/liberty/ - Liberty

>>69688

I remember being called a market fundamentalist once. They're running out of smear language.

>>69693

>Which one has too many rules?

I mean I have to disagree with this statistic. Its unreliable like all others.

Here let me share with you a little idea: Its about how much those rules cover, not how many rules there are. Here let me try

1.Don't do anything stupid or dickish

Versus

1.Don't say "nigger" or "faggot"

2.No punk rock

3.Don't clap

1:3 rule ratio, but the 1st supposition covers a much wide ratio.

What have you say?

Don't use statistics you'll become a lying opportunist just like your enemies and then it'll be over

>>69693

It only matters if empiricism eventually contradicts itself or not if you accept the rational-empirical classification at all.

>>69694

>Here let me share with you a little idea: Its about how much those rules cover, not how many rules there are.

This argument couldn't be more academic, and I don't mean this in a good way. You introduced a premise that was entirely hypothetical, outlined its consequences, then seemingly forgot that it was hypothetical. At no point did you try to prove that your premise was true. You cannot do that, which you'd know if you had bothered to open up any recent legal code. Of course, some rules are really just concretizations of more general rules, but what makes you think those are the majority? Search through any regulative code and you'll see licensing requirements, new tasks for the officials, sometimes even entirely new institutions. All of this increases administrative clutter even when it covers a very narrow field.

>Don't use statistics you'll become a lying opportunist just like your enemies and then it'll be over

If my thesis is that there is too much regulation, and no significant deregulation at all, then I have to back it up, and the easiest way to do that are statistics. That isn't lying, it's what even the most ardent rationalist would do if he was trying to understand the contingent world.

>>69712

It doesn't. Even if empirical methods were entirely practicable, which they aren't, they'd still be inferior to a priori reasoning.

>>69693

>These kinds of people?

Yes except they would clearly disagree with you.

>Sure, they want nothing else but the market, too… except in education, city parks, currencies, the justice system, national defense, and probably lighthouses.

Not many relevant people are anarchists. Many people don't know you exist, and basically no one cares about you.

>Probably? So you don't know if he's the most qualified? Then allow me to disregard your opinion.

Maybe you should also kill yourself.

>So? Because it's popular, it must be correct? That's not how science works.

No, but the people with degrees are more likely to be correct than faggots who get their opinions from youtube.

>If they think that Milton Friedman is a radical, then clearly, they don't.

He was a radical, just not in comparison to anarchists (who are irrelevant so much they might as well not exist)

>>69718

Without an essential distinction between senses and ration, the classification of methods is also arbitrary.

>>69688

not every proponent of free market has studies these large treatises maybe

>>69725

If I want an opinion about physics I ask a physicist. This is not an 'argument from authority'. He is simply more likely to hold a valuable opinion.

>I've probably read more on economics than most of the fags in Congress, by the way.

Those people aren't professors or economists. They should rely on the professors and economists instead.

Also, if you only watch videos that you know you're going to agree with (because you get 'triggered' by anything else) then your knowledge is of dubious value anyway

>>69728

The first quote is irrelevant to Krugman's actual views. The second quote is accurate in that those things will at least increase GDP and stop economic stagnation. As far as the third quote goes, I'm not sure but I think the crash was caused by rapid contraction of the money supply, which Keynes could not have seen coming.

>>69746

>If I want an opinion about physics I ask a physicist. This is not an 'argument from authority'. He is simply more likely to hold a valuable opinion

You're only selectively trusting the experts. You don't trust Hoppe, Rothbard, Mises, Menger, Hayek, Milton Friedman, David Friedman, and many others, but you do trust the mainstream economists. Even though all the aforementioned ones hold degrees, and some of them even received noble prices. You disregard them because you don't like their findings, but then suspend your judgement when it comes to the findings of those that you agree with.

>Also, if you only watch videos that you know you're going to agree with (because you get 'triggered' by anything else) then your knowledge is of dubious value anyway

And this is a classical case of "it can't be true, so it isn't true". I neither watch YouTube videos nor do I eschew economists and wannabe-economists that I think I'll disagree with. I've read Graeber, Cockshott, Marx, Trotsky, some expert gremium from the GDR, Amartya Sen, Galbraith, and I got many more on my list. And frankly, most were a waste of time. From Cockshott trying to disprove a theory without ever reading a primary source on it, to Sen assuming that guest workers can eat 6000 calories a day, to Galbraith disregarding counterevidence as "the exception that proves the rule", they were all shit.

The only dogmaticist here is you. You're the one who refuses to even touch any "unpopular" opinion.

>>69747

>The first quote is irrelevant to Krugman's actual views.

So making bad predictions is no reason to doubt the predictive power of your theories? That's not even empiricism, It's just excuses.

>The second quote is accurate in that those things will at least increase GDP and stop economic stagnation.

Then why don't we go all the way and just burn down all our homes once every five years? GDP should skyrocket after that.

>As far as the third quote goes, I'm not sure but I think the crash was caused by rapid contraction of the money supply, which Keynes could not have seen coming.

And yet, Mises did see it coming, even though he never bothered much about predictive power, unlike Keynes. Could it be that Mises was right and Keynes wrong, or did your college prohibit independent thought?

>>69748

>You're only selectively trusting the experts. You don't trust Hoppe, Rothbard, Mises, Menger, Hayek, Milton Friedman, David Friedman, and many others, but you do trust the mainstream economists. Even though all the aforementioned ones hold degrees, and some of them even received noble prices. You disregard them because you don't like their findings, but then suspend your judgement when it comes to the findings of those that you agree with.

People who hold libertarian ideologies can't be trusted to come to objective conclusions.

And those people hardly ever get into actual specific points of evidence, so that's another reason to trust the academics skilled in issues.

>>69751

>People who hold libertarian ideologies can't be trusted to come to objective conclusions.

In other words, you infer that they're wrong from them being wrong. Does that not sound circular to you?

>And those people hardly ever get into actual specific points of evidence, so that's another reason to trust the academics skilled in issues.

Have you personally read them, or do you take what Krugtron the Destroyer said on faith?

>>69753

>In other words, you infer that they're wrong from them being wrong

No from holding ideologies which colour their perception.

>Have you personally read them, or do you take what Krugtron the Destroyer said on faith?

I've read them. What I mean is (Friedman and monetarism aside) they weren't actually diving into specific points of evidence, so much as describing general economic ideas.

>>69746

>Also, if you only watch videos that you know you're going to agree with (because you get 'triggered' by anything else) then your knowledge is of dubious value anyway

This is borderline ad hom. There are plenty of books on economics provided on this site that reveals your assertion flimsy.

>He is simply more likely to hold a valuable opinion.

Value is subjective, but opinions are not objectively facts.

>>69751

>libertarian ideologies

Libertarianism is not an ideology. It does not posit how people should be governed but leaves it to the individual to decide how best to be governed. It is akin to calling atheism a belief, when in fact it is the lack of a belief.

>>69755

*all opinions are not objectively facts.

fixed

>>69756

You believe there shouldn't be government, which makes you the same as an atheist who believes there isn't a god. Both are beliefs.

Libertarians believe government intervention is morally wrong- conveniently they also believe (far more than anyone else) it is inefficient. Coincidence?

>>69758

Don't conflate belief and conviction just to have something to say. The first requires no reason nor proof, both of which are provided to you to address if you can.

>>69760

This is a post of severe autism and it doesn't even give me anything to respond to. I'm not posting 'just to have something to say' I'm saying libertarianism is an ideology since it has a rigid definition of right and wrong which it pretends is an absolute state of the universe.

>>69761

>it pretends is an absolute state of the universe

Try without making up your own shit.

>You believe

You keep on insisting it's a mere belief and when asked to address anything from its theory, which this thread is about in the first place, you repeat your shit and continue with empty statements. Nobody here is new to rhetoric. Shifting from one accusation to the other, never even attempting a defense when confronted. As long as you have nothing but broad, unspecific statements you think you're safe.

>>69762

> Try without making up your own shit.

Saying the use of force is morally wrong is making a claim about the state of the universe. You are only objecting because you want to argue with me for no reason.

>You keep on insisting it's a mere belief

Where does this 'mere' come from? I'm saying it's a belief.

>when asked to address anything from its theory, which this thread is about in the first place, you repeat your shit and continue with empty statements.

This thread isn't about the validity of libertarian moral beliefs. Maybe you should check over your posts before you make them.

>>69754

>No from holding ideologies which colour their perception.

Implying that non-libertarians are not ideological, which, clearly, they are. If anything, they're more closedminded, at least the academicians. Look at Rawls or Sen and tell me what they created weren't apologetics. Rawls even modified his original thought experiment to accomodate his conclusion on generational justice. Rummel, whom I actually really like, never included Churchill in his list of megamurderers despite his implication in the Hunger Blockade, the eviction of Germans after WW2, and the Bengal Famine.

>I've read them. What I mean is (Friedman and monetarism aside) they weren't actually diving into specific points of evidence, so much as describing general economic ideas.

When you have an a priori methodology, empirical evidence just doesn't mean much. Still, all the Austrians I've read used it for illustrative purposes. It's not like we're talking about economic ideas without linking them back to reality. We do that, but we have no pretensions that any piece of evidence could overrule a priori reasoning.

>>69758

>Libertarians believe government intervention is morally wrong- conveniently they also believe (far more than anyone else) it is inefficient. Coincidence?

Literally what drove me to Jesus. That aside, what if it's both morally wrong an inefficient? We can back both propositions up.

>>69690

>favour evidence based policy

>believe in market failure

Pick one.

>>69763

>Saying the use of force is morally wrong is making a claim about the state of the universe

Do you make any distinction between Normative and Objective? Are you able to at all? Nobody's making a claim about "the state of the universe".

>I'm saying it's a belief

Making empty propositions says nothing. You could have really posted a random sequence of letters and it would have the same effect, maybe without the (you)s.

>This thread isn't about the validity of libertarian moral beliefs.

Yes, it isn't. Economic theory is not a moral belief. Repeating it enough times without ever proving it won't make it otherwise.

>>69772

>Implying that non-libertarians are not ideological, which, clearly, they are.

In general, I'm saying there's less likely to, especially in terms of economics.

The people you mentioned are not academic economists btw.

>>69783

> Do you make any distinction between Normative and Objective? Are you able to at all? Nobody's making a claim about "the state of the universe".

Normative beliefs are still beliefs. Claiming something is morally wrong is making a claim about that thing.

>Making empty propositions says nothing.

So saying 'libertarianism is not a belief' is full of meaning, but saying 'libertarianism is a belief' is totally meaningless and makes no sense to you. What a genius you are.

>Economic theory is not a moral belief. Repeating it enough times without ever proving it won't make it otherwise.

But I'm saying libertarian moral beliefs are moral beliefs. You're either incredibly stupid or just misunderstanding my arguments because you want to argue with me and misrepresent me.

>>69758

>You believe there shouldn't be government

Libertarians of the anarchist varieties do not believe there should be government, which is logically distinct from the belief that there should be no government. This assertion conflates opposition and negation. It is possible to hold both as true as many anarchists do, since they do not conflict, but they are strictly distinct propositions.

>the same as an atheist who believes there isn't a god

Same as above; atheists do not believe in deities, which is different from believing that there are no deities. Many do both, but that isn't what makes them an atheist.

>Libertarians believe government intervention is morally wrong

Now you're getting into morality, which strictly speaking is not a part of libertarian philosophy itself. Ethics plays a significant role, but this is distinct from morality. Ethics addresses logically consistent normative claims while morality addresses personally held normative beliefs. Ethics is a study while morality merely refers to one's values. It stands to reason that most libertarians would broadly hold moral beliefs which are consistent with their ethical philosophy, but when you start talking about morality, you're really shifting the discussion to personal traits rather than philosophy.

Libertarian philosophy underscores the fundamental impossibility of ethically justifying government intervention. The corresponding moral value that those who grasp this insight are likely to hold is that government intervention is wrong. A rigorous approach to philosophy still recognizes these two as separate concepts, though.

>they also believe (far more than anyone else) it is inefficient

This insight is reached analytically. The fact that it is consistent with the ethical insight only speaks to the coherence of the philosophy. If one's formulation of ethics suggested that ethical justifiability was at odds with practical functionality, it would indicate an alarming error in one's execution of philosophical examination. The lack of any such conflict in libertarian philosophy, that is to say its coherence, is one of its more salient strengths.

>>69787

>Normative beliefs are still beliefs.

This is true, but not all beliefs pertain to the state of physical things. Some address logical relationships, which are logically prior to physical reality. Therein lies the distinction between normative and descriptive claims.

>So saying 'libertarianism is not a belief' is full of meaning, but saying 'libertarianism is a belief' is totally meaningless and makes no sense to you.

I'm a different poster, so my take on this is a little different from his. "Libertarianism is not a belief" is an accurate statement. "Libertarianism is a belief" is an inaccurate statement. I wouldn't say that it's non-referential; merely that it's inaccurate.

>>69796

>Libertarians of the anarchist varieties do not believe there should be government, which is logically distinct from the belief that there should be no government.

But you do believe there should be no government. Stop lying.

>Same as above; atheists do not believe in deities, which is different from believing that there are no deities. Many do both, but that isn't what makes them an atheist.

I didn't say all atheists believe there is no god.

>Now you're getting into morality, which strictly speaking is not a part of libertarian philosophy itself

Libertarians hold unique moral *beliefs*. Stop lying.

>This insight is reached analytically. The fact that it is consistent with the ethical insight only speaks to the coherence of the philosophy.

It speaks to deliberate pursuit of evidence which confirms your moral beliefs. Nothing more. There is no reason why something being immoral must necessarily make it economically inefficient.

>I'm a different poster, so my take on this is a little different from his. "Libertarianism is not a belief" is an accurate statement. "Libertarianism is a belief" is an inaccurate statement. I wouldn't say that it's non-referential; merely that it's inaccurate.

Cool opinion.

>>69830

> Then he'd be an Anarcho-Capitalist and not a Libertarian. There is a rather defined difference between the two.

Okay then anarcho-capitalists do want there be no government. No difference.

>The beliefs that people shouldn't steal, murder or commit acts of aggression are unique?

The belief that taxation is theft and war is murder and these things can't be justified is practically unique.

>This is more of an ad hominem more than anything else

It's just a claim.

>All he's actually said is that it's a major plus that it's logically consistent with Libertarian philosophy that government is inefficient along with the fact that it's immoral.

No, that's wrong. He said that if your moral philosophy reaches a conclusion that's economically efficient you've MADE AN ERROR. Don't try to pass it off like he's just saying it's good they converge.

>>69832

Again you people just get bogged down on silly questions when you actually know I'm right. Most economists aren't ideologically opposed to taxation and I'm saying that's why more of them view taxation as efficient. They look more honestly at all the evidence. They aren't trying to reach a particular conclusion.

This is exactly what psychologically tells us would happen

>>69840

I'm not saying they *must* be right, I'm saying they're more likely to be right. They're more likely to be right because they will be less biased and will look at evidence more objectively.

>>69858

And what exactly makes say, Keynesians less biased than Austrians or Chicago economists? Would you say that a Marxian "economist" is as likely as a market fundamentalist to be biased?

>>69860

I don't think they hold as strong moral opinions about the things they're analysing. Some liberals might be triggered by economic inequality but 1) they don't tend to be economists anyway, and 2) that's not that important.

I mean really severe liberals. I think economists support more liberal policies than conservative policies (in some areas) but they aren't strong liberals rigidly concerned with creating equality

>>69861

Yet you can't see what politicians would have to gain by promoting economic theories that portray government as necessary and an unregulated free market as flawed and dangerous?

>>69866

i'm not talking about politicians

politicians have often promoted the free market anyway.

>>69867

If by "free market" you mean the Chicago school, then yeah.

>>69868

i mean the free market silly cuck

>>69858

But you're treating "more likely to be" as "are". Nowhere in this thread did you make any pretension of actually looking at the substance of their theories. You never told us what exactly is wrong with a priori methodologies or how market failure is supposed to work. You never explained why a gold standard cannot work or why certain levels of inflation help the economy. You seem to be content with going by likelihood, but that is not what any self-respecting, informed intellectual would do. And if you're not informed, you also shouldn't participate in a debate.

>>69867

So they have often promoted abolishing the Fed, allowing a market in currencies and reducing overall taxation to, say, five or ten percent?

>>69827

A government is fine for libertarians as long as it is voluntary and people can choose among other governments and public service providers. Libertarians lack the belief that force (i.e. the state) is required to provide public services.

>>69832

>belief that taxation is theft and war is murder

Not sure where you get the notion that libertarians believe this. Taxation does involve theft but it is not theft itself (for instance, one can have voluntary taxation via lotteries) and war involves murder but it is not murder itself.

>these things can't be justified is practically unique

The onus for justification of an action, whether it is war or taxation or anything else, is on the person committing the action. This is not unique among libertarians.

>>69872

>The statement "taxation is theft" is a simple statement, not a moral one, nor is it even normative in nature.

Even if true libertarians believe taxation is immoral. I don't even know why you bother arguing.

>If you have a dysfunctional system of ethics (such as 'thou shalt murder') and it is at odds with practical functionality (murdering everyone isn't very efficient at maintaining civilization), then this would mean that the philosophy in question is deeply troubled and that the philosophy itself should be firmly re-examined.

In other words, you've made an error?

>>69900

>Not sure where you get the notion that libertarians believe this.

The fact that libertarians say those things.

>The onus for justification of an action, whether it is war or taxation or anything else, is on the person committing the action. This is not unique among libertarians.

Doesn't contradict what I said. People largely believe taxation to be moral- apart from libertarians.

>>69872

>You seem to be content with going by likelihood, but that is not what any self-respecting, informed intellectual would do.

It is exactly what an intelligent person would do. He goes with the people more likely to be correct.

Especially if he feels he is *never* going to know better than a panel of university professors who have degrees in economics.

>>69902

>Especially if he feels he is *never* going to know better than a panel of university professors who have degrees in economics.

But you do feel that way. You do feel like you know better than Hayek, Rothbard, Friedman, Mises, Block, Hoppe… if you see two people who both have degrees disagree with each other, then a neutral position would be sensible, but not calling the one who seems to be less popular an untalented heck. Because, after all, that guy still has thirty years of experience over you.

>>69904

>You do feel like you know better than Hayek, Rothbard, Friedman, Mises, Block, Hoppe

I do?

>>69906

You've been arguing that they're just biased crackpots this entire thread.

>>69906

Yeah, this: >>69907

You made this pretty obvious. It's not like you just said you go with Keynes because he seems to be less controversial, you judged how qualified the rest were. Case in point:

>>69690

>Milton Friedman is the most famous name there, and probably the most qualified.

>>69724

>Maybe you should also kill yourself.

Okay, that was mostly just rude, but as it was in reply to me pointing out your admission of ignorance, I think it's still kinda relevant.

>>69751

>People who hold libertarian ideologies can't be trusted to come to objective conclusions.

Basically saying that Mises, Rothbard etc., all of whom were formally trained economists who held degrees, were wrong and only came to their conclusions due to ideological bias.

>And those people hardly ever get into actual specific points of evidence, so that's another reason to trust the academics skilled in issues.

And here you're even judging them based on the evidence they present. So clearly, you do think you're qualified to judge whether an economist can back his theories up.

>>69754

>No from holding ideologies which colour their perception.

Same as above.

>read them. What I mean is (Friedman and monetarism aside) they weren't actually diving into specific points of evidence, so much as describing general economic ideas.

Again, here you're judging them based on their supposed lack of evidence and on what they're talking about. That's not what you do when you think you're not qualified to assess whether a trained economist with serious credentials has it right or wrong.

And so on. In the meantime, you evaded most attempts from me to talk about questions of methodology or substance generally. You keep looking for external factors to assess whether a thinker is right or wrong, except when you don't. When reading Mises, who - again - helped develop a theory that won a nobel price, you thought you were competent to disregard him because of his supposed lack of evidence.

>>69913

>>69907

You're both idiots. I don't know economics more than them but I do believe they're biased.

>In the meantime, you evaded most attempts from me to talk about questions of methodology or substance generally

I'm not obligated to discuss economics with you.

>When reading Mises, who - again - helped develop a theory that won a nobel price, you thought you were competent to disregard him because of his supposed lack of evidence.

No I didn't.

Last time I'm responding to this stupid thread full of idiots who can't understand a simple point.

>>69901

>The fact that libertarians say those things.

Proof?

>People largely believe taxation to be moral- apart from libertarians.

Libertarians are concerned about the ethical justification of forced taxation, and not the morality. And this is not limited to libertarians - for most of US history and many proponents today supported Locke's view on consent of the governed.

>>69690

Read this post again. This is the fetid smell of neoliberalism.

>>69690

>market failure

explain this shit

>>69827

>But you do believe there should be no government.

What do my personal beliefs, whatever they are, have to do with this discussion? Anarchism is not founded on a positive belief of any sort. One may be an anarchist and hold the positive belief that you mention, but it is not logically requisite to be an anarchist.

>I didn't say all atheists believe there is no god.

Yet it would seem that you are saying that all libertarians hold the positive belief that the state should not exist.

>It speaks to deliberate pursuit of evidence which confirms your moral beliefs.

I was quite thorough and explicit in drawing a clear distinction between morality and ethics. Commentary which fails to account for this distinction cannot meaningfully advance the discussion.

Further; you speak of evidence when the bulk of the discussion at hand remains analytical in scope, making it logically prior to evidence. What evidence do you feel has been sought and presented?

>There is no reason why something being immoral must necessarily make it economically inefficient.

But there is all the reason in the world why something being unethical is logically connected to it being economically inefficient. Ethical unjustifiability indicates inconsistent normative premises, which in turn indicates that actions are directed toward opposing ends. Since these opposing ends necessarily cannot be met, ethically unjustifiable action necessarily indicates effort being put toward goals which will not be achieved, as well as an unnecessary amount of effort being put toward a goal which would otherwise have been achieved with less. These avoidable expenditures of effort are the very picture of waste.

>Cool opinion.

Do you imagine it to be rhetorically effective to simply dismiss the commentary of those who offer you a rhetorical concession, no matter how small? Has this method satisfactorily advanced your persuasive intentions in the past?

>>69832

>Okay then anarcho-capitalists do want there be no government.

Again, not necessarily by the most strictly consistent definitions, but it is a very common belief among them. Anarcho-Capitalism is a synthesis of Anarchism and Capitalism, which reject political intervention and economic intervention respectively. It seems safe to say that those who reject such interventionism overwhelmingly also hold an active opposition to them, but this is not strictly necessary in defining the philosophy.

>No difference.

Shifting from libertarians in general to Anarcho-Capitalists changes the scope of the discussion.

>practically unique.

What precisely is that supposed to mean? That only one particular group of people holds such beliefs? That can be trivially true if one tailors one's definition of the group to encapsulate the aforementioned people, but what insight does such a definition provide? What exactly is being specified or attributed to precisely whom?

>He said that if your moral philosophy reaches a conclusion that's economically efficient you've MADE AN ERROR.

I didn't make commentary on moral philosophy. I spoke about ethics, which is distinct. It has been my observation that it is inordinately difficult to get one's interlocutor to adjust their commentary in accordance with this distinction.

You seem to be particularly concerned with this passage:

>If one's formulation of ethics suggested that ethical justifiability was at odds with practical functionality, it would indicate an alarming error in one's execution of philosophical examination.

This, again, is discussing ethics as opposed to morality. Further, it indicates only that one have made a philosophical error; one could just as well be mistaken in their ethical formulation as in their economic formulation. The commentary I provided did not specify that economic philosophy was subordinate to ethical philosophy or vice-versa; it merely indicated that any inconsistencies in one's worldview were indicative of some philosophical error. If your ethics and your economics don't agree, then at least one of them is wrong.

>Don't try to pass it off like he's just saying it's good they converge.

I refer you to this:

>The fact that it is consistent with the ethical insight only speaks to the coherence of the philosophy.

>The lack of any such conflict in libertarian philosophy, that is to say its coherence, is one of its more salient strengths.

>>69834

>you actually know I'm right

The mere assertion of one's correctness, even if as a subordinate clause in a declaration or question, is not a rational argument.

>Most economists aren't ideologically opposed to taxation and I'm saying that's why more of them view taxation as efficient.

This is not only an appeal to authority and an appeal to popularity, but it is also an empirical claim asserted without evidence.

>They look more honestly at all the evidence. They aren't trying to reach a particular conclusion.

What makes economists uniquely resistant to bias? All empirical investigation requires interpretation, which inevitably involves bias.

>>69858

>I'm saying they're more likely to be right.

That would be a satisfactory argument if this were an empirical discussion, but the economic arguments you are trying to counter are analytical. A priori arguments cannot be refuted by a posteriori arguments, for the simple reason that they are logically prior to them. The a posteriori argument must necessarily rely upon the logic established in the a priori. To refute that is to refute its own foundation. One may only rationally counter an a priori argument with another a priori argument.

>>69861

>I don't think they hold as strong moral opinions about the things they're analysing.

What evidence do you have of this? Or of the notion that they agree with your assertions here?

>>69867

>politicians have often promoted the free market anyway.

Rhetorically, perhaps, but the very existence of the political profession is an encroachment upon a free market.

>>69900

>voluntary government

>voluntary taxation

These are contradictions in terms; government and taxation are compulsory by definition. The voluntary alternatives to those things are not accurately described with those words.

>>69901

>In other words, you've made an error?

Yes.

>The fact that libertarians say those things.

Which ones? "Libertarianism" is a broad term.

>People largely believe taxation to be moral- apart from libertarians.

What rational significance does this assertion, if true, have?

>>69902

>It is exactly what an intelligent person would do. He goes with the people more likely to be correct.

For an empirical question, yes. For an analytical question, that is not a rational heuristic when analytical arguments are available.

>>69918

>I'm not obligated to discuss economics with you.

By the same token, nobody is obligated to take your assertions seriously. If your only response to an analytical economic argument is to appeal to the authority of those academics who happen to agree with you, and to assert without evidence that they constitute the majority of the profession, and in turn that this makes their opinions superior to analytical logic, then your position is inadequately supported.

>You're both idiots.

>stupid thread full of idiots

The need to insult everyone who disagrees with you and assert that their disagreement stems entirely from a lack of comprehension is not indicative of a strong logical or rhetorical position.

>>70268

>>70269

You write with your fist so far up your arse that your prose is unreadable, you stupid slimy Jew,

>What rational significance does this assertion, if true, have?

You're willing to write tons of nitpicking pointless shit but not to understand the basic point.

People who believe interventionism to be immoral hold a bias which makes them eager to believe government intervention doesn't work. This is why libertarians hold views out of line with mainstream economists.

Again your only point is

>but muh appeal to authority!!!1111

Jesus Christ, just fuck off. Go learn 100% the arguments of retards opposed to chemotherapy then. Until then don't do anything to cure your brain cancer. This is unironically what you believe when you think expertise has no value.

Cut off your dick

You also imply people don't use 'unethical' and immoral interchangably, which they absolutely do. You stupid nitpicking reddit tier fuck. You contribute nothing beyond endless posts of 'argumentation' which doesn't enlighten anyone. Worst poster ever

>>70279

>People who believe interventionism to be immoral hold a bias which makes them eager to believe government intervention doesn't work

Nobody is unbiased. That has no value at all and you have yet to prove why it matters. Being biased against extortion and compulsion is hardly unreasonable.

>>70283

> Nobody is unbiased. That has no value at all and you have yet to prove why it matters.

lol

> Being biased against extortion and compulsion is hardly unreasonable.

okay

>>70284

>lol

We've had worse than you, but you might just be the most smug in your ignorance our of all.

>>70279

>People who believe interventionism to be immoral hold a bias which makes them eager to believe government intervention doesn't work.

How do you know that isn't the wrong way around? Couldn't the causality be just the opposite, that we figured out that interventionism doesn't work and that is why we oppose it?

>>70281

>This is unironically what you believe when you think expertise has no value.

But you do believe that expertise has no value when it's held by libertarian economists. You told us to our faces that Mises and Hayek are wrong despite their credentials. You're not following the experts, you follow whatever experts you deem credible and deny that the rest qualify.

>Cut off your dick

This just makes you sound like you have massive issues, friendo.

>>70269

Voluntary taxation (e.g. lotteries) are not compulsory, so no contradiction there.

Individuals can voluntarily associate with others to form self-governing bodies and more specifically their institutions

(defense and law) as we see in polycentric societies.

>>70428

>Voluntary taxation (e.g. lotteries)

A lottery is not a tax. The fact that it is a source of revenue which a state happens to use does not make it a tax. Taxation is compulsory by definition. The collection of revenue by the state does not in and of itself describe a tax.

>Individuals can voluntarily associate with others to form self-governing bodies and more specifically their institutions

(defense and law) as we see in polycentric societies.

Just as not all forms of revenue collection are taxation, not all forms of institutional organization satisfy the definition of "government". By the typical use of the word "government", it is compulsory by definition. I would not describe a polycentric law market as a government, largely because of its pluralistic nature. That said, it might not run afoul of some looser definitions.

>>70430

>A lottery is not a tax.

Now we are arguing semantics. IT could

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_taxation

>"State lotteries are an example of a voluntary taxation system."

Why do you consider government compulsory? A government is just a system that governs a community.

>>70436

>Now we are arguing semantics.

Which is critical to any rational discussion. If the semantics aren't worked out, the rest of the argument is just noise.

>Why do you consider government compulsory?

Most working definitions of government hold that it is. If you'd like to use another one, it would be productive to specify that at the time of offering the argument.

>A government is just a system that governs a community.

Actually, it's defined as the system which governs a nation or state, the definite article indicating exclusivity. Should an individual party not wish to be governed, a purely voluntary institution would permit them to conduct their affairs independently, at which point it ceases to be the body which governs a nation or state and becomes merely a body which governs some of the nation (but not the state; states being explicitly defined as monopolistic, thereby excluding them from the definition).

>>70436

>>"State lotteries are an example of a voluntary taxation system."

tax

taks

noun: tax; plural noun: taxes

a compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.

Taxes are, by definition, compulsory. "Voluntary taxation" is a contradiction in terms, regardless of the existence of a page by that title in a publicly-edited online encyclopedia.

>>70437

>Most working definitions of government hold that it is

Source? I use the common dictionary definition:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/government?s=ts

>Actually, it's defined as the system which governs a nation or state,

Nope, since there could be regional and local governments, too.

>>70438

>using the Oxford definition

How about using a more popular definition:

>1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.

This demand would be compulsory if the government was compulsory. But I am talking about a competitive market for traditional public services.

>2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.

Note the word obligation.

>"Voluntary taxation" is a contradiction in terms, regardless of the existence of a page by that title in a publicly-edited online encyclopedia.

This is not an argument.