god or no god?

[Napolitanic Wars]

Notice how the guy that started the thread has completely lost interest?

 

[Conza88]

I could give a hoot about labels. I deal with the real world and issues arising within it when I do thought experiments to derive outcomes based on real life experience. Some university edumacated clown or their professor does not impress me. They have been proven over and over that their dogma is BS. Salt of the earth common sense is pure gold compared to the base metal drivel these types spout.

Yer failure in understanding is that there is no market without a community. Several communities in proximity to each other who share the same values is generally called a state as far as governmental functions are concerned. Mind you..this is real world and not theoretical BS and autoblither.

Rev9

It's what the label is refering to genius. Market actions (voluntary) or government (force). There is no such thing as community, or society. It doesn't exist in physical objective reality. Individuals however, do. So.. LMAO!

You have failed economics 101, which is nothing but descriptive of reality.

"All of these categories which we know to be the very heart of economics-values, ends, means, choice, preference, cost, profit and loss-are implied in the axiom of action. Like the axiom itself, they are not derived from observation. Rather, that one is able to interpret observations in terms of such categories requires that one already knows what it means to act. No one who is not an actor could ever understand them, as they are not "given," ready to be observed, but observational experience is cast in these terms as it is construed by an actor. And while they and their interrelations were not obviously implied in the action axiom, once it has been made explicit that they are implied, and how, one no longer has any difficulty recognizing them as being a priori true in the same sense as the axiom itself is.

For any attempt to disprove the validity of what Mises has reconstructed as implied in the very concept of action would have to be aimed at a goal, requiring means, excluding other courses of action, incurring costs, subjecting the actor to the possibility of achieving or not achieving the desired goal and so leading to a profit or a loss. Thus, it is manifestly impossible to ever dispute or falsify the validity of Mises's insights. In fact, a situation in which the categories of action would cease to have a real existence could itself never be observed or spoken of, since to make an observation and to speak are themselves actions."

~ Hoppe, Economics and Austrian Method

 

[Carson]

With so many people believing there is a God and a Santa Claus how could there not be?

Religion has been a phenomenal success worldwide. All of the many religions working together have set mankind on a course through history that has, by-in-large, improved all of our lives. We wouldn't be where we are today if it wasn't every one of them. Same with Santa. With so many believing how could there not be a spirit, that would not only have to be, but a spirit able to take hold of us and sweep us along like we are caught in a wave.

Even in the times when the concept is hard to completely be taken over by is it still such a bad thing to hold on to or share?

Take praying. Say before you go to bed you say a special prayer. Perhaps you pray to have the day go well for you and those around you. The next day you might remember your prayer and take inventory of how things went. That should put you in a reference of mind to look back on the things that went well for you and the others. That should give you a positive look at the day. Religious, or not, is that such a bad thing?

Argumentum ad populum. Hope you wrote this sarcastically.

Absolutely not...but I'm sure your post must have been. If it wasn't for your belief and the other of your believers I would have had no idea what the term, "Argumentum ad populum" meant. Luckily one of you posted a Wiki page on the definition.

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

The inclusion of the word "fallacious" fails has it not?

Should it be stricken from the Wiki page?

 

[Becker]

Nope, lol, hilarious.

​

Last part about Somalia, failed states, and anarcho-capitalism directly addresses your flawed misconception.

Ron Paul is a libertarian by the way. (Being in a Church doesn't make you a Christian)... the same way being in a garage doesn't make you car.

For it to be justified, and actually represent a DRO, or PDA it does. For it to be a free market institution or company, voluntary contracts.

In that case, the current government IS a DRO, PDA, you're just the enemy of it.

 

[Conza88]

In that case, the current government IS a DRO, PDA, you're just the enemy of it.

Yeah, if you want to re-define A as B, by all means.. the current state is a voluntary organisation ...

 

[Becker]

Yeah, if you want to re-define A as B, by all means.. the current state is a voluntary organisation ...

I don't need to, most people agree with me, that's why YOU are on the fringe side with no money, power or influence. Have fun being a ranting kid on the internet, brag to me when you've slayed the dragon (I would know, I'm riding on his head)

 

[Revolution9]

It's what the label is refering to genius. Market actions (voluntary) or government (force). There is no such thing as community, or society. It doesn't exist in physical objective reality. Individuals however, do. So.. LMAO!

​

Yer crackers. Community is the sum total of your local neighbors and services. Society is the total of the communities public activities. Salt of the earth folks know this, which leads to the conclusion...You live on some bizarro planetoid of university professor dielectics who practice anal retentive snickering to avail themselves of some mental mechanism to avoid reality by changing common definitions of words. You would make an awesome communist BTW.

Rev9

 

[Becker]

Yer crackers. Community is the sum total of your local neighbors and services. Society is the total of the communities public activities. Salt of the earth folks know this, which leads to the conclusion...You live on some bizarro planetoid of university professor dielectics who practice anal retentive snickering to avail themselves of some mental mechanism to avoid reality by changing common definitions of words. You would make an awesome communist BTW.

Rev9

I can't help but think he is one in denial. A person who talks purely in theory and doesn't cite practical results to support his views.

 

[Conza88]

I don't need to, most people agree with me, that's why YOU are on the fringe side with no money, power or influence. Have fun being a ranting kid on the internet, brag to me when you've slayed the dragon (I would know, I'm riding on his head)

(1) Appeal to popularity fallacy.
(2) I'm on the fringe with no money, power or influence? Wow, LOL - talk about projecting..
(3) Ron Paul's a voluntaryist... I agree with him, and he agrees with Rothbard, Spooner, Mises and Hoppe when it comes to the nature of the state. YOU'RE THE FRINGE ELEMENT.
(4) All your criticisms can equally be applied to the utopians of 'limited government'... try again bro. This time at least put some thought into it.

Yer crackers. Community is the sum total of your local neighbors and services. Society is the total of the communities public activities. Salt of the earth folks know this, which leads to the conclusion...You live on some bizarro planetoid of university professor dielectics who practice anal retentive snickering to avail themselves of some mental mechanism to avoid reality by changing common definitions of words. You would make an awesome communist BTW.

Rev9

Blah blah, I'm a modern day dude who speaks like a pirate because yaaaarrrr.

You continually miss the point. Market or State. There isn't a middle road. Make your choice.

The market, Polanyi thunders, disrupted and sundered "society"; restrictions on the market [are] "society’s" indispensable method of "protecting itself." All very well, until we begin to inquire: who is "society"? Where is it? What are its identifiable attributes? Whenever someone begins to talk about "society" or "society’s" interest coming before "mere individuals and their interest," a good operative rule is: guard your pocketbook. And guard yourself! Because behind the facade of "society," there is always a group of power-hungry doctrinaires and exploiters, ready to take your money and to order your actions and your life. For, somehow, they "are" society! ~ Down With Primitivism: A Thorough Critique of Polanyi , MNR​

Yeah, I'M the communist..?

I can't help but think he is one in denial. A person who talks purely in theory and doesn't cite practical results to support his views.

You are economically & philosophically ignorant. You fear what you do not understand. My suggestion - make an actual effort to understand, before lashing out like a caveman.

"Let us proceed, then, to a critique of the egalitarian ideal itself-should equality be granted its current status as an unquestioned ethical ideal? In the first place, we must challenge the very idea of a radical separation between something that is “true in theory” but “not valid in practice.”

If a theory is correct, then it does work in practice; if it does not work in practice, then it is a bad theory. The common separation between theory and practice is an artificial and fallacious one. But this is true in ethics as well as anything else. If an ethical ideal is inherently “impractical,” that is, if it cannot work in practice, then it is a poor ideal and should be discarded forthwith.

To put it more precisely, if an ethical goal violates the nature of man and/or the universe and, therefore, cannot work in practice, then it is a bad ideal and should be dismissed as a goal. If the goal itself violates the nature of man, then it is also a poor idea to work in the direction of that goal."​

​

I await your insightful rebuttal... .

LOL, you think I'm the one in denial?

"Assume a group of people, aware of the possibility of conflicts; and then someone proposes, as a solution to this eternal human problem, that he (someone) be made the ultimate arbiter in any such case of conflict, including those conflicts in which he is involved. I am confident that he will be considered either a joker or mentally unstable and yet this is precisely what all statists propose." ~ Hoppe.​

 

[Becker]

(1) Appeal to popularity fallacy.
(2) I'm on the fringe with no money, power or influence? Wow, LOL - talk about projecting..
(3) Ron Paul's a voluntaryist... I agree with him, and he agrees with Rothbard, Spooner, Mises and Hoppe when it comes to the nature of the state. YOU'RE THE FRINGE ELEMENT.
(4) All your criticisms can equally be applied to the utopians of 'limited government'... try again bro. This time at least put some thought into it.

somehow ad populum is only a fallacy when somebody else uses it. you turn around and say Ron Paul agrees with a bunch of people who also have no power, money and influence. you didnt bother denying that you don't have any power, money and influence. Call me fringe if you want, I'm with the rest of the world. were you assuming I support limited government? lol

 

[Conza88]

somehow ad populum is only a fallacy when somebody else uses it. you turn around and say Ron Paul agrees with a bunch of people who also have no power, money and influence. you didnt bother denying that you don't have any power, money and influence. Call me fringe if you want, I'm with the rest of the world. were you assuming I support limited government? lol

No power, money or influence doesn't mean they don't have the correct or legitimate position.

So 'might makes right' according to you? If not, what do you support then?

Daily Bell: What do you think of Ragnar Redbeard's Might Is Right?

Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: You can give two very different interpretations to this statement. I see no difficulty with the first one. It is: I know the difference between "might" and "right" and, as a matter of empirical fact, might is in fact frequently right. Most if not all of "public law," for instance, is might masquerading as right. The second interpretation is: I don't know the difference between "might" and "right," because there is no difference. Might is right and right is might. This interpretation is self-contradictory. Because if you wanted to defend this statement as a true statement in an argument with someone else you are in fact recognizing your opponent's property right in his own body. You do not aggress against him in order to bring him to the correct insight. You allow him to come to the correct insight on his own. That is, you admit, at least implicitly, that you do know the difference between right and wrong. Otherwise there would be no purpose in arguing. The same, incidentally, is true for Hobbes' famous dictum that one man is another man's wolf. In claiming this statement to be true, you actually prove it to be false.​

 

[Becker]

No power, money or influence doesn't mean they don't have the correct or legitimate position.

So 'might makes right' according to you? If not, what do you support then?

Daily Bell: What do you think of Ragnar Redbeard's Might Is Right?

Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe: You can give two very different interpretations to this statement. I see no difficulty with the first one. It is: I know the difference between "might" and "right" and, as a matter of empirical fact, might is in fact frequently right. Most if not all of "public law," for instance, is might masquerading as right. The second interpretation is: I don't know the difference between "might" and "right," because there is no difference. Might is right and right is might. This interpretation is self-contradictory. Because if you wanted to defend this statement as a true statement in an argument with someone else you are in fact recognizing your opponent's property right in his own body. You do not aggress against him in order to bring him to the correct insight. You allow him to come to the correct insight on his own. That is, you admit, at least implicitly, that you do know the difference between right and wrong. Otherwise there would be no purpose in arguing. The same, incidentally, is true for Hobbes' famous dictum that one man is another man's wolf. In claiming this statement to be true, you actually prove it to be false.​

being correct will get you around in life. exactly.

 

[Conza88]

being correct will get you around in life. exactly.

... then you completely miss the whole point of libertarianism. No doubt you'd have supported slavery back in the day aswell, since you do so now (just not chattel).

Why are you even here?

 

[Becker]

... then you completely miss the whole point of libertarianism. No doubt you'd have supported slavery back in the day aswell, since you do so now (just not chattel).

Why are you even here?

if being libertarian is to live in a dream world rather than getting results, seeking power , money, influence, then I want no part of it.

 

[Conza88]

if being libertarian is to live in a dream world rather than getting results, seeking power , money, influence, then I want no part of it.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Which states that aggression (the initiation or threat of physical force) is unjustified.

It starts at self-ownership and leads to original appropriation... the NAP.

Do you even support Ron Paul? Seriously, quit the dodging.

 

[Revolution9]

Blah blah, I'm a modern day dude who speaks like a pirate because yaaaarrrr.

You continually miss the point. Market or State. There isn't a middle road. Make your choice.

That is a false choice. I do not make choices based on falsehoods and substitution of paradigms. You however seem to have no problem accepting illusions. Yer line is basically if we lived in a wonderful world we would live in a wonderful world. Well..that is not the way it is working out..is it??

Rev9

 

[Conza88]

That is a false choice. I do not make choices based on falsehoods and substitution of paradigms. You however seem to have no problem accepting illusions. Yer line is basically if we lived in a wonderful world we would live in a wonderful world. Well..that is not the way it is working out..is it??

Rev9

It's not a false choice, you can either support voluntary actions, or aggressive ones. Which is it?

“Economic power,” then, is simply the right under freedom to refuse to make an exchange. Every man has this power. Every man has the same right to refuse to make a preferred exchange.

Now, it should become evident that the “of the-road” statist, who concedes the evil of violence but adds that the violence of government is sometimes necessary to counteract the “private coercion of economic power,” is caught in an impossible contradiction. A refuses to make an exchange with B. What are we to say, or what is the government to do, if B brandishes a gun and orders A to make the exchange? This is the crucial question. There are only two positions we may take on the matter: either that B is committing violence and should be stopped at once, or that B is perfectly justified in taking this step because he is simply “counteracting the subtle coercion” of economic power wielded by A. Either the defense agency must rush to the defense of A, or it deliberately refuses to do so, perhaps aiding B (or doing B’s work for him). There is no middle ground!9

~ Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Menlo Park, Calif.: Institute for Humane Studies, 1977), p. 229, emphasis in original.

 

[reillym]

Absolutely not...but I'm sure your post must have been. If it wasn't for your belief and the other of your believers I would have had no idea what the term, "Argumentum ad populum" meant. Luckily one of you posted a Wiki page on the definition.

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it; it alleges: "If many believe so, it is so."

The inclusion of the word "fallacious" fails has it not?

Should it be stricken from the Wiki page?

What? Your argument was this: God exists because everyone thinks so. That is not an argument that holds up to any sort of logical scrutiny. It is a child's argument, relevant only to children arguing in kindergarten.

 

[Becker]

Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Which states that aggression (the initiation or threat of physical force) is unjustified.

It starts at self-ownership and leads to original appropriation... the NAP.

Do you even support Ron Paul? Seriously, quit the dodging.

yes I support Ron Paul, and I support government.
If Ron Paul ever said he's for the overthrow or abolishment of government completely, rather than preserving limited amount of government necessary for protecting property and life, then I will no longer support him.

What is a "political" philosophy? A philosophy that presupposes the existence of government?

 

[Becker]

What? Your argument was this: God exists because everyone thinks so. That is not an argument that holds up to any sort of logical scrutiny. It is a child's argument, relevant only to children arguing in kindergarten.

you mean to say rights don't exist just because everybody thinks so? I be damned.