-state actors would be crimes or torts.

              Exactly the same.

              I guess I’m going to have to waste more time and provide a list common law crimes and torts element by element to prove my self-evident point.

              If someone practices medicine without a license, what happens? Ultimately, he’s dragged off to jail. ABSENT THE ALLEGED JUSTIFICATION, the acts involved amount to criminal assault and kidnapping. The only issue is whether the violence is good, necessary and justified. How can this possibly be an issue of dispute?

              • Philippe says:

                “The acts about which we complain are EXACTLY the same acts which if performed by non-state actors would be crimes or torts.”

                Spending? No, of course not?

                Charging people fees, fines, tolls, dues, rents? No, of course not.

                Issuing paper financial assets? No, of course not.

                Making rules? No, of course not.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe, it’s “Of course yes” to all those you listed.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                Charging people fees, fines, tolls, dues, rents? No, of course not.

                At the point of a gun, it is armed robbery.

                Issuing paper financial assets? No, of course not.

                Fraud and embezzlement.

                If it’s voluntary, who can object? But it’s not voluntary, or there would not be punishment for failure to obey.

              • Philippe says:

                “At the point of a gun, it is armed robbery”

                If I don’t pay private fees, debts, rents etc, eventually “men with guns” turn up and take me away.

                http://gene-callahan.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/my-mortgage-payments-stolen-from-me-at.html

                “Fraud and embezzlement”

                Obviously issuing financial assets is not fraud or embezzlement.

                “But it’s not voluntary, or there would not be punishment for failure to obey.”

                There are punishments for failure to comply with all sorts of private rules.

                Your argument is really very simple. You believe that you should be able to choose to live in a society without having to abide by the rules of that society if you don’t want to. That’s all there is to it really.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “If I don’t pay private fees, debts, rents etc, eventually “men with guns” turn up and take me away.”

                Wow. You’ve already been corrected on this Philippe.

                For the millionth time, you don’t have to deal with that particular private seller if you don’t want to. If you don’t want the services and you don’t want to pay, then it would be immoral for that seller to nevertheless threaten you with violence if you don’t pay.

                But the government behaves like a private seller who won’t take no for an answer. Even if you do not want the services of spying, war mongering, shitty roads, shitty schools that none of your kids go to, you are still required to pay and if you don’t pay, then you don’t even have the option of opting out of the services either.

                It would be like someone threatening you with violence if you don’t pay them what they want, and as this happens, they drop off a $4 gift card at Wal-Mart at your door, and claims that because they gave you “something”, it means their threat to shoot you was just to enforce an agreement “akin” to a private contract.

                “Obviously issuing financial assets is not fraud or embezzlement.”

                It isn’t just issuing financial assets. It is threatening people with violence if they don’t pay in dollars, even if they don’t accept dollars in any exchanges.

                “There are punishments for failure to comply with all sorts of private rules.”

                YOU ARE NOT PRE-CONTRACTED in private life.

                You are not thrown into a private contract regardless of what you want, then forced to pay, and forced into a cage if you don’t want to deal with those people..

                “Your argument is really very simple. You believe that you should be able to choose to live in a society without having to abide by the rules of that society if you don’t want to. That’s all there is to it really.”

                You are conflating rules with the state. And you are conflating the state with society.

                The state is neither society or is it a fair rule enforcer. It enforces different rules for itself that it considers immoral if anyone else did it.

              • Philippe says:

                no, you’ve not corrected me. All you’ve done is make your usual ideological assertions.

                “you don’t have to deal with that particular private seller if you don’t want to”

                You don’t have to live in this society if you don’t want to. But you do want to, and you choose to do so. But you don’t want to have to abide by its rules. That is all there is to your argument.

                “You are conflating rules with the state. And you are conflating the state with society.”

                The state is the legal structure of society, so it’s difficult to separate them.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “no, you’ve not corrected me.”

                Yes, I have corrected you.

                “All you’ve done is make your usual ideological assertions.”

                All you have done is make your usual ideological assertions.

                “you don’t have to deal with that particular private seller if you don’t want to”

                “You don’t have to live in this society if you don’t want to.”

                Obama doesn’t own the country.

                You’re still conflating the state with society.

                The state is not society.

                “But you do want to, and you choose to do so.”

                If you stay in the country, I will demand you pay me 30% of your paycheck. If you don’t like it, then you can leave the country.

                Are you still here? If you are, then according to your ILLOGIC, you now owe me your money.

                “But you don’t want to have to abide by its rules.”

                The rules are unjust, illegitimate, initiating of violence, and immoral.

                Not all “rules” are moral rules.

                Get over yourself already.

                “That is all there is to your argument.”

                You just explained to me your flawed beliefs, and now you’re saying that’s all my arguments are about?

                You don’t even know what you’re arguing anymore.

                You’re just spewing “F U”s at this point.

                “You are conflating rules with the state. And you are conflating the state with society.”

                “The state is the legal structure of society”

                You’re still conflating the state with society.

                “so it’s difficult to separate them.”

                It’s only difficult to people like you who are uninformed and unread.

              • Philippe says:

                “Yes, I have corrected you.”

                No, you haven’t corrected me.

                “Obama doesn’t own the country”

                So what.

                “then according to your ILLOGIC, you now owe me your money”

                But do I owe you any money? No. So I guess your argument doesn’t work.

                “The rules are unjust, illegitimate, initiating of violence, and immoral.”

                Try to change them if that’s what you really believe. Or go elsewhere.

                I said the state is the legal structure. Society is more than the state though. So I’m not conflating them.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “No, you haven’t corrected me.”

                Yes, I have corrected you.

                “Obama doesn’t own the country”

                “So what.”

                So it means your demand that I pay or leave implies Obama owns the land.

                “then according to your ILLOGIC, you now owe me your money”

                “But do I owe you any money? No.”

                According to your illogic, yes, you do.

                “So I guess your argument doesn’t work.”

                Non sequitur. Merely giving your opinion isn’t a logical argument.

                “The rules are unjust, illegitimate, initiating of violence, and immoral.”

                “Try to change them if that’s what you really believe. Or go elsewhere.”

                It is not my obligation to go elsewhere. Obama does not own the land.

                “I said the state is the legal structure. Society is more than the state though. So I’m not conflating them.”

                Yes, you are, because you keep claiming that for me to be a part of society, I must obey the state.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                The state is an illegitimate legal structure. The “legal” refers only to itself and its rules, not to what is moral or just.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                If I don’t want to follow your house rules, then who must leave the other alone? Me or you? Me right? Why? Because I do not own your home. You do. If you don’t want to deal with my “legal structure”, my “laws”, my “society”, then you do not have the obligation to leave your home. I do.

                Same thing if you don’t want to deal with Obama or his goons. You are not obligated to leave your home. He and his goons are morally obligated to leave you alone and not threaten you with force if you don’t want to deal with him.

                This is the kind of logical argument that is totally absent in your writings.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “Try to change them”

                Try to change them how? By initiating the same kind of aggression myself by wanting to impose rules on others regarding their own property that is not an initiation of force against me?

              • Philippe says:

                “Yes, I have corrected you”.

                No, you haven’t corrected me.

                “your demand that I pay or leave implies Obama owns the land”

                I don’t demand. I just don’t agree with your ideology. Nothing I’ve said implies Obama owns all the land.

                If I owe you money then send me a bill.

                Ideally we want our laws to be just. I don’t think ‘anarcho-capitalism’ is just. I think it’s a ridiculous, juvenile and deranged political ideology.

                “This is the kind of logical argument that is totally absent in your writings.”

                Lol. All you are doing is asserting that your real estate ownership somehow entitles you a complete exemption from the rules of the society in which you live. Do you even spend all your life just on your real estate? No, so why even make such a silly argument?

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “No, you haven’t corrected me.”

                Yes, I have corrected you.

                “your demand that I pay or leave implies Obama owns the land”

                “I don’t demand. I just don’t agree with your ideology.”

                Not agreeing with my ideology that I ought not be demanded, logically implies that yes, you do demand.

                “Nothing I’ve said implies Obama owns all the land.”

                Yes, a lot of what you said implies it.

                “If I owe you money then send me a bill.”

                If you don’t pay, then according to your illogic, people have a right to use force against you, even if you don’t consent to any of it. You’re still here, so according to your illogic, you now owe money at the threat of violence.

                “Ideally we want our laws to be just. I don’t think ‘anarcho-capitalism’ is just.”

                Why not?

                “I think it’s a ridiculous, juvenile and deranged political ideology.”

                Not an argument. That is just ridiculous, juvenile and deranged prattling.

                “This is the kind of logical argument that is totally absent in your writings.”

                “Lol. All you are doing is asserting that your real estate ownership somehow entitles you a complete exemption from the rules of the society in which you live.”

                You again conflate the state with society.

                No, I don’t want to live according to no rules.

                I want to live according to just and moral rules.

                Yes, I and every other individual is by default “exempt” from the rules anyone else would impose on their persons and property.

                In anarcho-capitalism, the only rule nobody is exempt from, is the rule that you cannot initiate force against other people’s persons or (homesteaded property.

                Is that what you call “ridiculous”?

                If you think that’s ridiculous, then you think holding initiations of violence for pete’s sake, is ridiculous.

                I know who’s ridiculous.

                “Do you even spend all your life just on your real estate?”

                The state does not own the land between estates. If I wanted to travel from estate to estate, then I would only be obligated to pay or obey the rules of the homesteaders of the roads.

                “No, so why even make such a silly argument?”

                What silly argument? You’re imputing an argument to me that I do not even hold.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “I think it’s a ridiculous, juvenile and deranged political ideology”

                You have not SHOWN that.

                You just keep claiming it without substantiation.

                No logic in your arguments.

              • Philippe says:

                “Yes, I have corrected you.”

                Nope.

                “you now owe money at the threat of violence”

                Send me the bill then.

                “The state does not own the land between estates”.

                Yes it does.

                “If I wanted to travel from estate to estate, then I would only be obligated to pay or obey the rules of the homesteaders of the roads.”

                You don’t live in ancapistan.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “Nope.”

                Yup.

                “you now owe money at the threat of violence”

                “Send me the bill then.”

                The bill is verbal, like at some buskers and restaurants.

                You owe me $5000 in exchange for not leaving the country.

                “The state does not own the land between estates”.

                “Yes it does.”

                No, it doesn’t. Neither Obama nor his goons, nor anyone in congress, nor anyone in the supreme court, homesteaded that land nor freely traded for it.

                Your definition of ownership is based on who wages the most naked violence and is physically strongest.

                To you, might makes right.

                To you, the state owns by virtue of its use of force, not by virtue of rational arguments, logic, or morality.

                To you, if 51% declare ownership over any territory of land, including land where there are already homesteaders and home dwellers, where they declare ownership over their lands at gunpoint, then ownership is now rightfully and ethically with the 51%.

                To you, might makes right.

                “If I wanted to travel from estate to estate, then I would only be obligated to pay or obey the rules of the homesteaders of the roads.”

                “You don’t live in ancapistan.”

                Because thugs who practisenwhat you preach, use threats of violence to stop voluntary peaceful secession.

                You don’t live in North Korea, where the government is believed to own the whole country.

                You advocate for feudalism.

            • Major-Freedom says:

              Philippe:

              “To label them as aggression you have to make a whole load of right-wing ‘libertarian’ assumptions which most people reject, such as that governments are completely illegitimate organizations which have no right to own anything.”

              All “assumptions” about what is happening are either true or false.

              If you believe the assumption that governments are illegitimate which have no right to own anything is false, then make an argument as to why it’s false.

              This isn’t just people stating opinions.

              You have never even made an attempt at an argument to support your strange ideology.

              Why?

        • Ben B says:

          In other words, don’t waste your time trying to convince Phillipe. He will only accept a theory as correct when most people consider it to be so; focus on everyone else, and eventually Phillipe will follow.

          • Bob Roddis says:

            Didn’t this start with a discussion about Super Mario Bros? However, Philippe constantly proves my point that our opponents engage in nothing but obfuscation about straightforward words and concepts. Piketty’s entire argument about “capitalism” causing problems is just another example of their ubiquitous tactic. They cannot allow the public to understand:

            a) the difference between crony capitalism and laissez faire;

            b) a funny money regime vs. a hard money regime vs. FRB;

            c) positive vs. negative rights;

            d) aggressive violence vs defensive violence;

            e) a voluntary transaction vs. a non-voluntary transaction;

            f) that monopolies generally do not arise on the free market and that big business must and does capture government power to effectuate monopolies; and

            g) that almost all of the economic problems in the modern world are caused by violent intervention which is described either as necessary amf good while the bad outcomes which invariably result are attributed to “capitalism” and “deregulation” (see above).

            • Philippe says:

              “They cannot allow the public to understand”

              You really are extremely paranoid, aren’t you.

              No, they just disagree with your sort of beliefs.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Mere disagreement is not sufficient justification.

              • Bob Roddis says:

                Philippe is still in full obfuscation mode. He’s not actually disputing in a substantive manner any of the points I listed. He’s still stuck on the argument that violent activities that are allegedly justified are not violent activities. That amounts to more obfuscation.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                He is in pure denial mode.

                He resorting to “Most people believe.”

                The root is rotten.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe’s illogic:

                Philippe: “A street criminal who takes your wallet at gunpoint and gives you a $4 gift card to Wal-Mart for your trouble is not robbing you.”

                MF: “But if you don’t give him your money, then he’ll shoot you, so it’s theft.”

                Philippe: “It’s no more theft than you going into a restaurant and refusing to pay for your food.”

                He is so brainwashed his brain is having a meltdown trying to reconcile the contradictory premises he believes in.

              • Philippe says:

                If a street criminal takes your wallet at gunpoint that is theft and yes it is illegal.

                If you eat a meal in a restaurant and walk out without paying that can also be theft, depending on the situation.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                “If a street criminal takes your wallet at gunpoint that is theft and yes it is illegal.”

                According to your illogic, no it wouldn’t be because he offered you a gift card. Thus, “just like in a restaurant”, his threatening you was justified after all, because he is just making sure you abide by the terms of the “exchange”.

                “If you eat a meal in a restaurant and walk out without paying that can also be theft, depending on the situation.”

                According to your illogic, no, it wouldn’t be, if the eater left a gift card for the waiter. In fact, the waiter would owe the eater money because of the eater’s terms.

              • Philippe says:

                “According to your illogic, no it wouldn’t be because he offered you a gift card.”

                No that’s not what I think, so clearly you’re getting something wrong somewhere.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Philippe:

                “No that’s not what I think, so clearly you’re getting something wrong somewhere.”

                It’s what you’re premises logically entail.

                See what happens when your logic is unsound? Your premises lead to a conclusion that you believe isn’t right, because your other premises are leading you to that particular conclusion.

                You obfuscate when your faulty premises are more closely examined, and you try to move the argument towards your other premises that sound less psychotic.

                Also, you have not provided any logical argument for why the state is not inherently an initiator of violence.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                your

              • Philippe says:

                “It’s what you’re premises logically entail.”

                No it isn’t.

              • Major-Freedom says:

                Yes it is. You just proved it below when you said “If you don’t like it, you can leave the country.”

        • Major-Freedom says:

          “Most people don’t consider those to be a form of violence or aggression.”

          Most people used to think slavery was justified.

          What is your point about what “most people” believe?

          What most people believe is NOT any rational grounds for truth or justice.

          If 99.99999999999% of the world believed it was moral to kill or rape or steal from an individual, then it’s still immoral.

        • Major-Freedom says:

          Philippe:

          “No, laws permitting ‘economic regulation’ do not grant authority to loot and murder. ”

          Yes, they do. If you don’t obey the non-property owner thugs in government, who tell you what to do with your own property, then you will be looted, or thrown into a cage if you refuse to pay the loot.

          You are providing ZERO logical arguments.

          • Philippe says:

            you are the one providing zero logical arguments. You are just renaming things and making ideological assertions.

            • Major-Freedom says:

              You still have ZERO logical arguments.

              I am providing logical arguments. You are unsurprisingly dodging them.

              I am not renaming anything. I am correctly claiming that your naming of actions are based on flawed reasoning.

              You’re making ideological assertions.

              You’re not providing any logical argument for why the state is not inherently an initiator of violence. None. Zero. Nada.

            • Major-Freedom says:

              “Most people disagree with you” is not a logical argument.

            • Major-Freedom says:

              Neither is “You’re just making assumptions and renaming words.”

            • Major-Freedom says:

              Philippe:

              You have not provided any logical argument for why the state is not inherently an initiator of violence.

  11. Bob Roddis says:

    Bob Murphy was on the Tom Woods show today and made in interesting and essential point. If people are good enough to write a constitution and respect the outcome of an election, they are probably good and decent enough to operate under AnCap. More importantly, if the population consists of people who are engaged constant blood feuds and engage in knife fights at the drop of a hat, how is granting a special group of them a monopoly on state violence going to help things?

    http://www.schiffradio.com/f/Tom-Woods

  12. Richie says:

    I miss Ken B.

    • Dan says:

      I don’t. As of now, Philippe is the only person I ignore. It’s hard enough to find the more interesting debates in these threads with so many people wasting time responding to him. Add in Ken, and there’d be an extra 150 comments I’d wish I could block.

      • Richie says:

        That’s very true. I wrote that only because I find Philippe (slightly) more annoying than Ken B., and I thought that would be impossible.

  13. Bob Roddis says:

    I think we’ve scoured the depths of the insights of Philippe Milhous Nixon and his meme “If the government commits violence (and a majority likes it), it’s not violence. The next time the tactic is attempted, just yawn and link to this page.

    • Dan says:

      Better yet, just ignore him. There is no requirement that we have to respond to everyone and everything we disagree with.

      • Bob Roddis says:

        Good point. I had been mostly ignoring him for months.

      • Richie says:

        Agree.

      • Major-Freedom says:

        I won’t give up on him.

Leave a Reply to skylien

Cancel Reply