I agree. Force is what is used when reason has either failed or never been tried in the first place.Kshartle wrote:This is why I think the only thing we need to worry about when trying to build a better world is not hitting the kids. Teach them how problems are really solved, through persuasion and peacful negotion, logic, reason, win-win etc.MediumTex wrote: The only alternative to the use of force in society is the use of persuasion.
Persuasion is harder to do than simply coercing someone if you control the use of force in society.
To me, the realization of any kind of libertarian-oriented society requires a deep respect for the role of persuasion in human affairs.
Persuasion requires an open mind and a sensitivity to other points of view because it's impossible to persuade someone of something if you don't have some understanding of why they feel the way they do and why they might not currently be willing to go along with what you would like them to do or to believe.
The force can't make us safe, can't give us sound money, can't shrink poverty, can't do any of the things we all want.
Peter Schiff Was Right (again)
Moderator: Global Moderator
Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)
Sometimes we get into this disagreement. Some people view defense as the use of force. It is not. Defense is always legitimate because you own your life and your property. If you own it then you have to have the right to defend it, otherwise your ownership has no value or meaning. It would be self-contradicting to say you own property but don't have the right to assert your ownership. The self-contradiction is proof positive that this belief is completely false.Simonjester wrote:defense of property can be virtuous, from the defense of our borders, protection from enemies, down to the defense of individual property rights, i would choose limiting the monopoly as close to the individual as possible, but i think we are headed in the opposite direction right now! we cant have perfect liberty without perfect people so we have to talk about limiting government in ways that encourages intelligent Independent individuals over mindless dependent collectivistsKshartle wrote:When is a violent monopoly on the use of force not evil? When is it virtuous?Simonjester wrote: its* not evil by nature... it is an near irresistible temptation to evil and an instigator of accidental evil by nature...
the evil can be avoided but it takes a supreme effort,
*government
Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)
Imagine if McDonalds ran the schools? What do you think kids would be taught about McDonalds food?Simonjester wrote:agree - and i would emphasize fixing education to teach/encourage critical thinking.... government educated indoctrinated dummies tend to want more government...Kshartle wrote:This is why I think the only thing we need to worry about when trying to build a better world is not hitting the kids. Teach them how problems are really solved, through persuasion and peacful negotion, logic, reason, win-win etc.MediumTex wrote: The only alternative to the use of force in society is the use of persuasion.
Persuasion is harder to do than simply coercing someone if you control the use of force in society.
To me, the realization of any kind of libertarian-oriented society requires a deep respect for the role of persuasion in human affairs.
Persuasion requires an open mind and a sensitivity to other points of view because it's impossible to persuade someone of something if you don't have some understanding of why they feel the way they do and why they might not currently be willing to go along with what you would like them to do or to believe.
The force can't make us safe, can't give us sound money, can't shrink poverty, can't do any of the things we all want.
Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)
I heard a rumor that Kshartle just completed a correspondence course from a well known charm school and he will soon be unveiling a brand new silky smooth style of discussion.TennPaGa wrote:+100Pointedstick wrote: I feel like every thread with Kshartle in it turns into a variant of this extremely frustrating conversation about firearms that I suspect many of us have had:
Q: “Do you have funny shaped balloons?”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
A: “Not unless round is funny.”
Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)
It's true. I will concentrate first on points of agreement and secondly on points of disagreement.MediumTex wrote:I heard a rumor that Kshartle just completed a correspondence course from a well known charm school and he will soon be unveiling a brand new silky smooth style of discussion.TennPaGa wrote:+100Pointedstick wrote: I feel like every thread with Kshartle in it turns into a variant of this extremely frustrating conversation about firearms that I suspect many of us have had:
Re: Peter Schiff Was Right (again)
Ice cubes and water.... PERFECT ANALOGY!Simonjester wrote:we certainly have had plenty of long threads over that confusion...Gumby wrote:
The problem, in my mind, is when people confuse fiscal policies with monetary policies and try to use that confusion to point out the dangers of large fiscal policies. The two policies are completely different animals. One is adding ice cubes to a glass, the other is just melting existing ice cubes in a glass (i.e. making them more liquid).
Even works with "liquidity!"
"Men did not make the earth. It is the value of the improvements only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property. Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds."
- Thomas Paine
- Thomas Paine