All Blog Comments

Delmar - Central Planning Undermines Democracy

Delmar — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 21:40:56 +0000

Brilliant put up, I am checking back again on a regular to look for upgrades.

Justin Oliver - Why Not the Welfare State?

Justin Oliver — Sun, 6 Nov 2011 22:39:15 +0000

Thanks for comment, and I share your concern that many people are left vulnerable to exploitation and abuse by those in a position of power.

how's about we posit that "negative utilitarianism" (the least bad for the least number) is of equal importance with negative liberty.

The monopolizing nature of coercion dictates that only one standard can be enforced at any given time in space. One reason for enforcing negative liberty is that it ensures that voluntary interaction can take place, so as a supplement we are able to promote other voluntary standards — like positive liberty or negative utilitarianism — to see which one is the most beneficial for serving the needs of ordinary people. I think it would be self-contradictory to enforce negative utilitarianism, not only because of the epistemological problem of interpersonal utility comparisons, but because even the study for the basis of intrapersonal utility comparisons, demonstrated preferences, presuppose the negative liberty that one is already free to think and to act on those preferences.

n8chz - Why Not the Welfare State?

n8chz — Sat, 5 Nov 2011 22:27:44 +0000

It's good to see black/gold faction folkx give at least lip service to mutual aid. But I find a little insulting your line: "As a matter of practice in promoting liberty, someone who sees little benefit from their negative liberty in overcoming their struggles is going to have less regard for that liberty and be more willing to surrender it or interfere with the liberty of others." Being a person with no property, and therefore no rights under a property rights regime, It seems to imply that I'd be some kind of nebbish who will willingly surrender their liberty or sell out others. The trouble with negative liberty is that it's framed mainly as a way to protect the haves from the have-nots. Instead of balancing it with "positive liberty," after of course being oh-so-careful to first ensure that it's understood that negative liberty is a prerequisite for positive liberty, how's about we posit that "negative utilitarianism" (the least bad for the least number) is of equal importance with negative liberty. Utility, after all, is the secret sauce that @#$%^&* economics runs on. Libertarians and other right-wingers (being typically blessed with the gift of gab and other economic arts) love economics, so they should see some value in negative utilitarianism. Again, it's good to see that you see mutual aid as a good thing and not as a bad thing. How do you propose we implement it? I would think it would be easier to do if people aren't forced (yeah, forced. we call 'em market forces for a reason!) to see their fellow human beings as competitors. That is why the definitive and complete triumph of cooperation over competition is so important to me; let's say of equal importance with negative liberty.

Dylboz - Re: People who Piss me off: Free Market Anarchists

Dylboz — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 00:46:24 +0000

That guy was insufferably obtuse, willfully ignorant, and utterly incapable of recognizing or even acknowledging when you had refuted his arguments, let alone even partially comprehending how you had done so. "Poo flinging monkey" is an accurate description of his behavior. He (obviously quite unwittingly) embarrassed himself. Excellent debating skills, this is a textbook example of how to argue with an idiot for the benefit of your audience.

Freedom - Re: People who Piss me off: Free Market Anarchists

Freedom — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 12:39:32 +0000

Fantastic job Justin. To anyone with any intellectual honesty, Hawanja just spent several posts making his position look completely untenable. I love how these brainwashed stunted political intellectuals are reduced to spitting out crass language and foaming at the mouth when it is pointed out that the premise of their argument actually agrees with your point and does not disprove it, as long as you remove all the exceptionalism they assign to the state. It still amazes me that someone still thinks that governments are any different then any other protection racket or strong arm mafia. How about this Hawanja, "courts" existed before established government monopolies in many cultures. They still do in stateless societies such as in Somalia. Stick that reality in your pipe and smoke it, along with the same junk you smoked that makes anything morally reprehensible okay as long as it happened in the past and was considered a cultural norm at the time. Also, who the f#)!@$%!*% told you that government is impartial in anything? the fact that you cited government as an impartial player in any market makes you look like a total poo flinging monkey. Only the most unintellectual boob would even put fourth such a premise. Also, social interactions are a market, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Otherwise there would be no dating services, or divorce lawyers you total boob. See, the thing is with reality, is that it rarely lines up with the belief system of an egoist such as yourself, and it just keep going on whether you BELIEVE it or not.

Wesc - Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two

Wesc — Sat, 14 May 2011 23:24:28 +0000

A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.

Hawanja - Re: People who Piss me off: Free Market Anarchists

Hawanja — Sat, 14 May 2011 05:32:37 +0000

Wrong, properties can be used for both commercial and private use. People do it all the time, work from home, have clients at home, run a hostel or bed & breakfast from home, etc. There are cases in which it is unlawful to use a residential property (retail stores, storing hazardous chemicals, etc.) But really, this is the best you can come up with? Poor people are at a disadvantage because in order to go into business they have to rent out a retail space or office? That example is weaksauce. Second, how exactly is it that you consider intellectual property to be "false property?" What exactly do you mean by that? You know that link, it's an example of the exact opposite of what you're talking about. You said the government prevents poor people from starting businesses (actually, you said "government enforced poverty" and that the government makes certain activities "illegal." ) Yet here is a guy who wasn't rich and who started his own business. So how come the poverty police didn't show up and take all his money? Seriously, how did this guy, who according to you should have been beaten down by the cops the instant he even attempted to make money, start a successful business? Apparently those big evil government regulations weren't enough to enforce poverty on this guy, were they? And no, when I say "fruitcake" it has nothing to do with gay people. What is this, the 1930s? Yeah you have no interest in interacting with someone who knows how to counter your bullshit arguments, I understand. Hey man, I just made a video, you're the one who can't handle it. Not my problem your bullshit arguements are so easy to tear down.

Justin Oliver - Re: People who Piss me off: Free Market Anarchists

Justin Oliver — Sat, 7 May 2011 03:56:10 +0000

I am asking where the "illegal" part comes in, because that sounds like a load of horseshit. What activities are illegal for poor people to engage in, but not illegal for rich people?

As I have already said, governments prohibit (as in make illegal) the use of mixed-use property, so that property can only be used either for residential or commercial purposes, but not both. That is one of the many, many ways that governments help protect the privilege of wealthy people, by limiting competition and creating artificial scarcities for goods and services. There is also the enforcement of false property claims, such as intellectual property and abandoned property. Want an example of a way in which a government limits competition for the protection of wealthier interests? Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMJbx--kWdA. As a reminder of the submission policy of the site, verbally abusive language such as calling people "fruitcakes," a known slur against gay men, is not acceptable. Furthermore, I have no interest in interacting with someone of your obstinate demeanor any longer. You can have the last word, if you must.

Hawanja - Re: People who Piss me off: Free Market Anarchists

Hawanja — Fri, 6 May 2011 03:26:30 +0000

First point - Bullshit, you didn't say "the government prices them out of business," You said "It benefits privileged special interests groups that lobby the government to make certain activities illegal or more burdensome in order to create a scarcity for the particular good or service that the privileged special interest group provides." I am asking where the "illegal" part comes in, because that sounds like a load of horseshit. What activities are illegal for poor people to engage in, but not illegal for rich people? Second point: So you don't have an answer, is what you're saying. That's ok. None of the other arachno-capitalist fruitcakes I've poised that question to have an answer either.

Gabrielle - The Benefits of Being Exploited

Gabrielle — Sun, 1 May 2011 23:03:37 +0000

Good point. I hadn't thgouht about it quite that way. :)

Justin Oliver - Re: People who Piss me off: Free Market Anarchists

Justin Oliver — Sat, 30 Apr 2011 01:48:55 +0000

So please, expand on this point, because it sounds like an excuse to me. What service, exactly, is illegal for poor people to provide, but not illegal for rich people to provide?

It is not a matter of making certain business activities illegal for poor people. The government simply prices them out of business, though artificial capitalization requirements, prohibitions on mixed-use property, licensing laws, discriminatory tax practices, regulatory fees and the like.

How does a court in a small town enforce it's ruling on a borderless multinational without any type of executive branch?

I would prefer just about anything besides granting a single organization the responsibility resolving disputes, particularly when the dispute resolution monopoly is subject to being bribed by that borderless multinational. I am not interested in providing it to you, but I would suggest searching for something like "dispute resolution stateless society," if you care to know.

Michael - Deference to the Thin Blue Line

Michael — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:43:17 +0000

Who will guard the guards? Why, they will of course! No conflict of interest there...

Hawanja - Re: People who Piss me off: Free Market Anarchists

Hawanja — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 06:53:14 +0000

First point - about "Creative Hustling," You still haven't told us exactly what these activities are, which the government makes illegal to force people into poverty. What activities are these, exactly? Prostitution? Illegal movie downloading? Money counterfeiting? Organ harvesting? Just what exactly are you talking about? See I can't think of very many things which the big evil government makes illegal solely so the rich people who buy politicians can have a monopoly. Not unless you're implying that it's illegal if I go start my own oil company or something. So please, expand on this point, because it sounds like an excuse to me. What service, exactly, is illegal for poor people to provide, but not illegal for rich people to provide? - Racism and sexism - My personal belief is no, I believe they are wrong because I believe it is wrong to treat people unfairly based on genetic factors which are out of the individual's control. Now if we're talking about the human race as a whole, then absolutely yes. People tend to judge what's right and wrong on based on cultural norms and practices. 100 years ago racism and sexism were not "wrong," just as they are not considered wrong in most parts of the world today. Take a trip to Japan and see how they treat women and black people. 100 years from now the attitude of western society may change yet again. Food subsidies - Who cares? You should, because stability in the market is more important than cheap prices. When a market is not stable prices tend to fluctuate if you haven't noticed, and lead to shortages and crashes. And I take issue with the assumption that subsidies make food more expensive. Like I said in the video, the reason why that hamburger is $3 instead of $13 is because your tax dollars make it that way. Ad Hominem - I stand corrected, you did not engage in an ad hominem attack. You simply tried to reduce the argument by bringing up irrelevant bullshit. For the rest of my points, hey if you can't answer them... I think the point about a court being powerless when it has no enforcement mechanism is a rather good point. So if you want to ignore the rest of the shit then fine, but answer that one. How does a court in a small town enforce it's ruling on a borderless multinational without any type of executive branch?

Justin Oliver - Time’s Anarchist History Omission

Justin Oliver — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 01:27:54 +0000

Thanks for the heads-up, and both were great replies. Good luck with your new site.

Michael - Time’s Anarchist History Omission

Michael — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 23:11:06 +0000

While far from ideal (no mention of the individualists under "American Anarchism" and the facts you mentioned, it was head and shoulders over this article: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-ret... To which C4SS http://c4ss.org/content/6582 and I responded: http://gazinglongintoanabyss.blogspot.com/2011/04...

Shawnee - Why Government Does Not Work

Shawnee — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 12:24:49 +0000

Excellent post, sweet page layout, carry on the good work

Justin Oliver - Re: People who Piss me off: Free Market Anarchists

Justin Oliver — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 04:17:29 +0000

Done.

Justin Oliver - Re: People who Piss me off: Free Market Anarchists

Justin Oliver — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 04:08:30 +0000

I mean, if it's legal, then why would the big evil government prevent poor people from creating this wealth

It benefits privileged special interests groups that lobby the government to make certain activities illegal or more burdensome in order to create a scarcity for the particular good or service that the privileged special interest group provides. This is done through a series of restriction on mixed-use property for operating home-based businesses, occupational licensing laws, enforcement of intellectual property and other false forms of property, eminent domain seizures, legal tender laws, capitalization requirements and other regulatory barriers to entry and discriminatory tax policies. It serves the desires of regulators as well, as they can use their status to receive employment opportunities in the markets they had regulated. And since they tend to share the same bureaucratic culture, it also serves the regulators and regulated to preserve the existing cartelized models of production and choke off whatever possible competing models emerge.

Who said there has to be a principal? That's the problem with you people, you think your philosophy must explain everything ever or it's not valid. Sexisim and Racisim is wrong becasue [b]we say it's wrong,[/b] not becasue of some philosophical law of the universe.

So you believe that racism and sexism are wrong only if a majority of people believed they are wrong. Interesting.

People don't suddenly just change such learned behaviors becasue it's less economical to do so.

We agree. That is why I mentioned that direct action campaigns were successful in holding racists accountable through both economic and cultural means.

Do food subsidies keep food prices stable and produce a consistently high yeild for consumption and export, or don't they?

Who cares if the prices are stable if the food is more expensive. It would be better if their prices were falling so that poor people would be able to more easily afford them.

And when you started badmouthing subsidies by saying it was ineffcient and not organic, that is Ad hominem.

I would suggest you research what an ad hominem is before making unwarranted accusations. An ad hominem is when you say someone's argument or premise is invalid because of some alleged character flaw of the person making the argument or premise. Frankly, the rest of your comments are either misrepresentation of my position or have been addressed previously, so I'll let my comments stand as they are.

Hawanja - Re: People who Piss me off: Free Market Anarchists

Hawanja — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:40:19 +0000

Oh hey btw, can you go in and edit my comments to make the quoted parts actually quotes? thanks

Hawanja - Re: People who Piss me off: Free Market Anarchists

Hawanja — Thu, 21 Apr 2011 02:39:00 +0000

I hardly called them successful, unless you include the average taxpayer paying more overall for food and poor, developing nations being undermined for political purposes. And exactly what ad-hominem did I use?

Do food subsidies keep food prices stable and produce a consistently high yeild for consumption and export, or don't they? Yes or no? And when you started badmouthing subsidies by saying it was ineffcient and not organic, that is Ad hominem. You are trying to degrade the arguement by bringing up points which, even though they may be true, are irrelevant. Doesn't matter if somehow the free market could grow corn for ethanol organically, that is irrelevant to government subsidies being successful or not.

I would argue that their wages would be even higher...

Yeah well I would argue the wages would be lower, becasue they'd be goin on strike every five seconds. Of course we'll never know so the whole thing's fucking irrelevant. You know if you're going to argue something it helps to provide examples of where it's actually happened in history. Is there an example of what you're saying actually happening? Becasue if there is then I concede.

Some fault does rest with colleges. They place artificial, government-backed restrictions on which colleges are deemed "accredited." It works the same as any licensing scheme, to limit competition.

That is a licensing scheme the majority of people happen to agree with. There has to be some kind of impartial standard to keep out the scams and deploma mills.

Good point. That is another way they benefit from cronyism. But those loans are only profitable because they are backed by the government, which I am sure banks helped lobby for.

Once again, you're blaming the government and not the people who are actually causing the problem. That's something you people never seem to understand. How exactly would financing for college loans work, without government intervention? They're not very profitable loans in the first place, so the "Free market" ain't gonna help anybody.

It is another example of how pollution problems were handled much more efficiently and stringently than under the current paradigm.

Nah, it's an example of how it could be handeled if we still lived in the 1800's. How would common law tort protections have prevented the BP gulf oil spill? You know what would have happened? BP would simply leave, and no one would be able to sue anyone. Plus you know, you need to have a government to have a court system anyway so the whole damn point is irrelevant in the first place.

Again, the false dichotomy that it is the state or nothing. That is a plain example of someone's homesteaded right to the river water being violated. Objections such as these have been covered by countless supporters of stateless dispute resolution. Google "pollution stateless society" or "free market environmentalism" to see for yourself.

Well then explain how, [b]exactly,[/b] any court can enforce it's ruling without an executive branch? So what if the court fines them, how exactly is it going to collect this money? Hey there's no cops to go arrest the people, no state department to put on political pressure, no senate to declare war on them. So please explain to me how exactly your small town using a powerless court system against a gigantic wealthy multinational would do anything, whatsoever?

By delaying life-saving drugs and making drugs approval more expensive, the FDA has arguably been responsible for more deaths than have ever been saved. As the approval process has become more time-consuming, drug companies have turned to patenting their drugs, which was usually not the case prior to the growth of the FDA, which has made drugs less affordable to people who need them.

It is worth it to ensure those same drugs are not in fact toxic. Tell you what, when you get sick you can take all the non-approved experimental shit you want. I will stick with medicines that have been proven not to kill you. And no, drug companies do not patent drugs becasue it takes too long to get them approved. That's fucking idiotic. They do it becasue it stops competing companies from manufacturing generic versions of them.

There will always be murder, so some murder is acceptable so long as it is controlled democratically, right?

Once again, not saying anything is just, acceptable, or right, just making observations about things really are.

A strawman. I said that government intervention makes solving problems, like providing for public goods, more difficult.

Well you have no problem blaming child labor, drug abuse, terrorism, runaway college tuition, low wages, price fixing, sexisim, racisim, and poverty on the government, so maybe you need to rethink your political philosophy. It doesn't seem to have all the answers.