Audio of Obama lamenting lack of socialism in U.S.

Post Reply New Topic

Yes. You have failed to demonstrate that your claims hold up against an external standard.


Looks like econ doesn't apply well to theology.


Such sarcasm will only be justified once economic imperialism actually does supplant all other social sciences, rather than just feeling superior and bragging about how much better you are than everyone else.


Governments don't have to be perfect to have some positive effect.


Not all, but some.


An eye for an eye leaves all the world blind.


People will do it wrong regardless, even in anarchism, and legislation that is obviously detrimental can be weeded out.


A laughably weak criticism, coming from an anarchist.


The main expansion of Supreme Court power that jumps to mind is the one that occurred during the Civil Rights movement, which was hardly egotistical powergrabbing so much as an honest attempt to do what was right.


They are still in the minority, and not at such a position of intellectual dominance of their field as others, ie Milton Friedman.


And for good reason.


Then you haven't studied enough history.


See, you are losing your libertarianism! Eventually you will become a mainstream conservative, and then a fascist.

If it wasn't for the Keynesian philosphies is presidents like FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower the world would't be the same. The gov't would not have even given a care about building a highway system. Poverty would still be at very high levels for a developed nation and so on.

Conservatives are some of the worst politicans out there. Coolidge, Reagan, G.W.Bush along with Goldwater put us in some very bad positions. If the senate controlled by Democratics wasn't there to take action the S&L Crisis back in '87 there would have been hell to pay.

Moderate Liberals like myself believe in these very principals

1]Religion/ Sexual Orintation should not be regulated by the government. Its none of a politicans damn buisness if somebody is gay and they are getting married to somebody of the same gender. Its called religious freedom and what sets america apart from other countries.

2] Industry should be regulated, if not you get a bunch of ret*ds like Martha Steward commiting inside trading with her friend that happens to work on the stock market. Look at the banking crisis and see just how the whole mess was created. Big buisness leaders only working for there own special interest and not even caring about all the people they are infecting if they do something to mess up the economy. [Like speculation on the stock market.]

3] Social issues/ Environment- Well lets just say this. The number of abstinence corses under the Bush Administration is half if what it was under the Clinton Administartion. Not talking about the situation of sex to teenagers is very bad. Especially with Teen Pregnacies going up by the hour. Also a good majority of the politicans are just as racist as thier older counterparts from the former administartions of yesturyear. Well did it take so long with Bush with Katrina. Most of the people in the Gulf Coast area were of the African American disent. Also the environment is also an important issues conservatives don't worry about. So what kind of polluted air are you going to leave your children with when you die.

Goldwater never had any significant power beyond being a Senator. Coolidge wasn't a bad President, and Reagan was mostly talk without any really noticeable acting on his rhetoric. Eisenhower I admire, FDR not so much as most economists have a rather dim view of the interventions he used to try to "stimulate" the economy, not to mention that he presided over the longest period of economic depression ever seen in American history. And I believe LBJ, who you previously disparaged, was one of the main leaders in developing all of the social programs to help the poor, so arguing that we would have greater poverty doesn't seem to be consistent with your previous comments.

I think we've actually spent a significant amount of time debating about the existence of external standards. In any case, how is there an objective amount of evidence where my claims can be considered tenable? It isn't as if all ideas that are considered valid today are clean-cut, and without issue, nor is it as if there must be a common standard of acceptance between 2 minds. I mean, Orwell, your epistemic argument is crap, partially because you don't know whether your are a rationalist, a positivist, and certainly don't seem to apply falsifiability well.


No, more like theology is completely stupid.


Orwell, there are already efforts by economists to explain other social sciences, you can't blame economists for others not adopting their ideas. It is ridiculous to expect that *any* idea would become universally accepted.


No, but they do have to be perfect to accept that they cannot have negative effect. Nor can it be said that governments are neutral to those under them, and by upholding a specific model of government, we thus uphold a certain bias over certain people.


Orwell, wtf? That is the lamest reply, ever! One, this notion of law is *already* in use, unless you actually think that prisons improve people. Secondly, there is no reason to suppose that retaliation would be done worse than it is by the government which punishes people for non-harms. Thirdly, I don't think you have a non-retaliatory model of criminal justice or anything similar to refer to.


Under a governmental system? Hardly. Unless you want to send your friends Joe, Steve, and Jake to the curb because the government program employing them is no longer needed.


No, a remarkably valid one given all of the information that we know about public choice. I mean, Orwell, the idea of "adaptive government" you are putting forward is worse than my anarchism. It is certainly more utopian than my anarchism.


I see it throughout time, and I think others do as well. In any case, "honest attempts to do what is right" run counter to any notion of separation or limitation of powers. Thus my claim stands.


Milton Friedman? You do know that his son later came to reject his notions, right? In any case, intellectual dominance in a field is going to partially be a function of the acceptability of a person's notions, which includes some elements of appeal to the status quo.


Umm..... Orwell, that statement is just dumb. Capitalism was a deviation from the status quo. Monarchism, that you promote right now, is a deviation from the status quo. *Every advancement of mankind* was a deviation from the status quo. The status quo is not inherently good, and to structure your mind around such a rigid notion(I don't give 2 s**ts about it) seems only crippling.


Umm... right. Because this is all just my ignorance. Orwell, the entire international political framework is obviously changing and has been over the last century, and thus citing some medieval history is just stupid, it doesn't matter how the world worked in 1259, or how it worked in 1987 in some backwards waterhole, what matters is the facts as they currently are. And let's just be honest, the entire historical argument usually boils down to "well, I don't have anything similar to what this guy's talking about, but let's just say that this esoteric happening was THE SAME as his idea", and is thus a brutalization of facts based upon poor epistemology.


Because I recognize that negative rights end up being incoherent if pushed? I don't care about being a libertarian, I am an anarchist.

Ok, yes, it wouldn't be the same, understood. Eisenhower's highway system seems more like an expression of him seeking a military pragmatism than Keynesianism. And wasn't it the "evil" LBJ who actually engaged in the war on poverty?


You do realize that insider trading is essentially a victimless crime, arguably even better than that, given that insider trades are obviously more informed than the average trades meaning a case could be made that it is a public benefactor, right? Speculation on the stock market? Isn't the stock market there for some levels of speculation? I mean, unless you are talking about complete boneheaded moves, such as those found in psychological frenzies, there is very little social loss from that, as profitable moves on the stock market are pretty much the same as social gains. The major issue would really just be stupid moves, but rarely is there a massive institutional based crisis, unless somebody really drops the ball.

And you think I'm too dismissive of anarchism?


Of course I can. If they have failed to put forward a case for their beliefs that is able to convince others, that is their fault.


Then find me someone who disagrees that 2+2=4. Besides, we are presumably referring to educated intelligent people here, as the masses are too stupid to be relevant.


So some bad comes along with the good, so what? That doesn't do much to undermine government, as there is plenty of bad that comes along with anarchism as well. Any societal system benefits certain people over others, so the bias argument fails unless you are able to quantify bias and show that it is objectively worse under one system as compared to another.


That's a quote from Gandhi.


I don't, and here is one example of where the status quo clearly needs reform.


I know people who have had relatives killed in mafia hits. Retaliation can quite certainly be worse when it is outside the bounds of law. Right, victimless crimes should not exist, and there is already gradual movement towards eliminating them. Again, here is where some change is definitely necessary.


Sure I do. Look at the Norwegian justice system.


Not a problem for me, as I don't form personal attachments very well. But assuming someone with a soul: bureaucratize the administration and prevent direct interpersonal relation between the person in charge of funding a government program and the people working in it.


Perhaps in some ways a valid argument, but hilariously hypocritical. The real world rarely works in the way anarchists suggest. There are limitations on how adaptive government will be, yes, but to suggest that it is completely impossible seems a stretch.


Yes, I'm aware of that, but Milton is generally more highly regarded than his son, and the fact that a family member disagreed with him hardly refutes the thought of one of the most significant economic thinkers of the twentieth century. Milton is the one who got the Nobel Prize, and David is, for all your trumpeting about him, still pretty fringe.


Ceteris paribus, it is better to keep an old system than devise a new one. The reasons for this are obvious enough, but if you desire I can cite a few dozen thinkers on the subject. When there are obvious gains to be made, change is justified, but even so it is better to reform the existing system than to reinvent the wheel, but this time using your superior triangular design.


And yet you are able to predict the complex workings of international relations in a world drastically changed even from what it is now. A truly remarkable ability on your part.


Those who can not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Rejecting all historical examples as flawed is just too much of a conceit for your favorite field.


Well, the two ideas are certainly very closely related, and you have argued from negative rights. As you said, the concept is incoherent if pushed. Most ideas taken to their extreme end up with dumb results, which is why such insistence on ideological purity is ultimately self-defeating.

Boneheaded moves, Do you mean all the crap that got us in this recession. Excess spending, credit card debt spirling out of control. Housing/ Finacial Market making risky investments.

Yes we need regulation. Somebody who doesn't just make a risky investment & expect the rest of america to pay for it. Stupid is what it is. The stability america has as a whole is due to Keynasian philosphies that politicans like Obama believe in.

There was only a limited number of people making stupid choices when it comes to the stock market back in the Late 20's. However America payed for it as a whole when the Great Depression arrived.

This "Boneheaded Moves" is due to deregulation. Oh Wo-Ho!! ! Are good ol' buddy Dubya is lowering our taxes & deregulating the enterprise sector!! MORE MONEY FOR US RICH JERKS WHILE AT THE SAME TIME RIPPING OFF THE COMMON MAN!! ! WAY TO GO GEORGE!! ! YOU CAN ESCALATE THE WAR IN AFHGANISTAN WHILE YOUR AT IT!! !!

Um, Keynesianism would be the philosophy that supports having "the rest of America" pick up the tab for those "risky investments." Free market economics says that if someone made a risky investment and it turns out badly, they're screwed and so much the worse for them.


Class warfare gets boring after a while. And you should know that no one in this thread is a Bush supporter, or even a loyal Republican for that matter.

Well, to be honest, your prior statement could be argued to be questionable, as still, it seems there must be some reason for God, to not elect some people, and a number of theologians embrace the notion that this is the best of all possible worlds. If you combine Calvinist election with the notion that this is the best of all possible worlds, then it becomes true that the marginal utility of electing any additional person is negative. We can start bring up scripture, like "he desires none to perish" or some such, but everyone is willing to give logic a value in theology.

In any case, Orwell, I think I probably know theology somewhat better than you do. I mean, I did put forward an argument for Christian anarchism after you triple-dog dared me, and you never attacked it, and at least, I think you believed that such an argument was impossible. And I also consider the matter to be one of my interests, however, in any case, you cannot act as if Christian theology does not have some elements that are arguably entirely stupid, like the trinity. Most people throughout history have denied that it is logical, but it is still a doctrine, how stupid is that? How about penal substitution: God sacrificed himself to satisfy his own justice, I mean, at that point most people would just say "God, bend the rules a little, sacrificing yourself is just dumb". Further arguments can be made too, but I won't get involved.


Orwell, that is just dumb, some people reject economics due to the mathematical rigor, others because they think it too biased, others because they just ended up following one line of thinking. Part of this entire argument is ridiculous, however, I do see a lot of the other social sciences to be somewhat flawed.


Orwell, ok, foundational concepts in our culture are not doubted, but those are incredibly rare, especially outside of the hard sciences. I mean, your standards are ridiculous, even in the hard sciences it is often seen that changes happen because the people educated in the old ways die and then the new ideas take dominance, and even then this dominance wouldn't be total for a significant period of time anyway.


In anarchism people pick their own government, and I consider a bias towards liberty to favor individual biases significantly enough to be ok with that.


My point stands.


Well, yes, but part of the reason is because it is outside of the bounds of the law. The same holds true for gang wars, if there was some way for them to negotiate then they wouldn't need to fight, however, because they need to fight, there is violence.


Hmm... actually I like that system a lot as well(you are referring to the fact that it is restorative justice, yes?). However, on some level, there is some use of power over other people involved with this system thus must be enforced by retaliation, however, if this notion is more efficient, then anarchism will adopt it sooner than the US would.


And how do you create the perfect institutional framework? It seems to me that doing so would lead to a lot of complexity, as you'd have to have a system perfectly monitor itself.


I wasn't aware that anarchists had a lot of empirically testable notions given the theoretical nature of the position. I don't see it as too much of a stretch, I mean, I would see the notion "anarchism is impossible" to be a stretch as well.


Well, his son does research more relevant to the issues of anarchism though, and his son likely had to argue this notion with his father. In any case, Milton's research had more to do with macroeconomic stability, but very little about the privatization of government services themselves, and Milton's notions of externalities were arguably relatively sloppy.


Ceteris paribus it actually does not matter. You are assuming a value system. In any case, I don't side with the conservatives, nor are their notions much more than a prejudice.


You use logic, it is simple.


And the use of lame quotes is one of those aspects of the past that needs to be remembered. In any case, history really doesn't have the prominence that you give it, subjects relating to current studies and current events are eminently more practical. I mean, saying all historical examples are flawed *is* rational, because they are flawed, at best we can bring up a case study or meta-analysis looking over all of the variables, but brute facts prove nothing, if they did then there wouldn't be such a variety of opinions amongst historians.


I can't remember much of this conversation very well. In any case, all ideas must be taken to where rationality guides them, even if it is stupid, as doing otherwise is similarly stupid.

More the latter I'd bet.


Well, actually Keynesian policies actually push us towards having America pay for it. It is typically the non-Keynesians who balk most at such pay-offs. In any case, even though Keynesians will tend to support regulation more given that Keynesianism is a theory of market imperfection, the fact of the matter is that Keynesianism isn't much of a theory involving regulation, which is usually more microeconomic. Keynesianism is a theory about the macroeconomy.


Including the people who gambled their money

Ripping off people wouldn't be possible if we didn't reward them for failing. And it would probably even have been possible for a Keynesian stimulus of some sort to be used in such a manner to avoid subsidizing failure.

AG, this criticism is only valid if God is a utilitarian, I think you know that, and I think you also know that there is no real reason why God should be a utilitarian. I mean, where in the Bible do we see "do that which results in the greatest good for the greatest number" as opposed to "do that which is moral and right."


I wasn't expecting quite a spew of verbal diarrhea and didn't really feel like putting in the background research to argue against, but arguing for the legitimacy of a state on Biblical grounds can certainly be done, or at the very least (as you admitted) governments should be respected.


Of course, it makes much more sense for an infinite God to be confined to human conceptions of logic.


I suspect this debate would get noticeably more unpleasant if we dug much deeper into theology.


OK, so if it has mathematical rigor how is it also biased? If you've been unable to convince educated intelligent people of your beliefs, that likely means there is something wrong with your beliefs. OK, and I see economics as being somewhat flawed. I mean, you guys can't even all agree on basic stuff like what causes the business cycle, and there are several different schools of economic thought that come to radically different conclusions on what should be objectively the same data. You can hardly claim rigor and objective superiority over other fields when you can't even establish an unchallenged orthodoxy in your own field, especially given that you, AG, belong to one of the more fringe groups within that field.


My argument stands.


Except it is unlikely that that is how anarchism would actually work, and really if it did work like that it could not properly be called anarchism as there are governments. It is alleged that in democracy people pick their own government, what makes your system all that special?


Not really, as there have certainly been worse replies than that on a number of occasions (this is the Internet, after all) and that is a pretty widely known quote for a reason in its rejection of retaliatory justice as counterproductive.


OK, so you have conceded this point.


Pfft, you were advocating pure retaliation. You can't make such an about-face as that and hope to continue your claims of intellectual consistency. There is no reason why anarchism would adopt this sooner than the US, and in fact it would probably never adopt such a system.


You don't. Perfection is not an option here, I am merely looking for the least bad option, and you have yet to put forward a convincing case that anarchism is it.


Then what's the use?


Not that anarchism is impossible, but that anarchism is undesirable.


Well, gee, probably because his son is the anarchist nut job?


Ceteris paribus it does matter, and you'd be an outright idiot to deny that. In fact, you've argued from a similar position on numerous occasions just recently. I am assuming a desire to avoid screwing stuff up, which I think is universal enough that it can't be dismissed as a "value system" or "prejudice." Your libertarian notions are not much more than a prejudice.


"Simple" right. Sorry, but reality isn't as neat and clean as those fancy little thought experiments of yours. There are confounding factors involved.


Even if the results are less stupid?

No, it really doesn't. It has everything to do with God's utility. From a utilitarian standpoint, hell is unjustifiable if you can remake the entire universe as you see fit.


Diarrhea? It was a bunch of verses, and some supporting arguments. Well, yes, it can be done, but the issue of contention wasn't whether or not a state *can* be argued for based upon the Bible, but rather whether or not a reasonable argument for Christian anarchism can be created. In any case, I didn't do a lot of research, as I knew most of the verses.


Umm.... here's the basic issue. Logic isn't considered a human conception, it is usually considered mind-independent instead, and there is some background in argumentation in presuppositional apologetics that logic depends upon God. The notion that God cannot be understood through logic, however, undermines any attempt at theology obviously God can be understood through some issues of logic, otherwise any attempt to understand God would be pointless. Given that theology can exist, and that logic is considered an element of existence(illogical things are nonsense and cannot exist), claiming that God is illogical is obviously a significant theological problem, which is why there are lampoons such as "the invisible pink unicorn". Not only that, but let's just be honest, if it weren't your god, wouldn't you think that such a notion as an invisible pink unicorn would be crap?


Maybe, mostly because of you though, or some other poster. I am pretty knowledgeable on theology.


Orwell, take this statement: "If you've been unable to convince educated intelligent people of your beliefs, that likely means there is something wrong with your beliefs." and apply it to Christianity. Your entire logical framework for understanding things is flawed. As for the business cycle? That's complicated, it's like blaming physicists for not having a theory of everything, so it is hardly "basic" unless you want to call the coordination of an entire economy to be a simple thing. As for the multiple schools of thought, there is a mainstream orthodoxy, and there are some other groups, and the orthodoxy is overwhelmingly dominant. I tend to agree more with the orthodoxy than the majority of the offshoots anyway, and honestly, I am not really putting a lot of thought into economic methodology at this point, but if you point to the Austrians, they agree with the neoclassical school to a good extent as well, and I think Peter Boettke has expressed the idea that the Austrian school basically agrees with the mainstream's foundations on all points but methodology, which is unlike most other schools of thought.

It sucks too, but hey.


Well, Orwell, it is anarchism in that there is no monopoly of order. I mean, to be honest, most anarchistic notions have some form of order giving principles in society, it is just that these are less powerful, hierarchical, etc, compared to the current system. In any case, that claim on democracy is obviously wrong, as people *don't* pick their government, the majority of people pick the government.


Right, but the point is still pretty terrible, on average retaliation works and is known to work.


Not really, I have stated that this kind of mechanism exists due to problems that the government creates.


It's been awhile since I've thought about it, and the last paper I read on the topic was on pure retaliation, and also, given that I am not going to set up the anarchic order, I can keep intellectual consistency even if my ideas change on a particular detail. Sure there is, the US government is dumb. If anything, anarchism could adopt this sooner, as both sides would probably prefer this over retaliation. I mean, wouldn't you prefer to get money than punish somebody? Wouldn't you prefer to pay up, and talk, than to go to jail for a few years.


Orwell, I was being mocking, I simply suggest that your notions of institutional frameworks ends up being flawed. In any case, "convincing case" is a hard thing to find anyway given that different people put different weights on certain forms of evidence, thus it is difficult to say what is a "convincing case".


Of what? Empirical knowledge isn't the only form.


That's also hard to prove, as within anarchism there could be variation, just as with republics,


His son is a professor in law, former professor in economics. Milton Friedman was a macroeconomist. The former is a better background than the latter in terms of understanding political matters.


Not really. Maybe I have, I really can't remember. I don't keep track of these conversations, so really, it is unfair to pull out a logical consistency card given that you are worse in consistency than I am, and that to be honest, I probably am not using a proper ceteris paribus if I am drawing normative conclusions, but rather assuming that nobody will challenge this argument. In any case, my notions might be a prejudice, but I don't care, you have to care if your notions are a prejudice. Remember what was stated earlier? You have to prove that your claims are non-arbitrary, I have to prove that my claims are consistent. If I prove I am consistent, then there is nothing you can do, and if your standards are arbitrary, then I don't have to accept them. The defense gets an advantage, and I am currently functioning as the defense(if I remember correctly, which I don't remember anything at all)


You use really good thought experiments then. Orwell, you can't get around thought-experiments in this kind of situation, it is ridiculous to try to. In any case, the point is clear you cannot just blankly invoke history, you at least have to give context and show how the same issues can arise in a more modern situation, or the one that applies to the matter at hand, and I don't think that there is much to do so with this case.


The results are always stupid. In fact, if you have stupid logic to get to your conclusion, then that conclusion is by nature stupid, even if it was good.

And as I already said, there doesn't seem to be any reason to assume God is a utilitarian.


It at least indicates that whatever belief you are putting forward is not so unquestionable as you have presented economic imperialism to be.


You've got a pretty serious problem if you agree at with "the majority of the offshoots" so that statement doesn't say much. From what I can tell you're not a Keynesian, so that does put you somewhat outside the orthodoxy.


Then you're being misleading with obfuscatory terminology. If there are governments or things resembling governments, it is not anarchy by definition. Come up with a term for your proposed utopia that is actually accurate and isn't lifted from previous ideas.


I won't bother defending democracy, but there really isn't a system that involves people picking their government in the way you're describing.


I don't know if the opposition Gandhi had to retaliation was based so much on pragmatics as on ethical grounds, but it still could be debated whether retaliation is more or less effective than the alternatives. You vacillate way too much on this issue, and right now I really have no idea what to make of your comments on the topic. It's as though you're two or three different people or something.


OK then, that's just a false statement.


Given that this is all just hot air, it doesn't matter that you are inconsistent. Well, I can't really argue with you there.


So you want to adopt a system similar to wergeld? Um, you just now stated that retaliation works, and now you want to get rid of it. What I prefer is likely different from what many others would prefer, and humans are often vengeful little bastards, so I wouldn't trust them in general to adopt a non-retaliatory legal system even if it was to their benefit to do so.


Anarchism, with no government. That seems to be the accepted definition. If you have another, feel free to give more details.


You know AG, you talking about David Friedman reminds me a lot of YECs talking about Michael Behe. OK, so there's this one guy with qualifications in that field who agrees with you. So what?


I thought you were attacking the institution of government as much as I was the idea of anarchism, so it's irrelevant who is on "the defense." Given that government already exists and is likely to continue existing, you would have to be the one to make a non-arbitrary case against it in order for it to change. Or if you want to reject this "conservative prejudice" you must show it to be inconsistent, as you are the one attacking it.


You are *never* going to be able to take into account nearly all of the relevant factors, and that nullifies any value of your thought experiments.


All results are stupid, but some are more stupid than others.

Umm...... Orwell, do you not know how to read. "God's utility" is separate from "utilitarianism", we can argue that the 2 are the same if we argue that God is some form of utility monster, however, you are completely not grasping the argument, as it seem ludicrous to say that God does things he doesn't want to do, particularly given that the Christian deontological tendency is not the same as the Stoic deontological tendency.


I didn't say that economic imperialism was unquestionable, I clearly put forward objections, I just say that it is superior from a methodological standpoint.


Not really, orthodoxy includes Neoclassicals and Keynesians, so being non-Keynesian has little to do with whether I fit in with orthodoxy, as even orthodox economists sometimes find reason to doubt Keynesian models, for example, Keynesian models usually rely on price stickiness, which is not a well-supported idea in microeconomics. As well, the problems with Keynesian stimulus are known in mainstream economics, as it can find problems due to Ricardian Equivalence, be questionable due to the impact on long-term growth, be hard to implement properly due to the political mechanism, and would not be very effective if prices are not sticky.


No, I am not. Anarchist theory usually has things with some elements of governmental power, and this includes orthodox anarchist theory. Orwell, if you are pulling the dictionary definition of "anarchy" then you are the one who is being obtuse, as the major difference between government and anarchism is that anarchism is a lot more decentralized.


I know, which is why I have my own system.


Ok. Gandhi likely had a bit of both, he was influenced by Leo Tolstoy. In any case, I do think that retaliation is effective, however, I think that diplomacy would be effective to use. I don't keep a book full of my ideas though, and I can be rather scatter-brained.


Because government makes trust between gangs easy? Got it.


Well, no, 1) I don't have to propose a specific system for each particular aspect of society and be consistent on it, as this is orthogonal to the overall problem, 2) multiple possible viable solutions hardly seems like an inconsistency, nor is forgetting a favored one for a less favored one due to how recent my last exposure was to the less favored notion.


Sure. It worked for medieval iceland. Retaliation works, but it is not the *optimal* solution to problems. I mean, let's just be honest, I scratched your car, what would you rather prefer: to break my hand, or to get me to pay you money. Meh, any legal system will carry some retaliatory element to it, even restorative justice typically has the perpetrator repay the victim for losses.


Have you actually studied anarchist theory, or are you just quoting a dictionary? If the latter, then you are being just flat stupid.


Umm... my guy is a respected theorist, and Michael Behe isn't? I just like David Friedman.


I can't even remember at this point to be honest. Like, you were the one who came back to this argument after a few weeks, I've forgotten what this thread was all about, and I've ceased caring long ago. I am just going to argue with you until you leave, and that's that, and given how bad my memory has gotten towards the original argument, I will likely pull this element off.

Meh, I don't even care. I want anarchism, you can shove it.


Epistemology fails in general anyway.


The results you come to are the worst.

When?


And I disagree.


What happened to their being one dominant orthodoxy in economics? Now there are two mainstream schools? OK, yes, there are problems with Keynesianism, I'm not a Keynesian either, but there are at least workarounds to the problems it faces in political mechanism.


If you still have some organization that provides a legal structure, means of enforcing it, certain services, and collects money from people to pay its expenses, I don't see how that is not a government. What precisely is the fundamental difference then between a small, decentralized government and your conception of anarchism?


They are operating outside of the government, so the government is making trust between them neither easy nor difficult as they are outside of governmental influence and the government is likely unaware of their existence. I would say it looks like a decent example of how things would work under anarchism.


A scratch on the car isn't the type of crime most likely to cause people to desire retaliatory rather than restorative justice, but in any case there are a fair number of people who would go right ahead with breaking your hand over that if it were an option.


Neither is really that highly regarded among the mainstream in their field, despite having fancy-sounding credentials. Also, both form a large bulk of a fringe group's arguments. Though drawing such a parallel doesn't do much in reality to disparage such ideas (as it would at best be a sloppy ad hominem by analogy if it were used to refute Friedman), I was just pointing out a similarity I found interesting.


I was busy. You are stubborn, aren't you?


Well, you're not going to get anarchism. Neener neener


Then why bother?

Look @ the time period between 1991 & 2000 and look at what we have now. I truly do believe that a bit of Socialism is better than a president who deregulated business all the way back to Adam Smith. Which is actually what Bush did.

Just look at Great Britain and see how successful that country is.

http://www.house.gov/jec/publications/109/rr109-25.pdf


GDP Growth between 2000 & 2008
http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/gdp.htm


" Want a second, the military is using me as a gueina pig, I'm not dumb enough to follow through but I'll do it anyway."
--Homer Simpson