My "Political Philosophy"

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What kind of problem can be better solved by monopoly and violence than by competition and selection?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this argument. I promote some 'thing' that in my view was solved on an idealistic a non-profit basis that went against the market, and then the political economics guy (well in this case replaced by the AC economics guy, aka you) put it into a 'hindsight' model and tells me it all lead to the betterment and higher efficiency of mankind, hence it was an economic progress. Results orientation for the win or the real deal? Who knows - and then we'd go back and forth for 24 hours in a grim version of the economic calculation debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

It means I don't believe it when people have simple solutions for complex problems regarding millions of humans, and that my rhetoric radar flies through the roof when a theory for how society should be apparently has no flaws.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What kind of problem can be better solved by monopoly and violence than by competition and selection?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this argument. I promote some 'thing' that in my view was solved on an idealistic a non-profit basis that went against the market, and then the political economics guy (well in this case replaced by the AC economics guy, aka you) put it into a 'hindsight' model and tells me it all lead to the betterment and higher efficiency of mankind, hence it was an economic progress. Results orientation for the win or the real deal? Who knows - and then we'd go back and forth for 24 hours in a grim version of the economic calculation debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

It means I don't believe it when people have simple solutions for complex problems regarding millions of humans, and that my rhetoric radar flies through the roof when a theory for how society should be apparently has no flaws.

[/ QUOTE ]


Step One
Find some people.

Step Two
Arm them.

Step Three
Help them disarm everyone else.

Step Four
Give them enormous amounts of money.

Step Five
Give them your wish list.

Step Six
Wait for the solution!


Worst. Meeting. Ever!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/molyneux/molyneux31.html

[tame_deuces]

Sure, democracy is flawed esp whe the 'lead, follow or get out the way' principle seems to be geared towards getting out the way for most people. But then again, I have never claimed it wasn't flawed so I fail to see how it relates to the quote you made of me.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]

Sure, democracy is flawed esp whe the 'lead, follow or get out the way' principle seems to be geared towards getting out the way for most people. But then again, I have never claimed it wasn't flawed so I fail to see how it relates to the quote you made of me.

[/ QUOTE ]


It means that your latest argument is pure projection. You blaim AC for being a one-step perfect solution for millions and millions of people; then I show you how statism is exactly that (and this 'solution' is terrible ofcourse).

This reveals your hypocrisy. Don't use arguments against a non-system (AC), when the argument applies precisely against the thing you are supporting.

The reason for using projection type arguments is to get the focus off the thing you are supporting but to put people on the defensive, whereas it should be you showing the reasons for support of states. But you can't do that so you attack others. But that's the funny thing about projection: the projective arguments that you use are exactly those that you feel are powerful. And the arguments that you feel are powerful are the ones that are powerful *against you*. So we only need to reflect your arguments against your own beliefs to deal with you.


Ofcourse the point where we get some real traction is where you realize what you are doing and take pause and introspect if you actually do have any logical support for your beliefs.

[tame_deuces]

I have tried to avoid attacking anything - though I concede that your posts make it hard - I have questioned what I have read and proposed criticism where I have seen fit, based on what I know, what I have myself researched and studied.

Frankly I tire of your constant aggression and bickering and the way you seem to take anything personal and launch into fits of aggression and oneliner rhetorics. For advocating a system of voluntarism and non-aggression you certainly make a poor ambassador.

And with those words I leave this debate for good, this is not science, math and philosophy anymore - I can learn nothing usable from you and you will not listen to anyone but yourself.

And no offense to the other AC supporters in this thread, you have argued your system well.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
you will not listen to anyone but yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]


Still waiting for the projection-realization to kick in..

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
The number of things I think we "need" a state for a very small (and diminishing).

[/ QUOTE ]

Needing a state implies choosing a state. Is the state voluntary or coercive?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What kind of problem can be better solved by monopoly and violence than by competition and selection?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this argument. I promote some 'thing' that in my view was solved on an idealistic a non-profit basis that went against the market, and then the political economics guy (well in this case replaced by the AC economics guy, aka you) put it into a 'hindsight' model and tells me it all lead to the betterment and higher efficiency of mankind, hence it was an economic progress. Results orientation for the win or the real deal? Who knows - and then we'd go back and forth for 24 hours in a grim version of the economic calculation debate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

It means I don't believe it when people have simple solutions for complex problems regarding millions of humans,

[/ QUOTE ]

The irony of this is amazing. You are the one who claims there is one simple solution for complex problems: monopoly and violence. I am the one who realizes that the best possible way to search a vast solution space is to allow many competitors to investigate that space and allow consumers to choose the best solutions. Market solutions are often anything but "simple". Do you have any idea how complicated it is to make a pencil? No human being on earth could do it. It requires the coordination of literally millions of people, none of whom do their part because they want a pencil. The complete production process for this simplest of modern day devices would be literally impossible to even document fully, much less centrally plan. For a *pencil*.

The beauty of the market is precisely that it produces incredibly complex coordinated solutions without central planning because of the logic of a few simple things; self interest via mutual accomodation, the division of labor and exchange. It is the logic that produces the solutions that is elementary, not the solutions.

[ QUOTE ]
and that my rhetoric radar flies through the roof when a theory for how society should be apparently has no flaws.

[/ QUOTE ]

This again. Who said it doesn't have flaws? A free market anarchic society is made up of *human beings*, who are flawed. There will be murder, rape, theft, hunger, natural disasters, pain and suffering, all the normal things associated with being human. The question is, what is the best process to try to solve these types of problems in the best possible way? I claim nothing more than that a process based on competition and selection will be better at finding solutions than a process based on monopoly and the coercive institutionalization of monopoly solutions. That's it. Nothing more.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

This again. Who said it doesn't have flaws? A free market anarchic society is made up of *human beings*, who are flawed. There will be murder, rape, theft, hungry, natural disasters, pain and suffering, all the normal things associated with being human. The question is, what is the best process to try to solve these types of problems in the best possible way? I claim nothing more than that a process based on competition and selection will be better at finding solutions than a process based on monopoly and the coercive institutionalization of monopoly solutions. That's it. Nothing more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you a great post. I ofcourse also concede that much of your thoughts on the current state of democracy are good and valid points. But posts like this make me realize you are not chasing a pipedream, but see the problems for what they are.

I'm not saying you have made me a believer, but I always like and trust realistic idealists a lot more than I like and trust the fully optimistic ones.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

This again. Who said it doesn't have flaws? A free market anarchic society is made up of *human beings*, who are flawed. There will be murder, rape, theft, hungry, natural disasters, pain and suffering, all the normal things associated with being human. The question is, what is the best process to try to solve these types of problems in the best possible way? I claim nothing more than that a process based on competition and selection will be better at finding solutions than a process based on monopoly and the coercive institutionalization of monopoly solutions. That's it. Nothing more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you a great post. I ofcourse also concede that much of your thoughts on the current state of democracy are good and valid points. But posts like this make me realize you are not chasing a pipedream, but see the problems for what they are.

I'm not saying you have made me a believer, but I always like and trust realistic idealists a lot more than I like and trust the fully optimistic ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too.

Peace.