Citigroup: The rich will continue to get richer at the expense of everyone else

[Kuya]

I think Roth is a little more annoying since it's easier to ignore Leif as his statements are just so anti-reality and absurd on their face that you can easily ignore him. Yet with roth, his arguments carry a facade of reason so you're enticed into reading only to realize you've learned nothing at all.

[Plow]

Chocolate or Vanilla?

It's really pretty much Kuya flavored Leif.

[Cadsuane]

... Plow flavoured Leif. It's perfect.

[Max™]

I think the worst part is, Roth (and I, it seems) is appealing to the apparently imaginary "good" side of people.

Someone brought up a point while I was talking about this, which is both true, and ultra-sad.

"People are assholes, if they weren't, your hippie bullshit would obviously work out wonderfully. Let me know when you can change human nature."

[Rothbardian]

I think the worst part is, Roth (and I, it seems) is appealing to the apparently imaginary "good" side of people.

Someone brought up a point while I was talking about this, which is both true, and ultra-sad.

"People are assholes, if they weren't, your hippie bullshit would obviously work out wonderfully. Let me know when you can change human nature."

If people had no good side, there would be no such thing as Charity, Mutual Aid, or nice guys.



I think a large difference also is I believe people are rational, and those who disagree with me, view people as irrational. A persons behavior for example, is generally easy to predict when factoring in incentives, which is rational behavior. When others look at it, they see it as irrational. Food for thought.

I also believe as did Bastiat, and most other Classical Economists in that intervention breeds conflict. Without the intervention you negate the conflict. An easy way to demonstrate this is to physically take one childs candy bar and give it to another, because the other child is worse off. In turn the former child hates the latter, and conflict arises. By teaching the principles of trade & charity, you cancel conflict. The allegory is in that by taking money from me and giving it to special interests breeds a conflict between me and the special interests, whereas in an environment that did not have expropriation there would be no outside influence to create conflict. I think people mistakenly view conflict as human nature.

Would you agree or disagree Max?

Or you can call me a crazy Cobdenite ideologue

[Kuya]

Roth's analysis of history and in turn human nature flies in the face of every theorist who ever lived.

[Rothbardian]

Roth's analysis of history and in turn human nature flies in the face of every theorist who ever lived.

Except pretty much every liberal in the 17th, 18th, and 19th Century.

[Kuya]

Alright, prove that conflict only arises from intervention between individuals, and that jealousy does not exist without intervention.

[Rothbardian]

Alright, prove that conflict only arises from intervention between individuals, and that jealousy does not exist without intervention.

You are aware by conflict I mean war and violence, right? Let's just take a few quick examples.

How Free-Trade enables peace. Free-trade defined as the free passage of all goods, services, and labor across State boundries, both, to and fro and for unimpeded trade among individuals with no interference through arbitrary authorities (IE; non- contract arbiters).

We must also look at how wars are financed, and they are financed inexorably, by the violent expropriation (State intervention), of your property, which in essence, creates conflict. Conflict only arises out of a violation of your liberty.

In the absence of interventionism, peaceful arbitration methods will be sought to resolve conflict, precisely because peaceful arbitration is far less expensive than fighting wars.

Essentially, the State creates antagonistic class conflict, whenever and where-ever the Negative-sum game is instituted. Since trade, necessarily implies benefits to both parties, and trade is by nature, voluntary, the voluntary order is therefore peaceful, and as conflict free as nature allows considering we live in a world of scarce resources. The only two ways to act (economically) with another person, is either through trade, or through theft. The State acts only through theft. Theft or expropriation by nature gives rise to conflict. The market-place, only acts through trade. One can deduce logically that a world in which the State was abolished, and Free-trade, and Free-Markets reigned would bring in an age of peace. Where instead of turning to war to resolve conflict, we would instead turn to peaceful arbitration (like we do in all market activity).

This is the deontological explanation. I could perhaps better explain through argumentation ethics, so let me know if this isn't clear enough.

I know people don't like it when I reference material or thinkers, but if you are interested in a more elaborated piece let me know!

Edit: This has been the Classical Liberal interpretation of conflict, for nigh 300+ years now.

[Kuya]

I'm not talking about that. You were talking about human nature:

I think a large difference also is I believe people are rational, and those who disagree with me, view people as irrational. A persons behavior for example, is generally easy to predict when factoring in incentives, which is rational behavior. When others look at it, they see it as irrational. Food for thought.

This part speaks of human nature and i took the next paragraph to be following the same theme: human nature. I understood that your understanding of human nature is that humans are rational beings and that conflicts only arise from "interventions". I asked you to prove that conflicsts arise from interventions only, because most philosophers who have spoken on the human condition have always said that lust for power and jealousy have often been at the core of human conflicts. Furthermore, your assertion that humans are rational needs clarification. Humans can be rational, but they are also, and very often irrational. Classical liberalism, as part of the Enlightment, put heavy emphasis on reason, to the detriment of everything else. Assuming that every day humans do function and make decisions based solely on reason. But this view of human nature is not something that most people now a day hold, for good reason. It's not a realistic view of human nature. If you believe that humans are often rational, then you should consult psychology to see otherwise. I also don't feel the need to convince you of this, since i understand most people would side with me on this notion: humans can be rational, if they try to be, but more often than not, they simply aren't.

[Kuya]

We must also look at how wars are financed, and they are financed inexorably, by the violent expropriation (State intervention), of your property, which in essence, creates conflict. Conflict only arises out of a violation of your liberty.

In the absence of interventionism, peaceful arbitration methods will be sought to resolve conflict, precisely because peaceful arbitration is far less expensive than fighting wars.

Essentially, the State creates antagonistic class conflict, whenever and where-ever the Negative-sum game is instituted. Since trade, necessarily implies benefits to both parties, and trade is by nature, voluntary, the voluntary order is therefore peaceful, and as conflict free as nature allows considering we live in a world of scarce resources. The only two ways to act (economically) with another person, is either through trade, or through theft. The State acts only through theft. Theft or expropriation by nature gives rise to conflict. The market-place, only acts through trade. One can deduce logically that a world in which the State was abolished, and Free-trade, and Free-Markets reigned would bring in an age of peace. Where instead of turning to war to resolve conflict, we would instead turn to peaceful arbitration (like we do in all market activity).

I'll humour you. I want you (or i want you to point me to someone who can) comprehensively answer the following:

1- You state that conflict arises out of violent expropriation, and this expropriatiation happens due to wars. What gives rise to wars, and can you show enough documented proof that your conclusion is backed by reality? I want you to point out specific wars, and point to their causes, and tell me how your ideas are proven by concrete historical events.

2- In another area you state that peaceful means will be used if interventionism isn't used, because the former is less expensive than the latter. Can you prove that money or cost is the only motivator of engaging conflict? Also, explain what that statement meant: Is it saying that without a State capable of war, peaceful means will be relied upon to solve conflicts? Is there no negative consequence to this? A State that cannot tax in order to go to war, might not be able to engage in aggresive war, but it also means it cannot engage in defensive war.

3- How does the State create antagonistic class conflict? Where does the State and social class come from?

4- Justify that trade implies benefit for both parties or that it is inherently peaceful and voluntary- explain why this is true, and how you prove it. Explain the trade relationship between the US and Latin American countries within the 20th century, trade of raw materials for manufactured goods, and tell me how it was voluntary and beneficial for both parties.

5- Prove that a State acts only through theft. By proof, you will have to show that there has never been a State that has not acted through theft. Define what you mean by theft. Define what you mean by State.

6- I will not ask you to prove the 'age of peace' part. That is too lofty and unserious to even consider.

[Olo401]

I'm beginning to remember why I put Roth on my block list..

[Max™]

Note, this wasn't directed to me, nor am I certain how Roth will answer, but some of these I think I can tell what he will generally say, and some I have answers for in a sense.

I'll humour you. I want you (or i want you to point me to someone who can) comprehensively answer the following:

1- You state that conflict arises out of violent expropriation, and this expropriatiation happens due to wars. What gives rise to wars, and can you show enough documented proof that your conclusion is backed by reality? I want you to point out specific wars, and point to their causes, and tell me how your ideas are proven by concrete historical events.

He says that War arises, not conflict, and the expropriation in question is taxation.

The issue here not BEING the taxation itself, it being over the validity of any entity to simply claim it can take property from an individual, which is generally one of the biggest issues anarchists have with nations/states.

If I go and get in a fight with my neighbor because he took my lawnmower, that is not a war, nor am I likely to escalate to the same level.

If one nation claims it has the right to tax, generally it implies that no other can tax, nor that any other entity can apply violence.

When two nations making the same claim have an interaction, it is generally through trade, or warfare, which one can argue is merely forced trade, or more neutrally that it is an economic transaction which exists between nationstates.

2- In another area you state that peaceful means will be used if interventionism isn't used, because the former is less expensive than the latter. Can you prove that money or cost is the only motivator of engaging conflict? Also, explain what that statement meant: Is it saying that without a State capable of war, peaceful means will be relied upon to solve conflicts? Is there no negative consequence to this? A State that cannot tax in order to go to war, might not be able to engage in aggresive war, but it also means it cannot engage in defensive war.

This varies depending on Libertarian or Anarcho-Capitalist modes, really.

You can (theoretically, at least) have a police agency which doesn't owe allegiance to a state, rather owing allegiance to customers. Do security companies force people to buy from them? Is that a good way to get more customers?

Do they find it is best to be reactive, and protect their customers, to get more business?

Nations are essentially super-security agencies that don't give that option, but also claim they have the right to do this.

If there was one group without a national umbrella over them, and an aggressive neighbor, they could at most hope for protection from private security forces.

If there were only groups without national umbrellas, is it rational to expect private security forces would go around making people accept their services?

3- How does the State create antagonistic class conflict? Where does the State and social class come from?

The state comes from the idea that it is allowed to exist in the first place. That is all it is, an idea that is put forth by a group, generally after seizing lands, or claiming independence from another group.

Social class is much more complex, but under a statist umbrella it is generally impossible to avoid, due to the relationship between those in control, and the rest of the populace snuggling up under their protection.

Without the top layer claiming unique privileges over the rest, it is harder to "prove" a social distinction exists, perhaps?

4- Justify that trade implies benefit for both parties or that it is inherently peaceful and voluntary- explain why this is true, and how you prove it. Explain the trade relationship between the US and Latin American countries within the 20th century, trade of raw materials for manufactured goods, and tell me how it was voluntary and beneficial for both parties.

Compare trade to tax in this part?

Trade between individuals, and trade between nations is also a significantly different concept. If I want to benefit from the farmlands my neighbor uses, I can try to claim I have rights over his work, and force him to give me produce.

or

I can claim I have rights over my work, and bargain with him to exchange some of my product for his, and upon reaching some sort of agreement we can commence trade.

5- Prove that a State acts only through theft. By proof, you will have to show that there has never been a State that has not acted through theft. Define what you mean by theft. Define what you mean by State.

If I get a group of people together and claim I can delegate land rights, tax those who work the land, exert military force, set values, and exclude others from doing this, I have formed a state.

Is there a way to do THAT, without having military force to back it up? If I come over to your house and tell you that I now own your land, your property, that a portion of your home belongs to your neighbor because I said so, and that you both have to pay me taxes... are you going to go along with it?

How about if I have a small army, and a tank behind me as I make this claim?

6- I will not ask you to prove the 'age of peace' part. That is too lofty and unserious to even consider.

Dunno what the age of peace thing is about myself.


Essentially, if you want to get any answer to a question from the perspective of an anarcho-capitalist, start with these two axioms: self ownership, and non-aggression.

I can claim rightfully that my ownership of my self trumps all claims, I can extend that logically to the effort I exert upon working, and claim that I should be compensated should someone else benefit from my labor improving something they receive.

If I claim a swath of land, and do nothing with it, is that claim valid?

If someone were to come in without knowing of my claim, clear a patch of "my" land, farm it, and raise the general value of the land by "mixing his work" with it, is it truly my land?

I can also claim that I do not have the right to attack anyone, to steal the product of their labor, and accordingly I can claim no one has the right to attack me, or deprive me of the products of my labor.


Which is why you often hear Jesus brought up, as it's basically the golden rule, in combination with a refusal to recognize kings or states as valid entities, that makes one truly an anarchist.


I want to ask this: why is a state/nation valid?

[wagon]

Yes, libertarian ideas are so impractical, yet, so simple, but your Statist ideas are so practicable, but yet so complex. You have thus turned Occam's Razor on its head. It continously amazes me that people continue to believe that a system so complex that even its controllers don't fully understand, is practicable, but simple systems such as libertarianism are discounted as impracticable. If the voluntary order is impractical, then by logic, only the totalitarian order is practicable, yet, history proves you wrong. For most of human history, humans have lived under totalitarianism. Under those regimes, those societies were impoverished. Where freedom, and liberty, was tried, those societies flourished. Where the compulsory order, was limited or abolished, prosperity reigned.

Continue to peddle your bullshit elsewhere. (I could delve into a long intellectual diatribe, on why are you are wrong point by point, but apparently many members here do not like it when I do that...so I'll refrain..for now ;p)

Always reminds me of John Holt. Libertarianism is the natural order.

You're typing but you are not saying anything. You remind me of an episode of Lost. Tell me, why are you a libertarian? What intriguing benefits does it have so compelling you swear by it? Remember, none of that "it's the natural order" bs.

[Max™]

[William Wallace]FFFFFFFFFFRRRRREEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMM[/William Wallace]

It isn't just about "what government gives me the most goodies", it's about "what government is the least wrong for existing". The government is best which governs least.

[wagon]

I think a large difference also is I believe people are rational, and those who disagree with me, view people as irrational. A persons behavior for example, is generally easy to predict when factoring in incentives, which is rational behavior. When others look at it, they see it as irrational. Food for thought.

Libertarians by definition embrace the abolition of the state or anarchism, and in the absence of a central government, there's no protection of individual rights, security and property, and society as a whole will be worse off and degenerate to the state of "poor, brutish, and short" (Dave Hume). If libertarians are as rational as you led us to believe, then why would they prefer anarchism over an efficient, secure, orderly way of life? Either way, libertarianism resembles very much like a set of contradictory ideas that has no practical value.

[Max™]

Assuming people to be rational, why would society break down automatically without the presence of a state keeping everyone in line?

If we are rational, we do not need a state, if we need a state, we are not rational.


Perhaps it is foolish to expect better of people than brutish savagery, you're right.



Edit: fucking lol @government being efficient, secure, and orderly, can I buy some pot from you?

Double edit: wait, I forgot you aren't allowed to smoke pot, government said it's not allowed.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Extremist ideologies are fun and should be entertained by thousand+ word posts.

[wagon]

Assuming people to be rational, why would society break down automatically without the presence of a state keeping everyone in line?

If we are rational, we do not need a state, if we need a state, we are not rational.


Perhaps it is foolish to expect better of people than brutish savagery, you're right.



Edit: fucking lol @government being efficient, secure, and orderly, can I buy some pot from you?

Double edit: wait, I forgot you aren't allowed to smoke pot, government said it's not allowed.

Because it's rational for the strong to take advantage of the weak in the absence of government or mediating entity. I was not just alluding to government, I meant a society with written rules. Compared to an anarchy, a society with written rules is far more efficient, secure and orderly. A government that enforces rules is prerequisite to such a society. I am not arguing whether ALL the rules are just, that's another topic, but that the existence and enforcement of rules make our lives better off. Really? You would trade your first amendment or any earthly rights (given by constitution and enforced by government) that you take for granted for the right to smoke pot? fucking hippies

[Max™]

Because it's rational for the strong to take advantage of the weak in the absence of government or mediating entity. I was not just alluding to government, I meant a society with written rules. Compared to an anarchy, a society with written rules is far more efficient, secure and orderly. A government that enforces rules is prerequisite to such a society. I am not arguing whether ALL the rules are just, that's another topic, but that the existence and enforcement of rules make our lives better off. Really? You want to trade your first amendment or any earthly rights (protected by constitution and enforced by government) that you take for granted for the right to smoke pot? fucking hippies

Why can't an anarchist society have written rules?

Anarchist simply means without rulers, not without rules, that is called chaos.

You can have a chaotic society with a government, check out Africa sometime, and you can have rules without a government. You simply can't have government and anarchy at the same time.


Governments don't provide rights, they reward compliance by not taking them all away. Either you have no rights, and it doesn't matter what any government says regarding your rights, or you have unlimited rights, and a government can only limit those which don't serve it's purposes.

Logically my rights end where yours begin, I don't have the right to punch you in the nose, and vice versa. Whether you're strong or weak doesn't matter, if you're not a psychopath, you recognize that other people exist, and have just as much right to live peacefully as you do.

On the other hand, a national government claims THEY can punch you in the nose, and you can't strike back. Naturally there are laws and such in place to keep the citizens happy, and feeling content, but do you really think those are protection from everyone else? What do most of those laws do ultimately, other than protect the citizens from the government?

Are there barbarians at the gate right now?


I assure you I don't take any rights for granted, and that pot has nothing to do with the argument. I haven't smoked pot in almost a decade, or drank alchohol more than twice in the same period.