You're using the argument from effect to debate an argument from first principle. Sure i can spend all day trying to show you how a free society could work and have you shoot down every theory, but instead of doing that the principle of this is to leave the choice to you, what do you want out of a society? The free market caters to this instead of forcing you to choose or you can choose not to use the free market and make your own resources the sky is the limit.
i agree with the other guy completely. what has the church got to do with our beliefs? why should they dictate what we think? finally, capitalism which is the predominant world view IS morally wrong.
And you've dodged all my questions once again. There is no equivocation in my syllogism; there is a textbook case of asserting the consequent in your supposed analogous syllogism, but I highly suspect that you have no grasp of logic. There is nothing that makes good good or bad bad. It is good and that is all there is to it. You have not provided any kind of account of what grounds your numerous assertions. So you have:
I'm not asking what makes good good or bad bad. What I am asking is what standard you use to distinguish between the two. I mean, it is quite evident that we disagree here over what is good and bad in regards to the State and taxation. The question is why. It ultimately points back to where we begin: moral standard (i.e. presupposition) whereby we make ethical judgments. You simply don't comprehend this. It's rather simple stuff.
An APPEAL to consequence? Do your homework again. Not even close.
Again, you failed to explicate "absolute". I've told you my moral "system", and whatever my grounds for it are it seems that neither of us disagree that theft is wrong. My question, again, is what do you disagree with in the following:
1) Theft is taking something that doesn't belong to you (someone else's property) without their consent.
2) Taxation is taking someone else's property without their consent.
You are a waste of my time. You have most certainly NOT told me what your system is. You have said that good is good and bad is bad, but you never once identified the standard by which you make such value judgments or why it would be binding on anyone but you.
Your 2 is the fallacy of equivocation.
Husbands are men
My friend Parker is a man
Therefore, Parker is a married man
Too bad Parker is single. Once again, your syllogism sucks.
You know nothing of economics, nothing of anarcho-capitalism and nothing of ethics. You bandy words like "presupposition" and "standard" as if they are magic words that make your case. Of course, you never explicate the reasons why you think theft is permissible or why the market is an ethical device.
Here's some advice. Pick up a book on Austrian economics before you nosedive into the floor. On second thought, nosedive before you make another video like this. It might keep your mouth shut.
I know plenty regarding the first two, and spent years of my life studying the last one.
Those words aren't the trump card. Words, in and of themselves are arbitrary. It is what those words point to that matter. In this case, they point to the foundation or starting point whereupon you make moral judgments and by what force you consider them normative or binding. This is elementary on more than one level.
I have read plenty of material by those identified with the Austrian School. I have read works of Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Rockwell, Gary North, and those whose material can be found at Rockwell's site. Furthermore, there is plenty of audio and written material at Rockwell's Mises Institute. My familiarity shouldn't be in question. I simply disagree with them, and my disagreement stems, in large part, from first things.
It might keep my mouth shut? Wow. The weak resort to such remarks. Petty.
I don't know what you mean by "private property" isn't absolute. It's a right, and to take something that doesn't belong to you is theft.
Paleo, are you saying that what's wrong isn't wrong? Or are you asking how we know what's wrong? One question is epistemological, another metaphysical. My moral standard is goodness. What transgresses goodness is wrong. Moral facts supervene naturally, though not logically, on states of affairs. What is your moral standard? God said so? A book?
I agree that it is a right, but you assume, given your ethical presuppositions, that a right is both good and absolute. You place ethical parameters round and about it, though never really dealing with what moral system you resort to.
Your moral standard is goodness. Well, that's good. So is mine. Yet we come to two different views? The communist would say the same. What moral standard or ethical rule do you use to declare one thing as good and another as bad? This is 101 stuff.
Who said I don't have evidence? Perhaps you are projecting, but I simply said there is nothing novel about my definition of the function of market. That leaves out the question of whether or not I have evidence for it. But I can't even understand your question. What do you mean "evidence" for the market? Do you want to know if it exists? Perhaps what it does? For crying out loud, type "market" into a wiki search and learn what it is before going after "anarchist tomfoolery".
You provided none. You left off with nothing more than an unargued assumption.
You never used the word novel. You simply said you had no particular view.
I never asked for evidence for the market. I mentioned that you provided no evidence to prove your assumptions, hence the reason for my saying that it was unargued.
I don't deny the existence of something called a market. I merely understand it differently than you. As I have said before, our differences are presuppositional in nature.
I've used the word "novel" twice now. I suggest you read a little more carefully. I'm not sure what you're arguing about. What assumptions are you referring to? How do you understand the market in opposition to me? Why are they presuppositional in nature? That word invited confusion, so I'd suggest talking about what you think the market cannot do, rather than inviting crappy Bahnsen-type thinking into an economic debate. And your quip about theft (in the vid) is ironic, since taxation IS theft.
Goodness. Your hangup on "novel" is beyond absurd. Your original remark was under consideration, and the phrase you used was "no particular view of the market." Big difference, but of little significance at this point.
Bahnsen? Nothing like gross equivocation. I use a word, quite appropriately, and you wish to make it a matter of Van Tilianism! haha
Economics is based on a number of factors. These include, but aren't limited to, the world, man, knowledge, etc. All presuppositional. 101 stuff.
The issue of theft as an ethical matter is purely presuppositional. What moral code are you relying upon for such a judgment? What do you presuppose when saying that the State has no right to take money from the citizenry? By what standard? On what authority? What is the extent of your claim? To what extent is it binding? On we go. In any case, making judgments without demonstrating (or even making reference to) your ethical grid by which to evaluate policies and actions is to beg the question.
1) Theft is taking something that doesn't belong to you (someone else's property) without their consent.
2) Taxation is taking someone else's property without their consent.
.: Taxation is theft.
There is no reason to use the word "presupposition" in this conversation. We can put the facts out there and tangle with realities and leave our entire "grid" of knowledge aside for now.
That is a rather sad argument. If this line of reasoning were true, then what else could one possibly say?
1) Wolverines are mammals with legs.
2) Babies are mammals with legs.
... Babies are wolverines.
Sorry, can't dodge presuppositions. How can you make judgments about ethical matters (i.e. theft) without explaining on what basis you would define and understand them? Government should only do X. To do Y is bad. But I don't have to tell you on what basis or on what authority I said this. Wow
How is that an analogous argument? Are you suggesting that my definition of theft is wrong? Are you suggesting that he govt. doesn't take our property without out consent? You are being pretentiously vague.
Here are my presuppositions: Theft is wrong, and the govt. should not commit moral wrongs. Is that easy enough for you to swallow?
I agree with the definition, just pointing out the fallacious reasoning. My worldview doesn't admit of private property as an absolute right, and grants civil gov't the power of taxation within certain limits. All goes back to presuppositions.
What you gave are ethical judgments derived from your moral presuppositions. The issue is with what moral standard you resort to when saying this. Some form of moral relativism? Or do you adhere to a normative moral standard that is universally binding?
If you don't own your property, then I guess I'll have it since you are all stand-offish. You obviously deny private property then, and that is just too unfortunate. This, of course, is what leads LOGICALLY to socialism.
My moral presuppositions are:
*what is wrong is wrong, and what is right is right. I don't know what you mean universally binding, but theft will always be wrong if the circumstances of private property are identical. I'm a moral realist.
Saying private property is not absolute doesn't lead to socialism any more than saying that freedom isn't absolute would lead to totalitarianism. One may say another is not "free" to torture their neighbor, but only the fool would run around screaming "Tyranny!"
Wow, what's wrong is wrong. That gets us... nowhere. Who says so? What moral standard are you using? Where is it applicable? When are there exception? Why your system? How do you or I know? If by realist you mean you have no clue, yes.
The market will make sure that people are educated where they need to be. Anarcho-captialism doesn't require anything about living like free-men or have education per se; it only requires that people are engaged in the market.
People need to be "educated" in order to know what it "really" means to be "free" so that they can fulfill their "obligation" to be engaged in your view of the market. Weak.
I don't have a particular view of the market. There is a market, deal with it. It is what it is. People interact with the market. The market is self-correcting. Education gives one a leg up, but education is done best without the bureaucratic constraints of the clunky state. There is no such thing as having an obligation to the market. The market is entirely amoral.
Sooo... you are either ignorant of the fact that you DO have a view of the market, or you just lied. Let's give you the benefit of being ignorant.
Self-correcting? Fideism at its finest! In any case, the notion of correcting brings an ethical dimension into play, which tosses your amoral notion for a loop.
The most amazing thing is that you made all these blunders in one paragraph!
I don't have a view insofar as there is nothing novel about my view of the market. Do try and keep up. And no, this has nothing to do with fideism. I take it you've never studied economics before or else you wouldn't be introducing apologetics terms into the debate. The self-correcting nature of the market would only have an ethical dimension to it if what it was correcting was ethical in nature. It's not ethical in nature. There is nothing ethical about goods and services in themselves.
Will you in good conscience fault me for not knowing your qualifications prior to your having revealed them? Taken at face value, your initial statement was simply that you had no particular view of the market. This is quite different from saying you don't have a unique view.
Belief for the sake of belief. No evidence, but plenty of unargued presuppositions and biases. In short, economic fideism.
I disagree with your last sentence, but it due to conflicting ethical presuppositions.
You made so many baseless assumptions in your video (mostly simple economics 101 stuff) that I'm really not sure where to begin a critique. I'm tempted to do a video response but I'm not sure you'd be willing to listen to reason, given that most of what you don't understand about anarchism/economics etc is freely and widely available to you (ie. how does the market prevent crime etc) that if you were truly interested in learning about it you would have done so already & not made such mistakes.
I love it when people accuse others of mistakes, threaten to point them out, and then just leave it to the realm of the unknown. As predictable as the morning sun, your type normally ends with clarifying that there is plenty of material and that the ONLY reason I disagree is either that I haven't read or that I am beyond reason.
"Protestantism is riddled with individualism. I don't see that as a good thing"
- didn't you say the church has condemned socialism?
The ways anarchism can deal with these things has been put forward NUMEROUS times over the course of 200 fucking years. And LARGELY elaborated upon within the past 50 years by market anarchists in particular.
You accuse him of ignorance of theistic mumbojumbo... perhaps you ought to read some anarchist material about defense before making these ignorant videos.
How horrifically elementary to see things in extremes! Ah, so I am not an individualist. This, then, makes me a socialist? As if there is no golden mean between the one and the many.
Wow, 200 years. Fantastic. A petty little remnant has been chatting away for 200 years. The crotchety cranks pumped out an extraordinarily large amount of material over the past 50 years. Would you like a cookie?
I am relatively familiar with anarchism, both religious and secular. Is this really the best you have?
if you are not a individualist then you are SOME form of collectivist monster who sees men as subjects or cells of a greater (fictional) organism.
argumentum ad populum, and no I would not like a cookie. I would like blow hard statist assholes to know what they are talking about before they criticize something.
If you are familiar with it, then you are immensely incapable of conveying or applying such knowledge.
If I am not a radical individualist, and I am not a collectivist, then I am somewhere in between. Imagine that!
Wow, you now Latin. I wasn't arguing that my position is superior due to its antiquity. I was merely pointing out that your notifying me of the mongrel horde's 200 year struggle for a voice in the public square was of little value to me... or this discussion
On what grounds do you assert that I am incapable of conveying my knowledge of the philosophy? Examples? Nah, who needs them?
there is no "in between" concerning personal liberty. It is one area I see as polar. The only degree that can exist is in what way one prefers servitude.
I don't know latin, it's the formal name for the informal fallacy you used to attack anarchist theory. It is relevant considering you were making IGNORANT assumptions about the ability of anarchism (of whatever bent) to provide for justice/defense.
The very fact that you know shit about the above displays your ignorance quite well.
I would also contend there are polar opposites here, but I would see both as folly.
I wish to see you live out the Utopia that you preach. You rely upon formal logic, something defined by others. You employ traditional English grammar, a system superimposed upon the populace as much as a dictionary. The day is still day, the night is still night, and to you things may be black and white. Why not toss aside these shackles? Give the finger to civilization!
Because taxes are not considered theft according to the Scriptures. You reference Exodus 20, but your exegesis sucks. Why stop with Exodus 20? Why not go on to the entirety of the Law? Your doing so is nothing short of arbitrary. Were you to do your homework, you would find that the Law given by God didn't forbid taxes. In fact, the New Testament, which the Christian believes to be in harmony and fulfillment of Torah, never refers to taxes as theft.
Not only are taxes not forbidden by Scripture, they are mandated! The Old Testament required a head (or poll) tax. This was rather small. In fact, many have argued that it would have been less than 10% on account of not wanting to rival the tithe required of the people for the Church.
The NT is also clear on the need for taxes, the prohibition of evasion, and their proper use in Romans 13.
Your either-or is an informal logical fallacy. You presume, wrongfully, that those are the only two options when they most certainly are not. I'll explain.
The Bible recognizes various institutions. The three primary institutions are the family, the Church, and the State. Each has a role to play in a Christian order, and each is limited in function and jurisdiction. The Church and the State receive tribute: tithe and taxes.
You're getting better at this! Your put-downs are improving. This one almost made me laugh. But you missed the mark by encouraging us only to "think about it." OK, so I thought about it. Now what? And I already put the webcam down. What next? It has been down since my last video. You leave us hanging here!
If you your remarks to be really hurtful, and yet funny enough to soften the blow, you're going to have to put more time and effort into it. Keep trying though, you're doing alright.
There are those who wish to think that "only the words of Jesus matter." They equate those only with the gospels. One such guy went so far to say that "only the words in red are God-breathed." In doing this, they hold the OT and the other portions of the OT to a lesser standard of authority.
To say or believe as much would be a blatant heresy. The Scripture, from front to back, is equally authoritative. It's relevance or place in liturgy may differ, but not its nature.
Paleo, I was concurring on your point - although the context was lost in my zeal. People who refuse to consider the OT (Specifically God's special relationship with his chosen people) are ignoring an important facet of God.
The problem with anarchy, as well as socialism, is it completely disregards human nature. They object to free markets as being "slavery", and argue they are not truly free.
So, I guess the cure for insufficient freedom is less freedom.
Of course, without government, you would have completely unregulated, totally free markets. But this somehow offends them. They think it unnatural.
Food for thought: consistantly applying the notion of a free market inherently leads to a stateless conclusion, since we must allow free competition even in the field of law, defense and arbitration.
In a static world, your analysis would be correct.
Just as Congressional budget projections tell us we go from a trillion dollar surplus to a trillion dollar deficit in a single year, static analyses of dynamic systems fail miserably.
Next thing you know, they claim global warming in the coldest winter in 60 years.
Human nature intervenes in economics. Anarchy is not in our nature. Just as self-interest drives markets, that same self-interest gives rise to social organization. Government.
CNT was a labour union that took over an anarchist "organization". Bit of an oxymoron, but there you have it.
I recall some years ago, at a trade show in New York, I had a union guy helping me break down and pack up my stuff. Required by law to have him on site. So much for "freedom", eh?
Nice enough guy. I asked him at one point, "I forgot now, which Mafia family owns your unions?"
Well being the cornerstone of libertarian socialism is "the workers democratic ownership of the means of production" and that in the anarcho socialist system private property would not exists...a "mafia" would have no ownership of a union.
Organization is one of the key parts of anarcho socialism. Actually it is the biggest.. so I don't really know where your getting organization and anarchy being an oxymoron. The system is based on solidarity and equality.
well if paleo decides to do a video on libertarian-socialism I will be doing a video response. Perhaps then I can clear up the difference between personal and private property.
be sure to use that as your first response to my first criticism of the video. I am sure it will make you look no less ignorant than anything else you say.
well being that I am an anarcho-syndicalist, no I do not belive it would have turned into a state. They might have been killed by another group of communists or fascists. That seems to be the way history goes.. Anarchists rise...capitalists and authoritarians destroy them. I suggest you read "Letters to Catalonia" By George Orwell.
You're using the argument from effect to debate an argument from first principle. Sure i can spend all day trying to show you how a free society could work and have you shoot down every theory, but instead of doing that the principle of this is to leave the choice to you, what do you want out of a society? The free market caters to this instead of forcing you to choose or you can choose not to use the free market and make your own resources the sky is the limit.
ProDCloud 10 months ago
you make a lot of good arguments against government in your vid. keep it up!
DeraJa 2 years ago
i agree with the other guy completely. what has the church got to do with our beliefs? why should they dictate what we think? finally, capitalism which is the predominant world view IS morally wrong.
misterweetoes 3 years ago
@misterweetoes
There is nothing immoral about free market capitalism.
Thats like saying that its immoral that i want to trade a vehicle i made off for some resources instead of just giving it to you for free.
ProDCloud 10 months ago
And you've dodged all my questions once again. There is no equivocation in my syllogism; there is a textbook case of asserting the consequent in your supposed analogous syllogism, but I highly suspect that you have no grasp of logic. There is nothing that makes good good or bad bad. It is good and that is all there is to it. You have not provided any kind of account of what grounds your numerous assertions. So you have:
1. Ignored/misunderstood my arguments.
2. Repeated (1)
.: I win.
Philosophickle 3 years ago
I'm not asking what makes good good or bad bad. What I am asking is what standard you use to distinguish between the two. I mean, it is quite evident that we disagree here over what is good and bad in regards to the State and taxation. The question is why. It ultimately points back to where we begin: moral standard (i.e. presupposition) whereby we make ethical judgments. You simply don't comprehend this. It's rather simple stuff.
An APPEAL to consequence? Do your homework again. Not even close.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Again, you failed to explicate "absolute". I've told you my moral "system", and whatever my grounds for it are it seems that neither of us disagree that theft is wrong. My question, again, is what do you disagree with in the following:
1) Theft is taking something that doesn't belong to you (someone else's property) without their consent.
2) Taxation is taking someone else's property without their consent.
.: Taxation is theft.
Philosophickle 3 years ago
You are a waste of my time. You have most certainly NOT told me what your system is. You have said that good is good and bad is bad, but you never once identified the standard by which you make such value judgments or why it would be binding on anyone but you.
Your 2 is the fallacy of equivocation.
Husbands are men
My friend Parker is a man
Therefore, Parker is a married man
Too bad Parker is single. Once again, your syllogism sucks.
This is a waste of my time.
paleocrat 3 years ago
You know nothing of economics, nothing of anarcho-capitalism and nothing of ethics. You bandy words like "presupposition" and "standard" as if they are magic words that make your case. Of course, you never explicate the reasons why you think theft is permissible or why the market is an ethical device.
Here's some advice. Pick up a book on Austrian economics before you nosedive into the floor. On second thought, nosedive before you make another video like this. It might keep your mouth shut.
Philosophickle 3 years ago
I know plenty regarding the first two, and spent years of my life studying the last one.
Those words aren't the trump card. Words, in and of themselves are arbitrary. It is what those words point to that matter. In this case, they point to the foundation or starting point whereupon you make moral judgments and by what force you consider them normative or binding. This is elementary on more than one level.
paleocrat 3 years ago
I have read plenty of material by those identified with the Austrian School. I have read works of Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Rockwell, Gary North, and those whose material can be found at Rockwell's site. Furthermore, there is plenty of audio and written material at Rockwell's Mises Institute. My familiarity shouldn't be in question. I simply disagree with them, and my disagreement stems, in large part, from first things.
It might keep my mouth shut? Wow. The weak resort to such remarks. Petty.
paleocrat 3 years ago
I don't know what you mean by "private property" isn't absolute. It's a right, and to take something that doesn't belong to you is theft.
Paleo, are you saying that what's wrong isn't wrong? Or are you asking how we know what's wrong? One question is epistemological, another metaphysical. My moral standard is goodness. What transgresses goodness is wrong. Moral facts supervene naturally, though not logically, on states of affairs. What is your moral standard? God said so? A book?
Philosophickle 3 years ago
I agree that it is a right, but you assume, given your ethical presuppositions, that a right is both good and absolute. You place ethical parameters round and about it, though never really dealing with what moral system you resort to.
Your moral standard is goodness. Well, that's good. So is mine. Yet we come to two different views? The communist would say the same. What moral standard or ethical rule do you use to declare one thing as good and another as bad? This is 101 stuff.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Who said I don't have evidence? Perhaps you are projecting, but I simply said there is nothing novel about my definition of the function of market. That leaves out the question of whether or not I have evidence for it. But I can't even understand your question. What do you mean "evidence" for the market? Do you want to know if it exists? Perhaps what it does? For crying out loud, type "market" into a wiki search and learn what it is before going after "anarchist tomfoolery".
Philosophickle 3 years ago
You provided none. You left off with nothing more than an unargued assumption.
You never used the word novel. You simply said you had no particular view.
I never asked for evidence for the market. I mentioned that you provided no evidence to prove your assumptions, hence the reason for my saying that it was unargued.
I don't deny the existence of something called a market. I merely understand it differently than you. As I have said before, our differences are presuppositional in nature.
paleocrat 3 years ago
I've used the word "novel" twice now. I suggest you read a little more carefully. I'm not sure what you're arguing about. What assumptions are you referring to? How do you understand the market in opposition to me? Why are they presuppositional in nature? That word invited confusion, so I'd suggest talking about what you think the market cannot do, rather than inviting crappy Bahnsen-type thinking into an economic debate. And your quip about theft (in the vid) is ironic, since taxation IS theft.
Philosophickle 3 years ago
Goodness. Your hangup on "novel" is beyond absurd. Your original remark was under consideration, and the phrase you used was "no particular view of the market." Big difference, but of little significance at this point.
Bahnsen? Nothing like gross equivocation. I use a word, quite appropriately, and you wish to make it a matter of Van Tilianism! haha
Economics is based on a number of factors. These include, but aren't limited to, the world, man, knowledge, etc. All presuppositional. 101 stuff.
paleocrat 3 years ago
The issue of theft as an ethical matter is purely presuppositional. What moral code are you relying upon for such a judgment? What do you presuppose when saying that the State has no right to take money from the citizenry? By what standard? On what authority? What is the extent of your claim? To what extent is it binding? On we go. In any case, making judgments without demonstrating (or even making reference to) your ethical grid by which to evaluate policies and actions is to beg the question.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Finally, some meat. I'll offer a simple argument:
1) Theft is taking something that doesn't belong to you (someone else's property) without their consent.
2) Taxation is taking someone else's property without their consent.
.: Taxation is theft.
There is no reason to use the word "presupposition" in this conversation. We can put the facts out there and tangle with realities and leave our entire "grid" of knowledge aside for now.
Philosophickle 3 years ago
That is a rather sad argument. If this line of reasoning were true, then what else could one possibly say?
1) Wolverines are mammals with legs.
2) Babies are mammals with legs.
... Babies are wolverines.
Sorry, can't dodge presuppositions. How can you make judgments about ethical matters (i.e. theft) without explaining on what basis you would define and understand them? Government should only do X. To do Y is bad. But I don't have to tell you on what basis or on what authority I said this. Wow
paleocrat 3 years ago
How is that an analogous argument? Are you suggesting that my definition of theft is wrong? Are you suggesting that he govt. doesn't take our property without out consent? You are being pretentiously vague.
Here are my presuppositions: Theft is wrong, and the govt. should not commit moral wrongs. Is that easy enough for you to swallow?
Philosophickle 3 years ago
I agree with the definition, just pointing out the fallacious reasoning. My worldview doesn't admit of private property as an absolute right, and grants civil gov't the power of taxation within certain limits. All goes back to presuppositions.
What you gave are ethical judgments derived from your moral presuppositions. The issue is with what moral standard you resort to when saying this. Some form of moral relativism? Or do you adhere to a normative moral standard that is universally binding?
paleocrat 3 years ago
If you don't own your property, then I guess I'll have it since you are all stand-offish. You obviously deny private property then, and that is just too unfortunate. This, of course, is what leads LOGICALLY to socialism.
My moral presuppositions are:
*what is wrong is wrong, and what is right is right. I don't know what you mean universally binding, but theft will always be wrong if the circumstances of private property are identical. I'm a moral realist.
Philosophickle 3 years ago
Saying private property is not absolute doesn't lead to socialism any more than saying that freedom isn't absolute would lead to totalitarianism. One may say another is not "free" to torture their neighbor, but only the fool would run around screaming "Tyranny!"
Wow, what's wrong is wrong. That gets us... nowhere. Who says so? What moral standard are you using? Where is it applicable? When are there exception? Why your system? How do you or I know? If by realist you mean you have no clue, yes.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Wow, bigtime fail.
The market will make sure that people are educated where they need to be. Anarcho-captialism doesn't require anything about living like free-men or have education per se; it only requires that people are engaged in the market.
Philosophickle 3 years ago
People need to be "educated" in order to know what it "really" means to be "free" so that they can fulfill their "obligation" to be engaged in your view of the market. Weak.
paleocrat 3 years ago
I don't have a particular view of the market. There is a market, deal with it. It is what it is. People interact with the market. The market is self-correcting. Education gives one a leg up, but education is done best without the bureaucratic constraints of the clunky state. There is no such thing as having an obligation to the market. The market is entirely amoral.
Holy hell you are dense.
Philosophickle 3 years ago
I don't have a particular view of the market.
The market is self-correcting.
The market is entirely amoral.
Sooo... you are either ignorant of the fact that you DO have a view of the market, or you just lied. Let's give you the benefit of being ignorant.
Self-correcting? Fideism at its finest! In any case, the notion of correcting brings an ethical dimension into play, which tosses your amoral notion for a loop.
The most amazing thing is that you made all these blunders in one paragraph!
paleocrat 3 years ago
I don't have a view insofar as there is nothing novel about my view of the market. Do try and keep up. And no, this has nothing to do with fideism. I take it you've never studied economics before or else you wouldn't be introducing apologetics terms into the debate. The self-correcting nature of the market would only have an ethical dimension to it if what it was correcting was ethical in nature. It's not ethical in nature. There is nothing ethical about goods and services in themselves.
Philosophickle 3 years ago
Will you in good conscience fault me for not knowing your qualifications prior to your having revealed them? Taken at face value, your initial statement was simply that you had no particular view of the market. This is quite different from saying you don't have a unique view.
Belief for the sake of belief. No evidence, but plenty of unargued presuppositions and biases. In short, economic fideism.
I disagree with your last sentence, but it due to conflicting ethical presuppositions.
paleocrat 3 years ago
You made so many baseless assumptions in your video (mostly simple economics 101 stuff) that I'm really not sure where to begin a critique. I'm tempted to do a video response but I'm not sure you'd be willing to listen to reason, given that most of what you don't understand about anarchism/economics etc is freely and widely available to you (ie. how does the market prevent crime etc) that if you were truly interested in learning about it you would have done so already & not made such mistakes.
lukeev 3 years ago
I love it when people accuse others of mistakes, threaten to point them out, and then just leave it to the realm of the unknown. As predictable as the morning sun, your type normally ends with clarifying that there is plenty of material and that the ONLY reason I disagree is either that I haven't read or that I am beyond reason.
You've given Cookie-cutter a new meaning.
paleocrat 3 years ago
"Protestantism is riddled with individualism. I don't see that as a good thing"
- didn't you say the church has condemned socialism?
The ways anarchism can deal with these things has been put forward NUMEROUS times over the course of 200 fucking years. And LARGELY elaborated upon within the past 50 years by market anarchists in particular.
You accuse him of ignorance of theistic mumbojumbo... perhaps you ought to read some anarchist material about defense before making these ignorant videos.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
How horrifically elementary to see things in extremes! Ah, so I am not an individualist. This, then, makes me a socialist? As if there is no golden mean between the one and the many.
Wow, 200 years. Fantastic. A petty little remnant has been chatting away for 200 years. The crotchety cranks pumped out an extraordinarily large amount of material over the past 50 years. Would you like a cookie?
I am relatively familiar with anarchism, both religious and secular. Is this really the best you have?
paleocrat 3 years ago
if you are not a individualist then you are SOME form of collectivist monster who sees men as subjects or cells of a greater (fictional) organism.
argumentum ad populum, and no I would not like a cookie. I would like blow hard statist assholes to know what they are talking about before they criticize something.
If you are familiar with it, then you are immensely incapable of conveying or applying such knowledge.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
If I am not a radical individualist, and I am not a collectivist, then I am somewhere in between. Imagine that!
Wow, you now Latin. I wasn't arguing that my position is superior due to its antiquity. I was merely pointing out that your notifying me of the mongrel horde's 200 year struggle for a voice in the public square was of little value to me... or this discussion
On what grounds do you assert that I am incapable of conveying my knowledge of the philosophy? Examples? Nah, who needs them?
paleocrat 3 years ago
there is no "in between" concerning personal liberty. It is one area I see as polar. The only degree that can exist is in what way one prefers servitude.
I don't know latin, it's the formal name for the informal fallacy you used to attack anarchist theory. It is relevant considering you were making IGNORANT assumptions about the ability of anarchism (of whatever bent) to provide for justice/defense.
The very fact that you know shit about the above displays your ignorance quite well.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
I would also contend there are polar opposites here, but I would see both as folly.
I wish to see you live out the Utopia that you preach. You rely upon formal logic, something defined by others. You employ traditional English grammar, a system superimposed upon the populace as much as a dictionary. The day is still day, the night is still night, and to you things may be black and white. Why not toss aside these shackles? Give the finger to civilization!
The phrase is Latin.
Just 1 example?
paleocrat 3 years ago
I know the phrase is latin, I was under the impression that you did not know what it was referring to... nevermind...
grammar and language is one of the CLASSIC examples of unenforced ORDER that results through voluntary interactions in a society. TRY AGAIN.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
Comment removed
LordSomers 3 years ago
Because taxes are not considered theft according to the Scriptures. You reference Exodus 20, but your exegesis sucks. Why stop with Exodus 20? Why not go on to the entirety of the Law? Your doing so is nothing short of arbitrary. Were you to do your homework, you would find that the Law given by God didn't forbid taxes. In fact, the New Testament, which the Christian believes to be in harmony and fulfillment of Torah, never refers to taxes as theft.
In short, your argument is lame.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Comment removed
LordSomers 3 years ago
Not only are taxes not forbidden by Scripture, they are mandated! The Old Testament required a head (or poll) tax. This was rather small. In fact, many have argued that it would have been less than 10% on account of not wanting to rival the tithe required of the people for the Church.
The NT is also clear on the need for taxes, the prohibition of evasion, and their proper use in Romans 13.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Your either-or is an informal logical fallacy. You presume, wrongfully, that those are the only two options when they most certainly are not. I'll explain.
The Bible recognizes various institutions. The three primary institutions are the family, the Church, and the State. Each has a role to play in a Christian order, and each is limited in function and jurisdiction. The Church and the State receive tribute: tithe and taxes.
Communism destroys these spheres by absorption.
Subsidiarity is key
paleocrat 3 years ago
Paleocrat, that was very well done!
And as a Distributist, I am glad you have Chesterton and Belloc as one of your video tags.
Again, well done!
bookstar77 3 years ago
Could you source where the Catholic Church takes a official position on anarchism?
Harpakhrad11 3 years ago
It is ditributism that the church supports
Paddy234 3 years ago
You and the other guy are wasting your time. There are two positions up for grabs at KFC, you should think about it and put the webcam down.
aamonti 3 years ago
You're getting better at this! Your put-downs are improving. This one almost made me laugh. But you missed the mark by encouraging us only to "think about it." OK, so I thought about it. Now what? And I already put the webcam down. What next? It has been down since my last video. You leave us hanging here!
If you your remarks to be really hurtful, and yet funny enough to soften the blow, you're going to have to put more time and effort into it. Keep trying though, you're doing alright.
paleocrat 3 years ago
"If you wanna say, 'Well what Jesus said is all that mattered,' well then you're a flaming heretic too!"
CLASSIC.
firstcor1313 3 years ago
Concerning that comment:
There are those who wish to think that "only the words of Jesus matter." They equate those only with the gospels. One such guy went so far to say that "only the words in red are God-breathed." In doing this, they hold the OT and the other portions of the OT to a lesser standard of authority.
To say or believe as much would be a blatant heresy. The Scripture, from front to back, is equally authoritative. It's relevance or place in liturgy may differ, but not its nature.
paleocrat 3 years ago
Paleo, I was concurring on your point - although the context was lost in my zeal. People who refuse to consider the OT (Specifically God's special relationship with his chosen people) are ignoring an important facet of God.
firstcor1313 3 years ago
I figured as much. I just wanted to clarify it for many who may take it the wrong way.
paleocrat 3 years ago
You look like the Amazing Atheist in the screen shot.
Buttsecks4Jesus 3 years ago 2
I'm convinced the views of Americananarchist/Gabethearchangel/Gabewearsathong depends on the meds he takes (or doesn't take) on any given day.
antipelagian 3 years ago
The problem with anarchy, as well as socialism, is it completely disregards human nature. They object to free markets as being "slavery", and argue they are not truly free.
So, I guess the cure for insufficient freedom is less freedom.
Of course, without government, you would have completely unregulated, totally free markets. But this somehow offends them. They think it unnatural.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
I actually I base my anarchism ON free market theory.
brainpolice2 3 years ago 2
And what would that theory be?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Food for thought: consistantly applying the notion of a free market inherently leads to a stateless conclusion, since we must allow free competition even in the field of law, defense and arbitration.
brainpolice2 3 years ago 4
In a static world, your analysis would be correct.
Just as Congressional budget projections tell us we go from a trillion dollar surplus to a trillion dollar deficit in a single year, static analyses of dynamic systems fail miserably.
Next thing you know, they claim global warming in the coldest winter in 60 years.
Human nature intervenes in economics. Anarchy is not in our nature. Just as self-interest drives markets, that same self-interest gives rise to social organization. Government.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
You're engaging in the classic error of conflatting government with all social organization.
brainpolice2 3 years ago 2
A "classic" error, eh? Shades of tradition creeping into this conversation already.
Okay, so if anarchy is somehow "natural", explain to us how government came about, unnaturally.
And tell us of all the times in human history when anarchy came about naturally.
Oh, and then, what happened to it.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
the spanish revolution C.N.T F.A.I
napalmtube 3 years ago
Oh, gee. Where to begin...
CNT was a labour union that took over an anarchist "organization". Bit of an oxymoron, but there you have it.
I recall some years ago, at a trade show in New York, I had a union guy helping me break down and pack up my stuff. Required by law to have him on site. So much for "freedom", eh?
Nice enough guy. I asked him at one point, "I forgot now, which Mafia family owns your unions?"
He freaked.
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
Well being the cornerstone of libertarian socialism is "the workers democratic ownership of the means of production" and that in the anarcho socialist system private property would not exists...a "mafia" would have no ownership of a union.
Organization is one of the key parts of anarcho socialism. Actually it is the biggest.. so I don't really know where your getting organization and anarchy being an oxymoron. The system is based on solidarity and equality.
napalmtube 3 years ago
The workers. The people.
Nice and loose, can't quite pin you down that way.
Since there is no private property, if your car disappears in the next few days, you won't mind, will you?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
well if paleo decides to do a video on libertarian-socialism I will be doing a video response. Perhaps then I can clear up the difference between personal and private property.
napalmtube 3 years ago
I would love to hear that one anyway. Its sure to be a good laugh
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
coming from the guy with a pirate mustache
napalmtube 3 years ago
be sure to use that as your first response to my first criticism of the video. I am sure it will make you look no less ignorant than anything else you say.
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
oh and the anarchists were killed by the fascists and state-socialists
napalmtube 3 years ago
Of course they were. The fascists were well organized, knew how to run things.
I personally am suspicious of government, but you must admit, they do have ways of springing up.
Even if they had won, the anarcho-syndicalists would have simply become yet another government.
Do you imagine they would have been better, less harsh than Franco's gang?
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
well being that I am an anarcho-syndicalist, no I do not belive it would have turned into a state. They might have been killed by another group of communists or fascists. That seems to be the way history goes.. Anarchists rise...capitalists and authoritarians destroy them. I suggest you read "Letters to Catalonia" By George Orwell.
napalmtube 3 years ago
"Homage to Catalonia" sorry
napalmtube 3 years ago
I have read Orwell back and forth.
I suggest you read "The Tragedy of the Commons".
RogerOnTheRight 3 years ago
I enjoy your voice. You're really smart.
jesusandwrestling 3 years ago