The Logical Absurdity of Libertarianism: Partial Omniscience

[Xerographica]

Forty-nine likes? "Our" representatives must be quaking in their boots ...

How many likes would it take for them to quake in their boots? And at which point, if any, would you like tax choice on facebook in order to help contribute to congress's fear of being made redundant?

 

[enoch150]

Clearly you love your congresspeople if you're not willing to take 10 seconds to create a facebook account in order to like tax choice on facebook. In case you missed it, in economics this is known as demonstrated preference.

Fedbook isn't the only way to demonstrate preference, and it certainly isn't the most effective.

Tax choice has 49 likes.

From people here?

LOL...yeah, because the NAP is soooooo fucking difficult to understand. No, when you can talk about public finance as easily as I can talk about the NAP...then you can tell me who the problem is. Until then you're fucking clueless.

If you understand libertarianism, then why did you assume that libertarians support the current system of taxation and government when they've been on record as opposing it for 40 years?

 

[Occam's Banana]

How many likes would it take for them to quake in their boots?

I haven't the foggiest notion. You are the one going about "scaring" them by doing things such as liking a Facebook page.

So you tell me: how many? (Like I said, I haven't the foggiest - but I'm pretty sure it ain't 49.)

And at which point, if any, would you like tax choice on facebook in order to help contribute to congress's fear of being made redundant?

At no point would I do so.

 

[Xerographica]

Fedbook isn't the only way to demonstrate preference, and it certainly isn't the most effective.

Liking something on facebook requires the minimal of effort. If you don't like tax choice on facebook...then it means that you might dislike our representatives...but you're pretty certain that taxpayers couldn't do a better job.

From people here?

How am I supposed to know? What difference does it make?

If you understand libertarianism, then why did you assume that libertarians support the current system of taxation and government when they've been on record as opposing it for 40 years?

Really? 40 years? LOL...you might want to review the timeline before you argue that your method is effective. Again, stupidly opposing something is the same thing as supporting it.

 

[Xerographica]

I haven't the foggiest notion. You are the one going about "scaring" them by doing things such as liking a Facebook page.

It's a facebook page that supports taking the power of the purse from congress. If you don't like the page, then it's because you don't want to take the power of the purse from congress.

So you tell me: how many? (Like I said, I haven't the foggiest - but I'm pretty sure it ain't 49.)

I think maybe at around 100,000 they'd start to get a little nervous.

At no point would I do so.

Clearly you love your congresspeople.

 

[enoch150]

Liking something on facebook requires the minimal of effort. If you don't like tax choice on facebook...then it means that you might dislike our representatives...but you're pretty certain that taxpayers couldn't do a better job.

I don't believe in involuntary taxation. I also don't believe in public goods, apparently unlike yourself. I'm not a socialist.

How am I supposed to know? What difference does it make?

I said that you've been posting here for years and that you haven't convinced anyone. You said your fedbook page has 49 likes. I asked if they were from here. If they're not from here, then you haven't established that you've convinced anyone from here.

Really? 40 years? LOL...you might want to review the timeline before you argue that your method is effective. Again, stupidly opposing something is the same thing as supporting it.

I didn't argue that my method was the most effective, only that liking something on fedbook was not the most effective. The libertarian party has been on record opposing involuntary taxation for 40 years. The origins of the philosophy predate Adam Smith, which is the earliest I see on your little post, just skimming through quickly. But it could be argued that the philosophy wasn't fully developed until later. It's still evolving a little, but I picked the start of the party as the timeline. Could have gone earlier, but that doesn't help your argument.

But none of that address my question, which you seem to be trying to avoid: If you understand libertarianism, then why did you assume that libertarians support the current system of taxation and government when they've been on record as opposing it for 40 years?

 

[Xerographica]

I don't believe in involuntary taxation. I also don't believe in public goods, apparently unlike yourself. I'm not a socialist.

You don't believe in involuntary taxation and public goods like you don't believe in God?

I said that you've been posting here for years and that you haven't convinced anyone. You said your fedbook page has 49 likes. I asked if they were from here. If they're not from here, then you haven't established that you've convinced anyone from here.

Review my posts...nobody has done more than I have to share libertarian economics. Whether or not this has helped anybody understand the economic arguments for liberty is anybody's guess.

I didn't argue that my method was the most effective, only that liking something on fedbook was not the most effective. The libertarian party has been on record opposing involuntary taxation for 40 years. The origins of the philosophy predate Adam Smith, which is the earliest I see on your little post, just skimming through quickly. But it could be argued that the philosophy wasn't fully developed until later. It's still evolving a little, but I picked the start of the party as the timeline. Could have gone earlier, but that doesn't help your argument.

Of course liking facebook is more effective. It aims at the actual target. It ignores the frivolous irrelevance and gets to the heart of the matter.

But none of that address my question, which you seem to be trying to avoid: If you understand libertarianism, then why did you assume that libertarians support the current system of taxation and government when they've been on record as opposing it for 40 years?

Again, stupidly opposing something is the same thing as supporting it. Going after taxes when taxes are not the problem only ensures that the actual problem (congress) will not be solved. Therefore, you support the current system. You're making a lot of noise at a bear when a gun is right next to you. Therefore, either you support the bear or you don't understand what a gun does. I think you understand that pragmatarianism would take the power of the purse away from congress. If you're not willing to like tax choice on facebook...then you don't want the bear to be harmed. Therefore, you enjoy being mauled.

 

[enoch150]

You don't believe in involuntary taxation and public goods like you don't believe in God?

Who said I don't believe in God? That's a weird way to distract from the topic at hand.

Again, stupidly opposing something is the same thing as supporting it. Going after taxes when taxes are not the problem only ensures that the actual problem (congress) will not be solved. Therefore, you support the current system. You're making a lot of noise at a bear when a gun is right next to you. Therefore, either you support the bear or you don't understand what a gun does. I think you understand that pragmatarianism would take the power of the purse away from congress. If you're not willing to like tax choice on facebook...then you don't want the bear to be harmed. Therefore, you enjoy being mauled.

The problem is the immoral and unjustified use of force. That is what I oppose. Taxation is just a piece of that.

 

[mczerone]

Hey Xero,

If you cared about optimizing social welfare and the production of "public goods", why aren't you advocating private associations take responsibility?

Why aren't you encouraging people to like Austrian Economics sites, like Mises.org?

Why aren't you adamantly refusing to participate in any (necessarily suboptimal) centrally planned solution?

Why aren't you moving to New Hampshire for the Free State Project?

Why aren't you running for a county commissioner's office where you could push your plan on a local level as a test run?

Why aren't you staging a sit-in at your Congressman's local offices, or yelling loudly at the Rose Garden of the White House?

Why are you wasting all your precious time on RPFs, where people obviously can't understand your brilliance, when you could be writing more awesome theories?

Because you are posting here, and all those things are more productive at achieving your purported goals, you obviously don't value your own goals. You like your congressman. You like paying for things you don't want. You think the current system is peachy-keen.

P.S. You're a crank with half-thought ideas that you can't elucidate enough to spread them even among people that want to give you a chance to explain them. You should drop the political-economics stuff and come up with your own Time Cube. At least then people might pay to witness the glory of your chunky, incoherent brain vomit.

 

[Xerographica]

Who said I don't believe in God? That's a weird way to distract from the topic at hand.

So you do believe in God? So you believe in something that is obviously unreal...but you don't believe in things that are obviously real...involuntary taxation and public goods.

The problem is the immoral and unjustified use of force. That is what I oppose. Taxation is just a piece of that.

No it's not. You think it is...so you don't bother to learn about economics. Learn about economics and then tell me that the problem is that people don't understand morality.

 

[Xerographica]

Hey Xero,

If you cared about optimizing social welfare and the production of "public goods", why aren't you advocating private associations take responsibility?

It's because we don't know what the actual demand for public goods truly is.

Why aren't you encouraging people to like Austrian Economics sites, like Mises.org?

Because they distract from important economic concepts by advocating that government be abolished.

Why aren't you adamantly refusing to participate in any (necessarily suboptimal) centrally planned solution?

Because that's impossible.

Why aren't you moving to New Hampshire for the Free State Project?

Because tax voting is far superior to foot voting.

Why aren't you running for a county commissioner's office where you could push your plan on a local level as a test run?

Why do you think a market needs a test run? Do you really not understand that this right here is a market? Do you need me to explain it to you?

Why aren't you staging a sit-in at your Congressman's local offices, or yelling loudly at the Rose Garden of the White House?

Because those wouldn't provide as much value as sharing economics with others.

Why are you wasting all your precious time on RPFs, where people obviously can't understand your brilliance, when you could be writing more awesome theories?

Seriously? It would only be wasted if the threads weren't accessible via a google search.

ecause you are posting here, and all those things are more productive at achieving your purported goals, you obviously don't value your own goals. You like your congressman. You like paying for things you don't want. You think the current system is peachy-keen.

P.S. You're a crank with half-thought ideas that you can't elucidate enough to spread them even among people that want to give you a chance to explain them. You should drop the political-economics stuff and come up with your own Time Cube. At least then people might pay to witness the glory of your chunky, incoherent brain vomit.

LOL...why not try again? Come on...try not to ask stupid questions this time.

 

[enoch150]

So you do believe in God? So you believe in something that is obviously unreal...but you don't believe in things that are obviously real...involuntary taxation and public goods.

I haven't said if I believed in God or not. I said bringing it up was a weird way to distract from the topic at hand. When I said I don't believe in involuntary taxation and public goods, that obviously means that I don't believe they should exist. It should be obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of the way modern American English is used, anyway.

No it's not. You think it is...so you don't bother to learn about economics. Learn about economics and then tell me that the problem is that people don't understand morality.

I understand economics just fine. Morality is more important. I couldn't care less if people want to be communists, regardless of the inefficiencies and suboptimal provision of public goods, as long as it's voluntary.

 

[Occam's Banana]

[snip stuff] Clearly you love your congresspeople.

Clearly.

 

[Xerographica]

I haven't said if I believed in God or not. I said bringing it up was a weird way to distract from the topic at hand. When I said I don't believe in involuntary taxation and public goods, that obviously means that I don't believe they should exist. It should be obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of the way modern American English is used, anyway.

Yeah, keep repeating to yourself that they aren't real and maybe you'll open your eyes and it will all just have been a bad dream.

I understand economics just fine. Morality is more important. I couldn't care less if people want to be communists, regardless of the inefficiencies and suboptimal provision of public goods, as long as it's voluntary.

You understand economics just fine? So which economist provided the model that our current system is based on?

 

[enoch150]

Yeah, keep repeating to yourself that they aren't real and maybe you'll open your eyes and it will all just have been a bad dream.

Should not exist, not do exist.

You understand economics just fine? So which economist provided the model that our current system is based on?

It's a mix and whatever answer I give you are going to say is wrong. I'm not playing that game with you. It would be as pointless as all of these threads you've created over the years.

 

[Xerographica]

It's a mix and whatever answer I give you are going to say is wrong.

The fuck? If you give the correct answer then why would I say it's wrong?

I'm not playing that game with you. It would be as pointless as all of these threads you've created over the years.

You're not going to play the game because you can't talk about public finance as easily as I can talk about the NAP. So continue on with your ignorance...but trust me when I tell you that you are to blame for our current system.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I'm not playing that game with you. It would be as pointless as all of these threads you've created over the years.

[T]rust me when I tell you that you are to blame for our current system.

Was that you, enoch150? Seriously? You bastard!!

 

[enoch150]

The fuck? If you give the correct answer then why would I say it's wrong?

You're not going to play the game because you can't talk about public finance as easily as I can talk about the NAP. So continue on with your ignorance...but trust me when I tell you that you are to blame for our current system.

You would say it's wrong because you don't have a choice. If I gave the "right" answer, then your ranting about my being ignorant of economics would be proven incorrect. So you asked a question to which there isn't one right answer. I could say Keynes and you could come back with Adam Smith or Thomas Malthus or even, arguably, Milton Friedman (you didn't even define what "current system" you were asking about. You could have been asking about income tax withholding.) There's no way to prove any of it one way or the other. They all had some influence, and so did others. That's why it's a pointless game and I'm not playing.

 

[Xerographica]

You would say it's wrong because you don't have a choice. If I gave the "right" answer, then your ranting about my being ignorant of economics would be proven incorrect. So you asked a question to which there isn't one right answer. I could say Keynes and you could come back with Adam Smith or Thomas Malthus or even, arguably, Milton Friedman (you didn't even define what "current system" you were asking about. You could have been asking about income tax withholding.) There's no way to prove any of it one way or the other. They all had some influence, and so did others. That's why it's a pointless game and I'm not playing.

Again, the fuck? There's definitely a right answer and you definitely don't know it. You know why you don't know it? Because you're ignorant. You want to change the system but you don't even know which model our current system is based on. How can you change the system when you aren't even aware of the arguments that keep our current system in place? What the fuck are you attacking if you're not attacking the arguments that keep our current system in place? The current system is super safe because you're Don Quixote on steroids.

I'll give you a hint...the model that our current system is based on was provided by a Nobel Prize winning liberal economist.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Seriously trip out on this shit. Right now you're critiquing the idea of creating a market in the public sector. Why are you critiquing this idea? Because you value your private options more than you'd value your public options. Why do you value your private options more than your public ones? Because there's a market in the private sector and there isn't a market in the public sector.

You value your private options without even the slightest understanding or appreciation of the role that markets play in replacing less valuable options with more valuable ones.

In 1978 when Deng Xiaoping after years of persecution managed to help China transition from a planned economy to a mixed economy...do you think they had the same quality/quantity of products/services available then that they do now? Of course not. The logical consequence of preventing people from shopping for themselves (planned economies) is that the quality/quantity of products/services is shit.

Right now the quality/quantity of public goods is shit. Yeah, no fucking duh. That's the logical consequence of planned economies. That's exactly why I'm arguing that we need to create a market in the public sector.

Creating a market in the public sector would give taxpayers the freedom to incentivize producers to replace less valuable options with more valuable ones. So in 35 years time the difference between the quality/quantity of public goods available then and now will be as big as the difference between the quality/quantity of private goods available in China now and 35 years ago.

If you were a pragmatarian then I wouldn't have to explain this to you. But you're not a pragmatarian...you're a libertarian...which is why I have to explain this to you. Stop being a libertarian. It's time to evolve man.

You gotta evolve, maaaaan... *puff puff* Open yer mind, maaaaaaaaan!