Daniel Unplugged Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 Kind of. You are arguing that your verbal disagreement with the creation of the law that killed Eric Garner makes you "less guilty" that those who supported the creation of that law. I'm asserting that arguing you are "less guilty" means that you've admitted that you're "guilty",... I was asserting that I am not guilty at all, not in the slightest. I played no part in any of it, whether by causing it in any way or even being complicit in it.
MMX2010 Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 I was asserting that I am not guilty at all, not in the slightest. I played no part in any of it, whether by causing it in any way or even being complicit in it. Do you live on a mountain top, devoid of any human contact, raising your food via seeds that were never taxed? If not, you played a part. You either supported the law's existence, which got Eric Garner killed. Or you didn't think the law's existence could be that dangerous, which got Eric Garner killed. Or you knew that the law's existence could be that dangerous, but you didn't do anything....which got Eric Garner killed. We are all guilty here. All of us are less guilty than the police. But being less guilty isn't the same as being absolutely not guilty.
labmath2 Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 When Cliven Bundy refused to adhere to the rules that other cattle ranchers were required to follow, did he not also benefit from the state?
shirgall Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 When Cliven Bundy refused to adhere to the rules that other cattle ranchers were required to follow, did he not also benefit from the state? He did, but the BLM had been gradually weening all of the ranchers from the previous access they had to public land, so it was more a question of eroded property rights. Land use stuff gets really messed up, but the basic idea was that since no one else developed the land all of the ranchers could use it for additional grazing so they did not overgraze the land they had developed, increasing the capacity for all ranchers. The BLM wanted to restrict the land use due to environmental lobbying. The BLM was not developing the land for some other purpose, which is the traditional way that open country becomes private property. At first blush, I would think the BLM should offer to sell the land to the ranchers, or the environmentalists, and get out of the way. Heck, they could use the money to pay down the national debt or something. In either the Garner or Bundy cases, the State is the root cause of the problem.
WasatchMan Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 I don't think he does. I've been devouring a lot of posts from The Last Psychiatrist, and his/her most interesting ones concern advertising. Before you read the blog, you strongly think you make your decisions independently of commercials. Afterwards, you cry and get mad. But you mostly wonder what your life would've been like if you really hadn't been so influenced by commercials. I am not sure how this follows what I was trying to say. My only point was that in order for "off-screen guy" to be able to make a claim to the effect of "Stef's strategy for spreading liberty is for liberty minded people to out-breed the state", he would of had to first had the prior knowledge that Stef's actual position that we need to spread peaceful parenting to undermine the acceptance of the state. This is because the two statements are so unfamiliar (therefore could not be a misunderstanding) but only share a loose intersection at parenting. My claim is this spin would need to be consciously constructed, and could not arise from a misunderstanding. The only other explanation is that the guy just goes to Stef's haters website, and parrots that without actually checking the facts and then still has the gall to claim that he "likes Stef".
jpahmad Posted January 3, 2015 Author Posted January 3, 2015 When Cliven Bundy refused to adhere to the rules that other cattle ranchers were required to follow, did he not also benefit from the state? No. His business was negatively effected by the state. Just ask yourself this question: If the state disappeared over night what would happen to Bundy's business? It would be fine, if not better. Next question, if the state disappeared over night what whould happen to Eric Garner's business? It would disappear as well. Yes, the state and the black market are two sides of the same entity. Or in other words, The Black Market is a part of The State. Garner was a statist! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nXJZX1e-M&list=UUok6mq_8zvOJDoRLAbU0lww 1 1
WasatchMan Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 No. His business was negatively effected by the state. Just ask yourself this question: If the state disappeared over night what would happen to Bundy's business? It would be fine, if not better. Next question, if the state disappeared over night what whould happen to Eric Garner's business? It would disappear as well. Yes, the state and the black market are two sides of the same entity. Or in other words, The Black Market is a part of The State. Garner was a statist! I don't necessarily agree with this, because I see it more as a linguistic argument than an actual description of reality. Sure, "black market" could be described as a direct result of the initiation of force, but that would mean you are defining "black market" as trade defined as being unacceptable by those with the power to initiate force. Which would just make the argument circular, or a tautology ("Black markets" are a direct result of the initiation of force, because those with the power to initiate force are the arbitrators of what "black markets" are). Furthermore, if you simply make a subtle, and acceptable, change to your definition of "black market" to be trade not sanctioned by those with the power to initiate force then you would come to the exact opposite conclusion. The conclusion you would have to come to is all trade that is not sanctioned by those with the power to initiate force are part of the "black market", and therefore, in a society where nobody has the right to initiate force everything would be the "black market". Which would make Garner an anarchic capitalist, something that I would not be comfortable in claiming either. "Black markets" are neither statist or anarchic, as such. The only purpose of the word is to serve as a statist propaganda word to shame people who aren't "playing by the rules".
MMX2010 Posted January 3, 2015 Posted January 3, 2015 Great article. All of the bold-print is contained in the original article. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.henrydampier.com/2015/01/anti-cop-pose-libertarian-strategic-error/ The Anti-Cop Pose is a Libertarian Strategic Error Libertarians have found themselves in an impossible position thanks to years of regular anti-police activism, bombastic statements against police, and sloganeering around the Drug War. I would argue that the leading voice in this strain is Radley Balko, who ran a widely-read blog on police abuses that he eventually turned into a book contract and columnist gigs at the Huffington and Washington Posts. The main reason why this strain of activism has turned into a dead-end for the libertarians comes down to a several reasons: The problems of maintaining a stable legal order. Misunderstanding what the Drug War is, due to taking political propaganda at face value. Being unable to speak honestly about race, knowing the fates of Murray Rothbard and H.H. Hoppe for doing so. An emotional and financial desire to reach the mainstream population through the prestige press and television. A misunderstanding of the demographics that are likely to respond to libertarian appeals. To support the first bullet, let’s get ourselves to Moldbug, who writes: The problem with Mises as guru is that Misesian classical liberalism (or Rothbardian libertarianism) is like Newtonian physics. It is basically correct within its operating envelope. Under unusual conditions it breaks down, and a more general model is needed. The equation has another term, the ordinary value of which is zero. Without this term, the equation is wrong. Normally this is no problem; but if the term is not zero, the error becomes visible. The entire idea of a stable libertarian order is predicated on the ‘order’ part of things. When the country is populated by numerous people who have no respect for notions of property and peace, then it’s impossible to maintain the law… and even then, only possible to maintain the law at high expense, with some measure of brutality. On the second point, contemporary libertarians, for fear of the outer darkness to which anyone who writes about racial differences will be relegated, tend to neglect to discuss the different tendencies of different groups of people and cultures. Ron Paul’s first race in the Republican primaries was damaged badly by the publication of what were really quite mild newsletters in which his ghostwriters discussed race and crime. Contemporary libertarians tend to over-compensate for this with ostentatious expressions of pro-Civil-Rights rhetoric, contradicting many of their other positions concerning freedom of association. The libertarian ideology, at least in its most vulgar expressions, tends to float atop a world of pure theory, without reference to its cultural roots or origins. Finally, it’s the worst possible pose to strike for an ideology supposedly dedicated to the defense of absolute private property rights to support violent rioters who are destroying the property of small merchants. The libertarian is supposed to be fighting for the rights of the people like the petty merchants whose businesses the rioters are destroying. The rioter who destroys his shop and threatens his life is a more direct threat than the policeman who collects tax and intimidates the more dangerous men away from his territory. Similarly, it’s nonsensical to simultaneously support an ideology that supposedly fights for the rights of ordinary people to maintain the integrity of their persons and property against all challengers to express sympathy for assassins of police officers. Regardless of whatever theoretical reasons there might be for grinning ghoulishly at the deaths of cops, to place oneself on the same side as the communist revolutionaries advocating these disruptions of public order is to be on the wrong side, to ally with the left and the associated forces for the forceful dissolution of society. In this way, libertarians behave like someone else who called herself a ‘libertarian’ on occasion: Emma Goldman, who allied with Lenin, until the Party purged her and exiled her to America. Contemporary libertarians who support rioters above police adhere to their own theories, which are obscure and alien to the common people, above the facts of actual events happening outside of their windows. Arguments about the ‘NAP’ and the ‘absolute right to property’ spoken on one day, in private, become irrelevant to the minds of the common people when they see a libertarian spokesperson go on television and say that the police are at fault, and that the mob (invariably a socialist-democratic mob) is correct to be incensed. I understand the appeal of striking this pose, because I have stricken something like this pose before for the same reasons, and regret my mistakes. People like Christopher Cantwell, who are evidently invited to speak at libertarian conferences, speak as if they are either on the FBI’s payroll or on the payroll of whatever succeeded the Comintern: Even these liberal fuckin idiots who want the government to control every aspect of their lives, are starting to realize that police are violent fuckin monsters who cannot be trusted, and while I don’t like the race pimping or the destruction of private property, if these Marxist fuckin animals can produce just a few more Ismaaiyl Brinsley’s, guys who will whack a couple of the king’s men then take themselves out, well, they just might make up for some of the damage they’ve done to society. Such statements have little appeal to anyone predisposed to civilized life. It wouldn’t go over well with an insurance salesman with three children in Peoria. The intellectuals are far more dangerous than the police ever have been and ever will be. Libertarians have created a commons under their intellectual brand, and have subsequently debased it, as Rothbard lamented late in his life.
Libertus Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 Garner was a statist! If the state outlaws philosophy, and I start selling books on the black market, making a profit, I'm the statist?
MMX2010 Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 If the state outlaws philosophy, and I start selling books on the black market, making a profit, I'm the statist? That's not what happened. The State enacted arbitrary rules, translated as "Only people who obey the rules get to sell cigarettes for these higher prices." So when Garner sold loosies, he was using the power of the State to turn a profit. (Chris Cantwell's argument is annoying because it assumes that Garner did something capitalistic, like invent a teleporter to save on fuel costs for transporting cigarettes, to sell at lower prices. But there was nothing capitalistic about what Garner did, and Stefan would've supported Garner if there were.)
fractional slacker Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 If you say Garner committed a crime by depriving the store of customers/revenue and therefore the store owners had just cause to call the police, I have a question. Was it only a crime because he was within say 10 feet of the store? How many feet away would he not be committing a crime?
WasatchMan Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 The State enacted arbitrary rules, translated as "Only people who obey the rules get to sell cigarettes for these higher prices." So when Garner sold loosies, he was using the power of the State to turn a profit. (Chris Cantwell's argument is annoying because it assumes that Garner did something capitalistic, like invent a teleporter to save on fuel costs for transporting cigarettes, to sell at lower prices. But there was nothing capitalistic about what Garner did, and Stefan would've supported Garner if there were.) Semantics. One could say that "he was using the power of the State to turn a profit" or one could say "he was taking advantage of an hole in the market that was creed by force enacted by others that he has no control over." Either way, you are still no closer to making an argument that in anyway demonstrated that Garner violated the NAP, and we are still just talking about pragmatic reasoning. 1 1
jpahmad Posted January 4, 2015 Author Posted January 4, 2015 I don't necessarily agree with this, because I see it more as a linguistic argument than an actual description of reality. Sure, "black market" could be described as a direct result of the initiation of force, but that would mean you are defining "black market" as trade defined as being unacceptable by those with the power to initiate force. Which would just make the argument circular, or a tautology ("Black markets" are a direct result of the initiation of force, because those with the power to initiate force are the arbitrators of what "black markets" are). Furthermore, if you simply make a subtle, and acceptable, change to your definition of "black market" to be trade not sanctioned by those with the power to initiate force then you would come to the exact opposite conclusion. The conclusion you would have to come to is all trade that is not sanctioned by those with the power to initiate force are part of the "black market", and therefore, in a society where nobody has the right to initiate force everything would be the "black market". Which would make Garner an anarchic capitalist, something that I would not be comfortable in claiming either. "Black markets" are neither statist or anarchic, as such. The only purpose of the word is to serve as a statist propaganda word to shame people who aren't "playing by the rules". ah ah! But let me clarify something. Not all "black market" operations use force to leverage business. Say for example, I sell weed out of my house to people who need it for either recreational purposes/or medical purposes. This would be illegal correct? However, if the government disappeared over night, my business would then flourish where as Garner's business would disappear. The weed dealer is not a statist. The weed dealer is not leveraging coercion to his advantage. The weed dealer is building in real skill and supplying a need in an industry that would flourish more without the coercive presence of the state. To figure out who is and who is not a closet statist, just put it to this simple test: If the state disappears overnight, who loses their way of making a living? That's all you have to do. It's that simple. 1 1
MMX2010 Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 I am not sure how this follows what I was trying to say. My only point was that in order for "off-screen guy" to be able to make a claim to the effect of "Stef's strategy for spreading liberty is for liberty minded people to out-breed the state", he would of had to first had the prior knowledge that Stef's actual position that we need to spread peaceful parenting to undermine the acceptance of the state. This is because the two statements are so unfamiliar (therefore could not be a misunderstanding) but only share a loose intersection at parenting. My claim is this spin would need to be consciously constructed, and could not arise from a misunderstanding. I understand what you're saying, and I think I didn't communicate my argument very well. Off-screen guy believes in government, because he was trained from birth to believe in government, and his belief caused him to incorrectly infer that everyone believes in government. After inferring this, he inferred that Stefan wants to outbreed the state. But Stefan wants to raise a child to never believe in government at all. And this non-belief in government will cause her to both resist government intervention and preach libertarianism to all of her friends. Hope that helps. Let me know if it doesn't.
jpahmad Posted January 4, 2015 Author Posted January 4, 2015 If you say Garner committed a crime by depriving the store of customers/revenue and therefore the store owners had just cause to call the police, I have a question. Was it only a crime because he was within say 10 feet of the store? How many feet away would he not be committing a crime? Garner leveraged force for his own economic benefit. This is a violation of the NAP. The store owner started his business on the premiss that someone wouldn't sell loose cigarettes right outside his front door. Why? Because it's illegal to do so. Garner had no self-sufficient business. I don't know why you're acting like he was some kind of entrepreneur. Was it only a crime because he was within say 10 feet of the store? How many feet away would he not be committing a crime? Ha, Ha. I'd say move Garner 20 feet away and he doesn't sell one cigarette. Then of course, he would probably be in front of someone else's store front. Garner would have no business without that store front. In a free market, Garner is useless. If he had any sense, he would support the presence of the state, he wouldn't be able to make a living without it. But like I said above, people like Garner are the state.
Jamiroquai Posted January 4, 2015 Posted January 4, 2015 I'm confused as to why Stefan refuses to treat the Eric Garner case like he did the Cliven Bundy case. It seems he was backed into a corner in this conversation and didn't want to admit the glaring error in his logic.Stefan, like you say quite vehemently and on many occasions, taxation is theft. Please realize that Eric Garner's death was the fault of the state, not Eric Garner. If Cliven Bundy was killed by the state, you would make a video defending his actions and condemning the state, so you should treat the Eric Garner situation equally.And unlike Eric Garner, Cliven Bundy actually resisted the state's violence with the threat of violence, while Eric Garner merely had the natural reaction to an armed kidnapping - resistance. Hell, he didn't even take a swing at any of the cops, he merely defended himself.
MMX2010 Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 Semantics. One could say that "he was using the power of the State to turn a profit" or one could say "he was taking advantage of an hole in the market that was creed by force enacted by others that he has no control over." Either way, you are still no closer to making an argument that in anyway demonstrated that Garner violated the NAP, and we are still just talking about pragmatic reasoning. The State is not the same thing as the Market.
WasatchMan Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 ah ah! But let me clarify something. Not all "black market" operations use force to leverage business. Say for example, I sell weed out of my house to people who need it for either recreational purposes/or medical purposes. This would be illegal correct? However, if the government disappeared over night, my business would then flourish where as Garner's business would disappear. The weed dealer is not a statist. The weed dealer is not leveraging coercion to his advantage. The weed dealer is building in real skill and supplying a need in an industry that would flourish more without the coercive presence of the state. To figure out who is and who is not a closet statist, just put it to this simple test: If the state disappears overnight, who loses their way of making a living? That's all you have to do. It's that simple. I wasn't implying that part of the definition of "black markets" is using force. I was talking about how the term isn't really meaningful, and therefore linguistic derivations aren't very meaningful. I get your point about Eric Garner having a harder time selling loose cigarettes if there weren't laws around it. It just really doesn't mean anything to me. The only thing that means anything to me in this context is whether or not he violated the NAP by selling loose cigarettes. You might have a preference against it, but It is not immoral to take advantage of holes in the market caused by the state.
jpahmad Posted January 5, 2015 Author Posted January 5, 2015 You might have a preference against it, but It is not immoral to take advantage of holes in the market caused by the state. Yes! A state that provides for him. Provides "holes" for him. Provides a livelihood. Don't try to pretend that Garner wants the state to go away. If you sat him down in a chair and told him that the state is gone and all is legal, he would say to himself "shit, what the f@#K am I gonna do now"? He's probably go rob somebody.
TheMikeness Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 This whole topic started because the context of Stefan's conversation was not properly grasped. It should be obvious to anyone who has watched Stefs stuff over the years that he does not truly think that selling loose cigarettes is initiating force against store owners or anything like that. All that Stefan was saying was that someone called the cops on him because they FELT victimized by him. Given that we all currently live in a statist system where selling cigarettes without paying the usual taxes and licensing, at least according to the letter of the law, there is a victim. All this arguing over a simple misunderstanding...this is a good example of why I never come to this forum anymore. Too much inability to "see the forest for the trees". 5 1
WasatchMan Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 The State is not the same thing as the Market. Yes! A state that provides for him. Provides "holes" for him. Provides a livelihood. Don't try to pretend that Garner wants the state to go away. If you sat him down in a chair and told him that the state is gone and all is legal, he would say to himself "shit, what the f@#K am I gonna do now"? He's probably go rob somebody. Unless you are saying that Eric Garner lobbied the state to make it illegal to sell loose cigarettes in order for him to make a profit out of selling loose cigarettes, he is not responsible for the immoral laws. If you are not making that claim all he did was take advantage of an opportunity created by the state. There are lots of good people who make money because of holes in the market created by the law, and as long as what they are doing is not immoral as such, the fact that the state made a law that makes your actions more profitable does not change it to being immoral. In other words, since selling loose cigarettes is not immoral with or without the state, and there is no indication that Eric Garner had anything to do with getting the immoral laws enacted in order to make a profit, he did nothing immoral. The only case I see you making is he did something that you don't aesthetically prefer. This whole topic started because the context of Stefan's conversation was not properly grasped. It should be obvious to anyone who has watched Stefs stuff over the years that he does not truly think that selling loose cigarettes is initiating force against store owners or anything like that. All that Stefan was saying was that someone called the cops on him because they FELT victimized by him. Given that we all currently live in a statist system where selling cigarettes without paying the usual taxes and licensing, at least according to the letter of the law, there is a victim. All this arguing over a simple misunderstanding...this is a good example of why I never come to this forum anymore. Too much inability to "see the forest for the trees". That is what I thought too (that Stef was really trying to say the store owners had a non-racist reason to call the cops), but then I came on this thread and saw people genuinely trying to make the out of context argument that Eric Garner was the one victimizing people. That is why in my first post I asked we stop talking about "victims" and address whether or not it was a violation of the NAP. It seems people do believe that it was. Also, if you are just going to come on here to shame people for having a discussion why waste both yours and the forums time?
jpahmad Posted January 5, 2015 Author Posted January 5, 2015 This whole topic started because the context of Stefan's conversation was not properly grasped. It should be obvious to anyone who has watched Stefs stuff over the years that he does not truly think that selling loose cigarettes is initiating force against store owners or anything like that. All that Stefan was saying was that someone called the cops on him because they FELT victimized by him. Given that we all currently live in a statist system where selling cigarettes without paying the usual taxes and licensing, at least according to the letter of the law, there is a victim. All this arguing over a simple misunderstanding...this is a good example of why I never come to this forum anymore. Too much inability to "see the forest for the trees". TheMikeness, the store owner felt victimized because Garner was leveraging force against him. This is a violation of the NAP. That's why the store owner felt like a victim, because he was a victim.
J. D. Stembal Posted January 5, 2015 Posted January 5, 2015 I'm quite sure he was violating some sort of zoning/loitering restriction. In the current world we live in, the state is the entity that grants property to an individual. This includes defining boundaries between commercial business and between store fronts and sidewalks. It's the framework that everyone who does business in this world has to deal with. Is it a good reality? No obviously. Is it the current reality? Yes. The store owner sets up shop on the premiss that no one is going to hang around outside his front door and sell competing merchandise on the black market. This is because loitering is illegal. Do you support the initiation of the use of force against me?
shirgall Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 Stef addresses this question in his January 5th show: https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42976-youtube-nypd-no-%E2%80%9Cunnecessary%E2%80%9D-arrests-the-stefan-molyneux-show-january-5th-2015/ 1
jpahmad Posted January 6, 2015 Author Posted January 6, 2015 Do you support the initiation of the use of force against me? Why would I support the initiation of the use of force against you?
Jamiroquai Posted January 6, 2015 Posted January 6, 2015 TheMikeness, the store owner felt victimized because Garner was leveraging force against him. This is a violation of the NAP. That's why the store owner felt like a victim, because he was a victim. Jpahmad, I understand that you've described exactly why the store owner feels victimized, but isn't it more important to determine whether he was actually victimized, and by whom, rather than how he feels? I may feel victimized by my boss when I am paid less than another employee, but that doesn't necessarily mean my boss has victimized me. The store owner was forced into paying cigarette taxes by the state -> The store owner is compelled to do something, and is a victim of the state, empirically. Eric Garner did not pay cigarette taxes, and the store owner did -> The store owner feels victimized by Eric Garner, but was not. There is no empirical evidence that shows Eric Garner actually victimized the store owner, regardless of his feelings. The position that Eric Garner victimized the store owner can only be taken by those who also believe there is force involved in free market capitalism.
jpahmad Posted January 6, 2015 Author Posted January 6, 2015 Jpahmad, I understand that you've described exactly why the store owner feels victimized, but isn't it more important to determine whether he was actually victimized, and by whom, rather than how he feels? I may feel victimized by my boss when I am paid less than another employee, but that doesn't necessarily mean my boss has victimized me. The store owner was forced into paying cigarette taxes by the state -> The store owner is compelled to do something, and is a victim of the state, empirically. Eric Garner did not pay cigarette taxes, and the store owner did -> The store owner feels victimized by Eric Garner, but was not. There is no empirical evidence that shows Eric Garner actually victimized the store owner, regardless of his feelings. The position that Eric Garner victimized the store owner can only be taken by those who also believe there is force involved in free market capitalism. Garner profited off of the store owner's hard work and used the presence of state force to leverage against the store owner's ability to compete with him. You have to understand that Garner was not just selling loose cigarettes, he was selling loose cigarettes to the store owner's client stream. The store owner paid to be there, on that particular block of the city. The store owner paid the state to make sure that no one would loiter around in front of his store. The store owner worked hard to build a reputation and presence in that neighborhood. Garner came in and syphon's business of of the store owner's hard work. Garner knows he can do this because the store owner, under gun point, is not able to compete with him. This is aggressive. I do not agree with Stefan on this point. This is a round about way for Garner to initiate the use of force against the store owner. It is an NAP violation. Did you watch my videos? I make a clear case for Garner being a statist himself.
jpahmad Posted January 6, 2015 Author Posted January 6, 2015 Jamiroquai, did you watch these videos? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4nXJZX1e-M&list=UUok6mq_8zvOJDoRLAbU0lww https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSt-4rmSzRQ&feature=gp-n-o&google_comment_id=z13ssllzxlqhcldgi04cfrmqftaqcv5iyog0k
fractional slacker Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 jpahmadIt sounds like your argument starts with the premise the black market is the same as the state. Is that correct?
shirgall Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 jpahmad It sounds like your argument starts with the premise the black market is the same as the state. Is that correct? I didn't understand his video that way. The State creates the black market by creating the barriers to entry: taxes to profit from evading, bans to profit from violating, quotas to profit by exceeding... Without the State none of these profits can be realized. Free markets don't have black markets. But the State doesn't really exist (it has no mass or energy of its own), it's really an abstraction bunch of people using force to oppress everyone else. It's we give them our consent the State is really us.
june Posted January 7, 2015 Posted January 7, 2015 TheMikeness, the store owner felt victimized because Garner was leveraging force against him. This is a violation of the NAP. That's why the store owner felt like a victim, because he was a victim. isn't the store owner the one leveraging the force of the state? he's the one abiding by their (forced) rules and using those rules to shut down other people/competitors.
jpahmad Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 jpahmad It sounds like your argument starts with the premise the black market is the same as the state. Is that correct? Basically Yes. Like Josh says, the state doesn't exist, nor does the "black market." These are concepts we use to describe individual people's choices and actions. Both the black market and the state is made up of the same kinds of people: Predators. Both types of people make a living by exploiting their prey which happens to be the unwilling but nonetheless law abiding citizens. So in this way, the state and the black market are the same thing, just like two cartels Mexico are essentially the same thing. Heck, we have tons of empirical evidence all over history of statist/politicians working in both the state and the back market. It still goes on today. If that's not evidence for these two things being the same thing, than I don't know what is.
jpahmad Posted January 7, 2015 Author Posted January 7, 2015 isn't the store owner the one leveraging the force of the state? he's the one abiding by their (forced) rules and using those rules to shut down other people/competitors. Did you watch the videos June?
Recommended Posts