What Are Your Rights?

by Simon 121 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  MeanMrMustard

  No, real rights remain rights, the government can violate those rights, not take them away. The government is guilty all day every day if it does so. There is no acceptable scenario where the government denies someone their rights.

  Yes, you are correct. I did not form my statement in an accurate way. The way you put it, above, is much more accurate. I agree.

  If you create a system where people can live comfortably doing diddly squat, then why would they work? ....

  I agree with all of that. However, the purpose of Mises’ article (Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth), detailed in that video, was to remove incentives from the argument entirely. I am not sure if you watched any of it, notwithstanding Spoletta’s smear campaign, but around 1920, when the article was written, the incentive argument was pretty much the only objection. The socialists were countering that a “new socialist man” would emerge if we could just convert the economy. The new socialist man would buy into the scheme completely and wouldn’t be subject to their previous “nature”.
  

  Mises granted them their premise, and then showed that it didn’t matter. Socialism would destroy prices because private property and voluntary exchange would end. Without prices, you can’t figure out how to allocate resources. There would be no entrepreneurship, and any decision concerning resource usage would be arbitrary. Would you use the steel to build tractors or carrot juicers?
  

  Mises’ whole point was that you bump up against raw resource reality. It doesn’t matter if you buy into socialism or not. You can take all of the capitalists out to the fields and kill them... doesn’t matter. The economy is doomed. You must have real prices produced by real interactions, voluntary interactions, and true private ownership.
  

  Also, we get a glimpse into partial socialism. China kept Hong Kong capitalist in order to reference the prices. The Soviet Union produced black markets between manufacturers, and started to lift prices from the Sears catalog. The point being that the prosperity an economy experiences is directly proportional to its market freedom. The more socialistic an industry gets, the more and more it will experience these price distortions and resource allocation problems.
  

  Hayek came around later and expanded on it with the knowledge problem.
  

  This is all on top of the incentive issue - which is a very real problem too.
  

  
  
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Every country were capitalism dominates, also has socialism-centric measures - well, not every country but there is truth in your comment.
  

  What this means is that capitalist countries are the best for social policies and thus capitalism is the least worse of all the different types of systems to live under.
  
  

  what nonsense. I'm not a Bernie supporter, but even to me this is silly - then provide evidence where Sanders or AOC has stated that the capitalist system is worth preserving.
  
• 

  Simon

  Socialism being a success seems hinge on the notion that millions of people will suddenly change the basic instincts of human nature.

  Anyone with any sense knows that isn't going to happen which is why socialism never works.

  Both socialism and capitalism provide for select individuals to reach the top and gain mass wealth. But capitalism does it in such a way that they have to create value on the way whereas socialism tends to create dictators that take the wealth of others without creating any value in return.

  This is why capitalist countries can be great places to live and have great societies, even if there may be massive wealth disparity between the richest and poorest. The wealth created in capitalism still benefits the poor because the system is being added to, not simply subtracted from.

  There are more poor, and they are much poorer both in relative and absolute terms, under socialism.
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  Joe Salerno is associated with the Mise Institute, a right wing think tank partially funded by the Koch Brothers.

  And this is where I stopped paying attention. Literally, as soon as I read this sentence, I knew the rest of the post was going to be full or crap.
  

  And then I continued reading. I have to admit I underestimated just how much completely fabricated shit you were willing to spew. This is exactly what happened in the race/IQ thread a few months back. Ignore arguments and smear. I go off and research the smear claims, because I’m genuinely interested in being intellectually honest. Hours pass and I realize it’s all made up or taken out of context ...
  

  Not that what you posted has anything to do with the arguments made in the presentation. The video in on an article Ludwig von Mises wrote in 1920. Nothing in the video has anything to do with any of your claims... but you just want to dismiss arguments without engaging, and send me on a wild goose chase to verify or disprove your smears.
  

  I’m not taking any of those claims seriously. In fact, I would like you to produce sources for these claims. I’m definitely not going down the rabbit hole of attempting to disprove them. You made the claims - back them up with sources in context.
  

  The in context part is important.
  

  You reference Walter Block. I’ve heard statements directly from his mouth that contradict your claims. Walter is an anarcho-capitalist, and on many things, I disagree with him.
  

  But that’s the point. Your post has nothing to do with the arguments, made by anyone. Just fling shit around and hope someone will fall for the guilt by association fallacy .... even though the guilt associated is probably pulled out your ass, or some left-wing paste bin.
  

  George Carlin is one of my favorite comedians, and though his humour is often very insightful, sometimes it's just very funny, and tells us things we enjoy hearing, whether they're true or not. A hysterically funny opinion is still just an opinion. So, on the whole, I don't feel your arguments are very compelling. Sorry.

  I like Carlin’s comedy too. What does that have to do with any argument made?
  
• 

  Simon

  as soon as I read this sentence, I knew the rest of the post was going to be full or crap.

  And then I continued reading. I have to admit I underestimated just how much completely fabricated shit you were willing to spew. This is exactly what happened in the race/IQ thread a few months back. Ignore arguments and smear.

  It's a familiar tactic - shout "right wing" and think that it passes for an argument. It doesn't. It's simply an attempt to burn the message because you didn't like the messenger. Combined with the fact that the 'acceptable' (left) media outlets simply refuse to report certain news, it's an attempt at silencing opinions that contradict theirs and denying the ability to even have a debate about it.
• 

  Spoletta

  I stand by my statement. Any serious examination of all the material I've presented is there for anyone who does more than cursory research. Some of my conclusions come from reading articles that the Institute has published. Walter Block has written on every topic I mentioned, and you can hear him espouse them on Youtube, and in his book Defending the Indefensible. Austrian Economics is merely another philosophy among many, and like Libertarianism, disagrees with other's ideas, and considers itself the true standard bearer of correct economics. Being a proponent of that philosophy, and by his association with the Mise Institute, I would assume that he shares many of it's views, so I choose to take anything he says with skepticism.
• 

  Spoletta

  Of course, I was speaking of Joe Salerno.
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  I stand by my statement. Any serious examination of all the material I've presented is there for anyone who does more than cursory research.

  What material have you presented? You’ve presented accusations. I was hoping for sources to those claims - especially your claim that the Mises Institute doesn’t believe in the theory of relativity.
  

  Some of my conclusions come from reading articles that the Institute has published.

  Yeah. Which ones?
  

  Walter Block has written on every topic I mentioned, and you can hear him espouse them on Youtube, and in his book Defending the Indefensible.

  Ok, finally you mention a source. His book is “Defending the Undefendable”. He uses the incorrect word intentionally. And here is where context matters. In the book he defends activities normally outlawed, he does not advocate for them. Remember, he is an anarchist, and here is a very important distinction that gets lost when you don’t consider the context: there is a big difference between advocating/endorsing activities and arguing for government non-intervention concerning those activities. As with many government interventions, when you consider the NET effects, you find out that the intervention caused more problems than it solved.
  

  An example: I don’t think drugs should be illegal. I believe that you own your body and if you want to do drugs, you shouldn’t be locked up for that choice (bringing it back rights, this is based on private property rights). Does that mean I think people should do drugs? No. The government intervention into personal free choice in this regard causes negative side effects. Families are torn apart (especially in the case of minor pot offenses) and trillions are wasted fighting drug cartels that owe their existence to black markets created by the very same drug laws. On NET, society is losing by having drug laws. Does that mean I think we should go grab a few rocks of crack? No.
  

  Another example: The left these days is keen on hate speech laws. They don’t want people to say racist words. I think you should be able to say racist words all you want. Does that mean I think you should use racist words? No. But if you want to be an asshole, then fine. Laws against speech would only drive the racists underground, and soon we would find other innocent speech being banned because it would be “hateful” to whatever political group happens to be in power at the time. Again, on NET society is worse off.
  

  Those are perfectly valid things to consider, Spoletta.
  

  Austrian Economics is merely another philosophy among many, and like Libertarianism, disagrees with other's ideas, and considers itself the true standard bearer of correct economics.

  More dismissals. Ignore any arguments and logical reasoning that might come out of Austrian school because.... well, it’s just like all the rest, one among many, nothing to see here.
  

  Austrian Economics is separate from Libertarianism. The former is a model of how economies function, the basic principles of an economy. The later is political.
  

  Being a proponent of that philosophy, and by his association with the Mise Institute, I would assume that he shares many of it's views, so I choose to take anything he says with skepticism.

  You are conflating skepticism with throwing steaming piles of bovine excrement.
  
• 

  Simon

  A lot of it comes down to the left refusing to acknowledge that what they see as the "cure" for things they don't like is often far far worse than the disease.

  We see it on here all the time - people think the government should intervene over family shunning, but ignoring the fact that a society with government enforced social interaction would be a far less palatable one to live in.

  It's a blinkered, short sighted viewpoint that doesn't take into consideration the implications of making the changes. All they see is "the thing" and then the quick and easy fix to solve "the thing".

  Some people are poor, others are wealthy: short term blinkered view "we need to fix this, let's take things off the wealthy and give it to the poor".

  Longer term nuanced viewpoint: "why are some people poor and some wealthy? what about the disincentive if things are taken off people who have worked hard? do we rely on the things those people produce?"

  The response from the short-term thinkers is of course: "you are a monster, you want to starve children!!" because they lack the ability to think more than one step ahead and often one step behind as well ... so there is little logic to their argument as a whole, it's just separate trigger / response combinations.

  There are no ideas on the left, there is only lack of thought.
• 

  Spoletta

  Simon.

  Being fairly sure, but not certain, that you are, or at least lean towards being Libertarian I realize that nothing I say will sway you, but want you to know that I've done my research, and I'm not spouting leftist propaganda.

  First, I'm going to list the titles of all the articles I found in the Muses Daily Articles, which is part of their online website. Just type Mises Institute, and the title, and you can read them yourself.

  Civil Rights for Gays

  Human Rights as Property Rights

  Children's Rights

  Civil Rights and the Supreme Court

  Why Discriminate?

  Rothbard Explains the Proper Response to Climate Change

  The Civil War: Both Sides Were Wrong

  Freedom of Want is Slavery for All

  The Confederate Constitution

  The Despot named Lincoln

  Social Security: The Most Successful Ponzi Scheme in History

  How FDR Made the Depression Worse

  There are other articles where they feel there is no need for minimum wage, Public Education, rent control, and Medicare.

  Two of the founders were Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell. Rothbard has many kind things to say about the Confederacy, David Duke, and Joseph McCarthy. Rockwell posts interesting papers on lewrockwell.com with the titles

  Legalize Drunk Driving

  The Vindication of Joe McCarthy

  and (you should find this interesting, Simon!)

  Relativity and the Priesthood of Science

  Now, to the subject of Walter Block. You say he doesn't advocate the despicable things he discusses in Defending the Undefendable. That may be true. But, here's the truth of the matter. He truly believes that those ideas are correct, and that the world would be better if we followed them. He is both a Libertarian and an Austrian Economist, as are Rothbard and Rockwell. He is also a pompous ass. If you care to hear his Libertarian blathering, go to YouTube and type Minority Report: Walter Block, and listen to what he has to say. I find him rude, arrogant and unable to answer simple questions. Of course, you might find him a font of wisdom.

  These guys live in a fantasy world, where if everyone listened to them, we'd all play nice, and everyone would respect your personal and properly rights, we'd all band together and build roads and hospitals by pooling our resources, and no one would tell us what to do, or steal our money by making us help those who are lazy and undeserving, and if they die, so what? We're only responsible for ourselves.

  So, if you wonder why I wouldn't believe anything I hear on YouTube from Joe Salerno of the Mises Institute, this is just a sampling. The world they envision would be a horrible one, where the worst of us would rise to the top, and we'd end up with Kings and serfs, like the good old days.