Passy
1. Are you in favour of ending the Fed? If so, you agree with Ron Paul. If not, then please admit you are in favour of a system that rips off the workers of countless billions and gives it to the big banks and corporations. Why?
2. Are you in favour of ending the wars of imperialism that Obama is waging? If so, you agree with Ron Paul. If not, why not?
3. Are you in favour of Obama’s claimed power to indefinitely detain people without charge or trial? If not, then you agree with Ron Paul. If so, please admit that you support fascism.

Pericles
I am not in favour of the immediate abolition of the welfare state, even though I’m opposed to it.

One of the main arguments against the welfare state is indeed that it causes massive intractable social problems, whether the policies are continued or abolished. For example, I would not be in favour of immediately abolishing the old age pension because the state, having robbed the working population of 40 percent of people’s income during their whole productive life, leaves them dependent on it in old age. They cannot be thrown out onto the street; they themselves have been robbed of the means to provide for their own retirement by a scheme which, if done by a private corporation, would see the directors imprisoned for a very long time.

Therefore there is a need to compromise but only in practice, never in principle. For example, the way to abolish the age pension is not by new taxes or regulations. It is to stop inflating away people’s savings, stop taxing away their income, stop destroying capital on schemes that people wouldn’t voluntarily pay for, stop preventing people from earning income by occupational licensing and minimum wage laws; and allow young people to opt out of the whole dysfunctional racket if they want.

Thus once again, when we take away your misrepresentations and projections, you have no argument left. This applies to the rest of your posts.
My support for Ron Paul is consistent …

(cont.)

… with compromise in practice, but not principle, toward the overall value of liberty.

The flaw in your reasoning is to think of freedom as a kind of policy option. According to this theory, ending some kind of control is “managing the economy”. No it’s not. That’s the whole point. Society doesn’t need “managing” by the know-it-alls of the political class. It needs to be freed from their chronic interference. People can decide their own non-aggressive values all by themselves.

Your smirk of gnostic self-righteousness on monetary policy only shows the indefensible irrational Keynesian belief that printing money is what makes modern society wealthy. You are not in a position to criticize libertarian theory on this unless and until you can show you understand it. A society’s wealth comes from savings, work, and investment that satisfies people’s wants, not from printing pieces of paper.

Sir Vivor

Good questions.

“I think you are projecting onto libertarianism what you think it should be, rather than what is actually is.”

I have shown reason why left wing ideology is internally inconsistent and inconsistent with reality. That’s why, for example, they support fascism and war thinking they’re supporting social justice; or support Keynesian policies while simultaneously blaming “unregulated capitalism”.

And I have shown reason why libertarian theory is internally consistent, and consistent with morality and reality.

On the other hand, you haven’t given any reason for saying I’m “projecting onto libertarianism…” etc. It appears to be a mere backbite.

What reason do you have to say I am projecting onto libertarianism… etc?

The word utopia has always been used to describe a centrally planned vision of society by a philosopher-king cum social engineer. Implicit is the idea that the utopian knows better than everyone else how they should live their lives.

Utopias never transpire in practice, precisely because they are centrally planned; and a centrally planned civilisation is actually impossible in theory, let alone in practice, as Ludwig von Mises has conclusively proved: http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf

Thus the leftist vision is a utopia. The libertarian vision is an entirely different proposition.

Unlike the statists of left and right, libertarians do not pretend to know what values everyone else should be forced to achieve or to sacrifice. We don’t have a grand plan for you. We understand that social order and harmony do not arise from a compulsory monopoly of force and fraud as the statists claim. The way to a fairer and better society, in which everyone can enjoy the good things that life and society have to offer, as best human beings know how, is by banning force and fraud and respecting people’s freedom. The totalitarian dreams of the socialists and statists cause and can only cause divisiveness, impoverishment and neo-feudal privileges for the rich and powerful which the socialists’ invincible ignorance blames on capitalism.

“What do you expect will happen in the event that Ron Paul becomes prez?”
You can read his policies on his website.

I think the result would be greater peace, freedom and prosperity throughout the world.

“In an ideal libertarian world, will government wither away?”
I think it would be ideal for social relations based on aggression and fraud to be replaced by social relations based on consent. Perhaps murder or rape will never disappear; but that doesn’t mean we should actively support them. Same with aggression generally. Government is a claimed legal monopoly of ultimate decision-making backed by force, from which derive all its claims of taxation and jurisdiction, and from there, all policy.

Slavery, once chronic everywhere, was enormously reduced within about a century (not counting its great resurgence under socialism, when the labour of whole populations, being factors of production, was owned by the state). Perhaps a revolution in moral understanding will see the same thing happen with taxation. It could. It is definitely both a moral and practical alternative.

The limiting factor is *ideas*. Our primitive ancestors lived poor and brutal lives because they *believed* the warrior ethos: that the way to wealth was to bash people and take theirs. Statism is just a throwback to that crude, ignorant, and anti-social belief system: wealth comes from taking it from others.

Now should be a great time for freedom, because it is obvious that socialism and fascism are dead gullies, as witness Passy’s utter confusion and hypocrisy, pretending to distance himself from the violence when he has nothing but violence to offer, mouthing drivel about the “exploitation” of “labour”, real Marxist stuff.

Man’s progress from a hand-to-mouth existence to civilisation, is the result of capital accumulation and social co-operation based on the division of labour. The more people understand this, the more they can reject the principles underlying slavery and statism, and embrace the *true* social principle: peace and freedom, which generates all the wealth the socialist predators are trying to get their hands on.

“What, under such circumstances, would you guess to be the maximum natural size of a profit-driven entity?”
Absent any favours from government, a business can only make profit by peole voluntarily paying for its products. They can only do this by using the scarce factors of production to satisfy the most urgent wants of the masses, as judged by the masses.

There’s nothing wrong with this. The left-wing set against it is idiotic. Without profit and loss, all economic activity above the level of barter would be turned into a senseless jumble, and billions would die of starvation. Profit and loss are the means by which the masses direct the entire process of production. The socialists have it precisely backassward, upside-down, and inside-out.

To understand this important point, see Mises’ excellent paper “Profit and Loss”
http://mises.org/daily/2321

While ever transactions are voluntary, it doesn’t matter how big a profit-driven entity is. People have no right to the efforts or property of others, other than with their consent.

“ Will the corporations evolve into anarchist collectives as well?”
I doubt it.

Liberty doesn’t mean no rules or rulers. It just means they’re based on consent, not coercion. Social order emerges from voluntary relations, not from central planning; just as the order in language, music, sport, and morality emerge spontaneously from voluntary interactions, not from philosopher-kings.

PHume, you say:

"Profit and loss are the means by which the masses direct the entire process of production."

I won't bother you with any more questions.

Ron Paul backs the Confederacy.

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-paul-made-south-was-right-civil-war-speech-with-confederate-flag/