Alito = No Bush Impeachment

[libertarian_knight]

Automation is a good thing but not total automation. The main point is that without the state there would be no checks on monopolies.

you don't like monopolies? The state is a monopoly. resolve that internal conflict. Do you like monopolies or not?

For Scarecrow

for ToT

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Automation is a good thing but not total automation. The main point is that without the state there would be no checks on monopolies.

What's wrong with total automation? If a factory can mine the ore, mine the coal, process the raw materials, shape the product, test the product, package the product, and ship the product without human supervision, why should people be involved? To keep them busy?

Shouldn't they be busy instead figuring out some other product to build, or getting a good tan?

The main point is that you haven't offered a single example of a monopoly that didn't use it's coziness with the state to stave off competitors.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

What's wrong with total automation? If a factory can mine the ore, mine the coal, process the raw materials, shape the product, test the product, package the product, and ship the product without human supervision, why should people be involved? To keep them busy?

Shouldn't they be busy instead figuring out some other product to build, or getting a good tan?

The main point is that you haven't offered a single example of a monopoly that didn't use it's coziness with the state to stave off competitors.

Because there needs to be jobs if you totally automize everything where are people going to work? Do you know how many jobs would be lossed if all production was automized? We're looking for job growth here not job loss.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

you don't like monopolies? The state is a monopoly. resolve that internal conflict. Do you like monopolies or not?

For Scarecrow

for ToT

So you want to replace a monopoly chosen by the people with one that's not chosen by the people? Why?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Because there needs to be jobs if you totally automize everything where are people going to work? Do you know how many jobs would be lossed if all production was automized? We're looking for job growth here not job loss.

Oh. There needs to be jobs, eh? So the purpose of business is to create jobs? Reminds me of the story I heard about Milton Friedmen. Allegedly ole Milt was touring India and noticed a bunch of men digging a ditch with shovels.

"Why aren't you using heavy equipment to do that work", he asked his host.

"Because we need to create jobs", was the reply.

"Oh. Then why don't you give them spoons?"

The purpose of a job is to produce. Period. The person doing the job might have another reason, like getting paid, but the person paying for the job wants production.

At one time steel was shaped by a man with a forge, a hammer, and an anvil. The forge was oxygenated by a boy pumping a bellows, and often another man held the piece the smith was hammering. It could takes days or weeks to make a sword.

Today, the boy is replaced by a fan, so the boy can go to school to learn metallurgy or manufacturing engineering, and the smith does aught but place the part in an pneumatic hammer over a mandrel. This man can produce parts for many tanks in a day.

But if it's only jobs we're seeking to create, we should smash all the machines and go back to playing spoons.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

For Scarecrow

The first mistake in the article is the most obvious. The author seems to reject the idea of "inevitability" out of hand, claiming, like any mystic, that "free will" guides human affairs.

Free will guides the affairs of individuals. Put a dozen individuals in the Super Dome, and perhaps they'll wander around by themselves, perhaps they'll play football. Hard to say. Get 50,000 "individuals" in the Super Dome, turn off the lights and the toilets, and keep rip part of the roof off, and then leave them there for a week, and the results are as near "inevitable" as can be expected.

Perhaps the author should have learned some thermodynamics, and he wouldn't make such foolish mistaikes.

Is this Block guy the source of your drivel that governments aren't necessary? The guy that uses Iceland as an example of a society that may have used alternatives to formal law to regulate society, and who then later talks about the Viking mentality as a denigration of what true lawlessness actually implies? Perhaps Block wasn't aware of who settled Iceland?

Also, I'm sure you're aware of why what could work for Iceland won't work for a modern society. You can't be that ignorant. Again, review your knowledge of thermodynamics and why it's applicable in some degree to large masses of people.

Oh, you don't know any thermo. In very small numbers, the behavior of individual atoms is predictable, assuming the mass, momentum, and positions of the system are defined at a point in time. We can name the atoms, and track them, if we pretend chaos theories and Heisenberg uncertainties don't apply. But past some number, our ability to model the system becomes too complex for our computational tools and we have to resort to statistical methods. But statistical methods don't work for small numbers, they're appropriate for large populations.

Now, people aren't predictable in small quantities. But they are in the large. But at the same time, in small quantities, people can know one another, so law can be expressed as semi-formal cultural processes. That nonsense doesn't work in a town of ten thousand. And it won't work in a country of 300,000,000. And is will never work in a world of six billion. Where people are strangers to each other, formal law must exist.

Funny how Block rejects Rand's assertion that gangs are the natural outcome of lawlessness. What was the natural condition inside the Super Dome? The rise of gangs and the preying on the weak by the strong.

What a surprise.

This guy keeps insisting on the assumption that humans have free will, and igores any true knowledge of human behavior. He's expecting animals to act rationally. Amazing.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Oh. There needs to be jobs, eh? So the purpose of business is to create jobs? Reminds me of the story I heard about Milton Friedmen. Allegedly ole Milt was touring India and noticed a bunch of men digging a ditch with shovels.

"Why aren't you using heavy equipment to do that work", he asked his host.

"Because we need to create jobs", was the reply.

"Oh. Then why don't you give them spoons?"

The purpose of a job is to produce. Period. The person doing the job might have another reason, like getting paid, but the person paying for the job wants production.

At one time steel was shaped by a man with a forge, a hammer, and an anvil. The forge was oxygenated by a boy pumping a bellows, and often another man held the piece the smith was hammering. It could takes days or weeks to make a sword.

Today, the boy is replaced by a fan, so the boy can go to school to learn metallurgy or manufacturing engineering, and the smith does aught but place the part in an pneumatic hammer over a mandrel. This man can produce parts for many tanks in a day.

But if it's only jobs we're seeking to create, we should smash all the machines and go back to playing spoons.

Yes but what happens when their is no longer a need for jobs at all, how will those individuals without training or education acquire wealth? What total automization would do is create a society in which upward mobility is impossible.

 

[libertarian_knight]

So you want to replace a monopoly chosen by the people with one that's not chosen by the people? Why?

First off, I don't believe that monopolies will emerge in a state-less market like you do. I agree with scarecrow with the idea that monopolies are a result of state intervention.

However, you were the one with the antimonopolist stance, so with regard to government monopoly:
1. is all that is necessary for a majority of people to vote, once every 2/4/6 years enough justification for a monopoly?
2. Will this monopoly ever be non-responsive to popular will?
3. will this monopoly not be used to violate the rights of the non-supports and opponents?
4. if only a small portion ofthe actual population decides who will have the monopoly power, is it any less justified?
5. if this monopoly uses it's monopoly power to create other monopolies in other areas, are those other monopolies OK?
6. in what areas is the monopoly not allowed to act, and should it act, what redress is there to stop the act, or to prevent future acts? surely not the same monopoly causing the harm right? I mean, after all, that is the whole reason for opposition to "free market monopolies" is that they would be abusive and the people would have no recourse against them. So what sense does it make, to give monopoly power to one group, and then expect that same group to THEN fix the damage the monopoly has done, or stop doing it.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Yes but what happens when their is no longer a need for jobs at all, how will those individuals without training or education acquire wealth? What total automization would do is create a society in which upward mobility is impossible.

Hmmmm....define "wealth".

Explain what factories would be running for if no one can buy anything. Full automation is the ideal circumstance. The problem with socialism is that it forces men to make slaves of others to maintain a standard of living. What does full automation do? It eliminates human labor. Thus worldly goods would be produced without labor, and then there truly wouldn't be a reason to restict goods via price.

What full automation does is create a society in which upward mobility is no longer a matter of physical wealth but personal ability. We become a race of lotus eaters.

 

[libertarian_knight]

The first mistake in the article is the most obvious. The author seems to reject the idea of "inevitability" out of hand, claiming, like any mystic, that "free will" guides human affairs.

Free will guides the affairs of individuals. Put a dozen individuals in the Super Dome, and perhaps they'll wander around by themselves, perhaps they'll play football. Hard to say. Get 50,000 "individuals" in the Super Dome, turn off the lights and the toilets, and keep rip part of the roof off, and then leave them there for a week, and the results are as near "inevitable" as can be expected.

Perhaps the author should have learned some thermodynamics, and he wouldn't make such foolish mistaikes.

Is this Block guy the source of your drivel that governments aren't necessary? The guy that uses Iceland as an example of a society that may have used alternatives to formal law to regulate society, and who then later talks about the Viking mentality as a denigration of what true lawlessness actually implies? Perhaps Block wasn't aware of who settled Iceland?

Also, I'm sure you're aware of why what could work for Iceland won't work for a modern society. You can't be that ignorant. Again, review your knowledge of thermodynamics and why it's applicable in some degree to large masses of people.

Oh, you don't know any thermo. In very small numbers, the behavior of individual atoms is predictable, assuming the mass, momentum, and positions of the system are defined at a point in time. We can name the atoms, and track them, if we pretend chaos theories and Heisenberg uncertainties don't apply. But past some number, our ability to model the system becomes too complex for our computational tools and we have to resort to statistical methods. But statistical methods don't work for small numbers, they're appropriate for large populations.

Now, people aren't predictable in small quantities. But they are in the large. But at the same time, in small quantities, people can know one another, so law can be expressed as semi-formal cultural processes. That nonsense doesn't work in a town of ten thousand. And it won't work in a country of 300,000,000. And is will never work in a world of six billion. Where people are strangers to each other, formal law must exist.

Funny how Block rejects Rand's assertion that gangs are the natural outcome of lawlessness. What was the natural condition inside the Super Dome? The rise of gangs and the preying on the weak by the strong.

What a surprise.

This guy keeps insisting on the assumption that humans have free will, and igores any true knowledge of human behavior. He's expecting animals to act rationally. Amazing.

So, by DENYING the people the use of their free will to leave, you somehow construct a super-dumb arguement against free will...

So, what will these people do? fight till only a couple are left? Force their way out? Cannibalize each other? 50,000 go in, one comes out? Or, will continual effrots to deny their free will be necessary in order to produce your so called "inevitable" outcome? What about the poeple keeping them locked in, will they certainly keep them locked in, even after the screams and battle crys are heard outside the walls? Do the people have the full force of the US government keeping them inside, or just one old man with a key for a masterlock padlock? Will the people inside for a one-stadium government that will tax and organize all the labor and resources inside, set up prisons, interventionist militaries and a supreme court?

What's more, the mystic is the one that claims they have the ability to predict the future with certainty. Rand also pointed out the relationship that mystic has in supporting the thug, the state. Do not offer mystic "inevitabilities" and then say anti-mystical inevitabilitism is mysticism.

The Author, was not my source. He was someone I had come across while reading (see I liek to read, and write). so I was reading, came across that piece, and thought "Hey, I am discussing this right now in DP, I should read it, and maybe will find other relevant arguements." So I read it, so many of the same repitious arguements made by the author being critiqued. Bear in mind though, this author critiquing is only critiquing SOME fallacious arguements favoring statisms mystical inevitablity, particularly those writen by the author being critiqued.

What's more, in inevitability arguement is rejected, not out of hand, but based on the numerous arguements against the inevitability which the author laid down, point by point through all 20 or so pages. I don't see how a 20 page, point by point case can ever be construed as out of hand. (A reader may concluded, based on the wirting format of introduction, that the conclusion was unsupported, if that read would not have read the point by point made to support the conclusion. After all, a good author introduces the conclusion early on, often in the introductory paragraphs)
You really want to try challenging me on physics and equating it to politics?
Which, can't even be done, really, since there are TOO MANY VARIABLES. Entropy, of course, increases over time, but localized order increases can be observed also. See, the entire system may increase in entropy, and all parts. Or the entire system may increase in entroypy, but some parts increase entropy and other parts decrease in entropy accordingly. So, using the First Second and Zeroth law, (It's doubtful under the circumstaces provided that the Thrid law will come into play, however it may on a small portion, though probability is so low as to be negligable,) what predictions can be made about such a set up? None, with certainty, because people are not water molecules.

What's more, is the super dome was NOT, i repeat WAS NOT devoid of government. The government stood outside pointing guns and poeple (people, who if they had guns were NOT allowed to bring them into the superdome) and telling the people they must go back inside. The SUperdome was a product of GOVERNMENT not anarchy.

==
The parts in green are ad hominems, addressed to me. Has resorting to logical fallacies ever been considered part of a strong stance in debate?

People are not atoms. In fact, living things are not atoms either.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Yes but what happens when their is no longer a need for jobs at all, how will those individuals without training or education acquire wealth? What total automization would do is create a society in which upward mobility is impossible.

Not impossible, just unnecessary.

If full automation is possible, then full and unlimited automation of the production of the automatons is also possible. Which means that anyone and everyone can produce as they want. The only limiting factor would be resources, and most resources could be gathered from fully automoated recylcing or automated creation. Energy gathering would also be fully automated also, of course, since no labor is necessary anywhere right?

 

[libertarian_knight]

Hmmmm....define "wealth".

Explain what factories would be running for if no one can buy anything. Full automation is the ideal circumstance. The problem with socialism is that it forces men to make slaves of others to maintain a standard of living. What does full automation do? It eliminates human labor. Thus worldly goods would be produced without labor, and then there truly wouldn't be a reason to restict goods via price.

What full automation does is create a society in which upward mobility is no longer a matter of physical wealth but personal ability. We become a race of lotus eaters.

Wealth is unconsumed production, or savings. That which is not consumed or deteriorated is wealth. Savings can be used to create capital, whcih would allow for greater production, and possibly greater savings also. (Just mean to say, that capital is a result of appropriate expendatures of wealth/savings, often to produce more or faster, which allows for more wealth or savings.) Murray Rothbard has an excellent section regarding this in Man, Economy, and State. I am sure Mises does as well in Human Action, I just haven't gotten to it yet.

 

[libertarian_knight]

Hmmmm....define "wealth".

Explain what factories would be running for if no one can buy anything. Full automation is the ideal circumstance. The problem with socialism is that it forces men to make slaves of others to maintain a standard of living. What does full automation do? It eliminates human labor. Thus worldly goods would be produced without labor, and then there truly wouldn't be a reason to restict goods via price.

What full automation does is create a society in which upward mobility is no longer a matter of physical wealth but personal ability. We become a race of lotus eaters.

One thing I missed, it's not labor that controls price, supply and demand do. However, fully automated labor, in ALL areas, would reduce, at least, nearly all prices, becuase automation of productive factors would occur, vastly increasing supply. Some very scare resources, or scarcly produced goods, would still have price. Those prices however, would not be translatable to the product created from fully automatable production. Game theory would also apply as well.

An original rembrandt would still have value and price. Reproductions probably won't. Goods, alloys, etc made from rare components would likely still have a price, also. Unless energy production/acquisition is so efficient that elements could be produced, at will.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

So, by DENYING the people the use of their free will to leave, you somehow construct a super-dumb arguement against free will...

No. I applied known conditions to a specific problem. People in masses don't exhibit free will, they act like a statistical entity.

So, what will these people do? fight till only a couple are left? Force their way out? Cannibalize each other? 50,000 go in, one comes out? Or, will continual effrots to deny their free will be necessary in order to produce your so called "inevitable" outcome?

Well, I suppose an anarchist has to assume that people are no different than the Kilkenny cats. What really happens is that gangs form, with the weak banding together under strong leaders, first as a means of self-defense against individuals, then as the leaders get "funny ideas" the gangs commence to war upon each other.

What about the poeple keeping them locked in, will they certainly keep them locked in, even after the screams and battle crys are heard outside the walls? Do the people have the full force of the US government keeping them inside, or just one old man with a key for a masterlock padlock? Will the people inside for a one-stadium government that will tax and organize all the labor and resources inside, set up prisons, interventionist militaries and a supreme court?

remember? You're the one pretending the government doesn't exist in your scenarios. Now you're putting it back. How about if you make up your mind?

What's more, the mystic is the one that claims they have the ability to predict the future with certainty.

Mystics are liars. But I can predict with absolute certainty that a pregnant woman giving birth will have either a boy or a girl, giving me a 50% accuracy rate, which is about 98% greater than any mystic ever achieved.

And I can predict that in the absense of strong law, human beings form gangs....that's how modern urban gangs are formed, mostly in the absence of strong parents. Don't take a rocket scientist to point out that what's happened before will happen again given the same circumstances.

Rand also pointed out the relationship that mystic has in supporting the thug, the state. Do not offer mystic "inevitabilities" and then say anti-mystical inevitabilitism is mysticism.

You're claiming it's "mysticism" because, perhaps, the realities of statistical analysis are like magic to you. Did you manage to pass algebra in high-school? Is basic calculus too complex for you? Does the thought of differentiating a polynomial make your knees quiver? Statistics are about the study of the behavior of large groups. It's algebra, and it's not magic.

Duh.

The Author, was not my source. He was someone I had come across while reading (see I liek to read, and write). so I was reading, came across that piece, and thought "Hey, I am discussing this right now in DP, I should read it, and maybe will find other relevant arguements." So I read it, so many of the same repitious arguements made by the author being critiqued. Bear in mind though, this author critiquing is only critiquing SOME fallacious arguements favoring statisms mystical inevitablity, particularly those writen by the author being critiqued.

His critiques are flawed, as I pointed out.

What's more, in inevitability arguement is rejected, not out of hand, but based on the numerous arguements against the inevitability which the author laid down, point by point through all 20 or so pages.

Yeah, but his first assumption was wrong, so he wrote 20 or 30 pages of crap based on his intitial flaw. I did already point this out.

I don't see how a 20 page, point by point case can ever be construed as out of hand.

Whatever "contrued out of hand" might mean, I rejected it after reading it and noting the flaws in his argument.

(A reader may concluded, based on the wirting format of introduction, that the conclusion was unsupported, if that read would not have read the point by point made to support the conclusion. After all, a good author introduces the conclusion early on, often in the introductory paragraphs)

Yeah, that's right. And when the assumption leading to the conclusion is false, it's pretty easy to see, early on, that the conclusion is false.

You really want to try challenging me on physics and equating it to politics?

Well, if you're as good a physicist as you are a political philospher, you'll be expounding the merits of phlogiston over the chemical theory of combustion.

Which, can't even be done, really, since there are TOO MANY VARIABLES. Entropy, of course, increases over time, but localized order increases can be observed also. See, the entire system may increase in entropy, and all parts. Or the entire system may increase in entroypy, but some parts increase entropy and other parts decrease in entropy accordingly. So, using the First Second and Zeroth law, (It's doubtful under the circumstaces provided that the Thrid law will come into play, however it may on a small portion, though probability is so low as to be negligable,) what predictions can be made about such a set up? None, with certainty, because people are not water molecules.

No. People are bags of water molecules. Especially when taken by the thousand. If you don't think mobs can't be led, you haven't paid attention to any religion or political party ever.

What's more, is the super dome was NOT, i repeat WAS NOT devoid of government. The government stood outside pointing guns and poeple (people, who if they had guns were NOT allowed to bring them into the superdome) and telling the people they must go back inside.

Oh, so the government was outside of the Super Dome, and the conditions I described were inside. You're saying the government wasn't in the Super Dome, in other words, which is exactly what I said, only you want to pretend that my example was incorrect while you provide evidence supporting it.

The SUperdome was a product of GOVERNMENT not anarchy.

Right. This nonsense is why ignored your last post to this thread and waited for someone else to resume a rational discussion.

The parts in green are ad hominems, addressed to me. Has resorting to logical fallacies ever been considered part of a strong stance in debate?

No, but when the argument is won, and the loser lacks the integrity to withdraw, I throw darts at him. I used to be able to clean a cricket board in four or five hands.

People are not atoms. In fact, living things are not atoms either.

Sure not. Atoms aren't supposed to think, so we're not bothered when they don't. People can be such a disappointment.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

One thing I missed, it's not labor that controls price, supply and demand do. However, fully automated labor, in ALL areas, would reduce, at least, nearly all prices, becuase automation of productive factors would occur, vastly increasing supply. Some very scare resources, or scarcly produced goods, would still have price. Those prices however, would not be translatable to the product created from fully automatable production. Game theory would also apply as well.

An original rembrandt would still have value and price. Reproductions probably won't. Goods, alloys, etc made from rare components would likely still have a price, also. Unless energy production/acquisition is so efficient that elements could be produced, at will.

What would become valuable are original items. If you can find a copy, read an anthology called "Venus Equilateral". I forget who wrote the stories, but eventually, they came up with a gadget that would copy anything. And in that society, the things of value became what were known as "certified originals" that had never been copied.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Wealth is unconsumed production, or savings. That which is not consumed or deteriorated is wealth. Savings can be used to create capital, whcih would allow for greater production, and possibly greater savings also. (Just mean to say, that capital is a result of appropriate expendatures of wealth/savings, often to produce more or faster, which allows for more wealth or savings.) Murray Rothbard has an excellent section regarding this in Man, Economy, and State. I am sure Mises does as well in Human Action, I just haven't gotten to it yet.

No. Wealth is that which has value.

There's two people on a desert island. One owns a ton of gold bullion, a diamond mine, and a bushel of pearls, but no farm.

The other owns a farm.

In the economy of that island, who's wealthiest? The farmer, because he has food.

As has already been demonstrated, Rothbard is not a reliable resource, von Mises may be, depending on what he's saying.

 

[libertarian_knight]

No. Wealth is that which has value.

There's two people on a desert island. One owns a ton of gold bullion, a diamond mine, and a bushel of pearls, but no farm.

The other owns a farm.

In the economy of that island, who's wealthiest? The farmer, because he has food.

As has already been demonstrated, Rothbard is not a reliable resource, von Mises may be, depending on what he's saying.

Yes, of course, the thing saved must have value.

Should the farmer have not saved seed, airable land, or food, the farmer would also have no wealth.

What's more, often, farm land has to be converted from natural land. In order to do this, the farmer must have had tools/capital (like robinson caruso) or must go about constructing the capital to cultivate the land, both of which, actually prior to being a farmer, are aquisitions of wealth.

The farmers seed stock must be saved, prior to farming.

I am curious, where have Rothbard or Mises, and throw into the mix Hayek been shown to be "non-reliable sources"? Might as well add Menger, Sowell, and Rockwell in there as well.

Menger because he esentially founded Austrian Economics
Mises becuase he popularized it
Hayek because he carried on Mises work
Rothbard because he, amongst many other things, "Americanized" Austrian Economics
Sowell because he is still carrying on the tradition (and I like his wirtings on economy and "race").
Rockwell, because without his effort, the Mises Insitutute would not exist.

So, again, what economic considerations haas Rothbard been shown to be non-reliable? Just becuase you don't like what he says? Who made you the Authroity? Speaking of authors, how many treatises have your written, to be able to discredit them?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Yes, of course, the thing saved must have value.

The thing must be valued by a person to have "value". And value is always a relative concept.

I am curious, where have Rothbard or Mises, and throw into the mix Hayek been shown to be "non-reliable sources"? Might as well add Menger, Sowell, and Rockwell in there as well.

Rothbard is not a reliable source because he advocated anarchy as a potential basis for human civilization. He was clearly wrong.

If von Mises was also a supporter of anarchy, he too is flawed.

Hayek wasn't an anarchist, to my knowledge, he was an anti-totalitarian-ist.

Sowell by no means could be described as an anarchist, Norman Rockwell was a painters, and I don't know about this Menger person. Didn't Mary drop a baby in his lap?

Menger because he esentially founded Austrian Economics
Mises becuase he popularized it
Hayek because he carried on Mises work
Rothbard because he, amongst many other things, "Americanized" Austrian Economics
Sowell because he is still carrying on the tradition (and I like his wirtings on economy and "race").
Rockwell, because without his effort, the Mises Insitutute would not exist.

So, again, what economic considerations haas Rothbard been shown to be non-reliable? Just becuase you don't like what he says? Who made you the Authroity? Speaking of authors, how many treatises have your written, to be able to discredit them?

None of my treatises has ever been discredited.

 

[libertarian_knight]

The thing must be valued by a person to have "value". And value is always a relative concept.



Rothbard is not a reliable source because he advocated anarchy as a potential basis for human civilization. He was clearly wrong.

If von Mises was also a supporter of anarchy, he too is flawed.

Hayek wasn't an anarchist, to my knowledge, he was an anti-totalitarian-ist.

Sowell by no means could be described as an anarchist, Norman Rockwell was a painters, and I don't know about this Menger person. Didn't Mary drop a baby in his lap?



None of my treatises has ever been discredited.

Well, it was the work of Carl Menger (not Mengela) that established the value and price theories used by most economists today, that of subjective "use" value. (Though Adam Smith almost get there as well, as did a couple of Smith's Predecessors, but Smith abandoned subjective use value, in favor of the more popular, and seriously flawed, labor theory of value.)

Menger literally and figuratively established the Austrian School of Economics, which Mises, Rothbard, etc carried on.

===
With regard to Rothbard (and for myself, until I began to understand economics much more, I had been rather resistant to his conclusion regarding the functioning on anarchic systems), he draws a simple, very obvious logical conclusion: If every act of government is performed by individual actors, then every act of government can be done, without government as the institution performing them, and done also, without compulsion. What's more, is that since government as an institution, is inherently rights violating, at all levels, it therefor must stand that to maximize liberty, all rights violating acts and insitutions must be opposed.

There is one criticism, I believe, that might be valid of anarchy, though I am not actually convinced of it's validity. It's also has a parallel to Chemistry, but I am also not going to share my insight until I have validated or invalidated it yet. Maybe, if you are also familiar with Chemistry, as I am, one day you may make the arguement for me, or against me. Though, I find the socialological implication rather difficult to test.

What's more, is it is entirely wrong, to say Rothbard was clearly wrong. Rothbard was stating something that could be argued as improbable, however, it is entirely possible. (I even disagree that it is improbable, though i recogonize the arguement exists.)

Hayek, I would say, was more of the ilk that if should the state exist, it should not interfer in the economy, a miniarchist that left room for anarchism. Hayek and Mises, spent a lot of time saying what the state should NOT do, more so that what the state should be. However, what little room they leave for state intervention is so small, there might as well be no state at all. Hayek was notably anti-socialist, and notably anti-Keynesian (statist economics), though he and Keynes had found themselves on the same side at times, particularly regarding the effects of inflation. Hayek was more than "anti-totalitarian."

Sowell, Hayek, and Mises (possibly Menger also, though, i know some of his work, and the effect of his contribution, i haven't read any of it yet), I would say are implicit anarchists. Whereas Rothbard was an explicit anarchist. The former took statements like "nothing is certain except death and taxes" and "government is inevitable" as truthful, which, of course, they are not truthful statements, but only assumed to be true. (Sowell, also notes the idea, of the self-fulfilling prophecy in unrelated areas.)

I was also talked about Lew Rockwell, not norman rockwell. I would expect a libertarain, well versed in economics, sociology, psychology, and physics to be at least familiar with the name. Especially after going to a webstie he fundmentally "created" several times.

Lastly, is there one person on Earth that has been correct about every thought, expression and action? If so, to discount a person as "not reliable" for one disagreement one may have with them (a disagreement based largely on assumption and conjecture), and to ignore all the other work seems the domain of a fool. Hayek, of course, helped point that out.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Well, it was the work of Carl Menger (not Mengela) that established the value and price theories used by most economists today, that of subjective "use" value. (Though Adam Smith almost get there as well, as did a couple of Smith's Predecessors, but Smith abandoned subjective use value, in favor of the more popular, and seriously flawed, labor theory of value.)

Menger literally and figuratively established the Austrian School of Economics, which Mises, Rothbard, etc carried on.

===
With regard to Rothbard (and for myself, until I began to understand economics much more, I had been rather resistant to his conclusion regarding the functioning on anarchic systems), he draws a simple, very obvious logical conclusion: If every act of government is performed by individual actors, then every act of government can be done, without government as the institution performing them, and done also, without compulsion. What's more, is that since government as an institution, is inherently rights violating, at all levels, it therefor must stand that to maximize liberty, all rights violating acts and insitutions must be opposed.

There is one criticism, I believe, that might be valid of anarchy, though I am not actually convinced of it's validity. It's also has a parallel to Chemistry, but I am also not going to share my insight until I have validated or invalidated it yet. Maybe, if you are also familiar with Chemistry, as I am, one day you may make the arguement for me, or against me. Though, I find the socialological implication rather difficult to test.

What's more, is it is entirely wrong, to say Rothbard was clearly wrong. Rothbard was stating something that could be argued as improbable, however, it is entirely possible. (I even disagree that it is improbable, though i recogonize the arguement exists.)

Hayek, I would say, was more of the ilk that if should the state exist, it should not interfer in the economy, a miniarchist that left room for anarchism. Hayek and Mises, spent a lot of time saying what the state should NOT do, more so that what the state should be. However, what little room they leave for state intervention is so small, there might as well be no state at all. Hayek was notably anti-socialist, and notably anti-Keynesian (statist economics), though he and Keynes had found themselves on the same side at times, particularly regarding the effects of inflation. Hayek was more than "anti-totalitarian."

Sowell, Hayek, and Mises (possibly Menger also, though, i know some of his work, and the effect of his contribution, i haven't read any of it yet), I would say are implicit anarchists. Whereas Rothbard was an explicit anarchist. The former took statements like "nothing is certain except death and taxes" and "government is inevitable" as truthful, which, of course, they are not truthful statements, but only assumed to be true. (Sowell, also notes the idea, of the self-fulfilling prophecy in unrelated areas.)

I was also talked about Lew Rockwell, not norman rockwell. I would expect a libertarain, well versed in economics, sociology, psychology, and physics to be at least familiar with the name. Especially after going to a webstie he fundmentally "created" several times.

Lastly, is there one person on Earth that has been correct about every thought, expression and action? If so, to discount a person as "not reliable" for one disagreement one may have with them (a disagreement based largely on assumption and conjecture), and to ignore all the other work seems the domain of a fool. Hayek, of course, helped point that out.

An "implicit anarchist", eh?

Sounds just like an implicit virgin.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yes, of course, the thing saved must have value.

Should the farmer have not saved seed, airable land, or food, the farmer would also have no wealth.

What's more, often, farm land has to be converted from natural land. In order to do this, the farmer must have had tools/capital (like robinson caruso) or must go about constructing the capital to cultivate the land, both of which, actually prior to being a farmer, are aquisitions of wealth.

The farmers seed stock must be saved, prior to farming.

I am curious, where have Rothbard or Mises, and throw into the mix Hayek been shown to be "non-reliable sources"? Might as well add Menger, Sowell, and Rockwell in there as well.

Menger because he esentially founded Austrian Economics
Mises becuase he popularized it
Hayek because he carried on Mises work
Rothbard because he, amongst many other things, "Americanized" Austrian Economics
Sowell because he is still carrying on the tradition (and I like his wirtings on economy and "race").
Rockwell, because without his effort, the Mises Insitutute would not exist.

So, again, what economic considerations haas Rothbard been shown to be non-reliable? Just becuase you don't like what he says? Who made you the Authroity? Speaking of authors, how many treatises have your written, to be able to discredit them?

Thomas Sowell is a genius.