Economics: Muh Roadz

[Fife]

Can you identify to the audience which civilization learned to grow cotton without slavery?

Addiction to slavery is like having herpes.

Without coercion and theft, who will get us back to the moon????

[Speaker to Animals]

Can you identify to the audience which civilization learned to grow cotton without slavery?

Addiction to slavery is like having herpes.

Without coercion and theft, who will get us back to the moon????

False analogy. The fact that civilizations were able to conduct agriculture without slavery actually contradicts your claim.

Every paved road system in history was built by some kind of state. The very existence of such infrastructure implies an organized military that renders such travel possible.

[Fife]

Self-gaslighting is the most tragic kind to watch happen. Kind of entertaining, though.

One thing statists are acutely aware of is the good old Overton Window. Once the state is "essential" for one thing you really like and need, anything goes. However, once the statists have to admit that slavery is "bad" for cotton (as an obviously 2018 "bad" thing, although an absolute necessity in 1858), but somehow "good" for other things society needs and can otherwise produce, it breaks down.

Statists love to retreat to the areas where we are talking about putatively obvious "public goods" (in quotes as an economic term of art) in order to justify slavery, e.g., roads, national defense, environmental protection, &c. Declaring that "muh roads" can only be accomplished through state tyranny and a standing army leads directly to the various other areas where they want to demand state ownership/control, e.g., healthcare, schools, communications, &c., &c.

To anyone who is interested, there is an OP and some follow up in the first couple of pages in this thread that has material addressing the lunacy that traveling on a road is only possible through the state.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Deer trails, yo.


Seriously, you’d be gaining a lot
more ground if you attacked things that were less necessary. Roads are pretty fucking essential in modern life.

[GloryofGreece]

Self-gaslighting is the most tragic kind to watch happen. Kind of entertaining, though.

One thing statists are acutely aware of is the good old Overton Window. Once the state is "essential" for one thing you really like and need, anything goes. However, once the statists have to admit that slavery is "bad" for cotton (as an obviously 2018 "bad" thing, although an absolute necessity in 1858), but somehow "good" for other things society needs and can otherwise produce, it breaks down.

Statists love to retreat to the areas where we are talking about putatively obvious "public goods" (in quotes as an economic term of art) in order to justify slavery, e.g., roads, national defense, environmental protection, &c. Declaring that "muh roads" can only be accomplished through state tyranny and a standing army leads directly to the various other areas where they want to demand state ownership/control, e.g., healthcare, schools, communications, &c., &c.

To anyone who is interested, there is an OP and some follow up in the first couple of pages in this thread that has material addressing the lunacy that traveling on a road is only possible through the state.

Out of curiosity what type of state do you want? What is ideal for you? No state(?)

[Fife]

Deer trails, yo.


Seriously, you’d be gaining a lot
more ground if you attacked things that were less necessary. Roads are pretty fucking essential in modern life.

No shit, Sherlock Jr.

Who the fuck doesn't want roads? Sorry Mr. 1858, Jr. I see what you mean. Niggers picking cotton are pretty fucking essential in modern life.

GTFOH

[Fife]

Self-gaslighting is the most tragic kind to watch happen. Kind of entertaining, though.

One thing statists are acutely aware of is the good old Overton Window. Once the state is "essential" for one thing you really like and need, anything goes. However, once the statists have to admit that slavery is "bad" for cotton (as an obviously 2018 "bad" thing, although an absolute necessity in 1858), but somehow "good" for other things society needs and can otherwise produce, it breaks down.

Statists love to retreat to the areas where we are talking about putatively obvious "public goods" (in quotes as an economic term of art) in order to justify slavery, e.g., roads, national defense, environmental protection, &c. Declaring that "muh roads" can only be accomplished through state tyranny and a standing army leads directly to the various other areas where they want to demand state ownership/control, e.g., healthcare, schools, communications, &c., &c.

To anyone who is interested, there is an OP and some follow up in the first couple of pages in this thread that has material addressing the lunacy that traveling on a road is only possible through the state.

Out of curiosity what type of state do you want? What is ideal for you? No state(?)

I simply assert the burden is on the state to prove theft of private property is necessary. Not the other way around.

[jediuser598]

Self-gaslighting is the most tragic kind to watch happen. Kind of entertaining, though.

One thing statists are acutely aware of is the good old Overton Window. Once the state is "essential" for one thing you really like and need, anything goes. However, once the statists have to admit that slavery is "bad" for cotton (as an obviously 2018 "bad" thing, although an absolute necessity in 1858), but somehow "good" for other things society needs and can otherwise produce, it breaks down.

Statists love to retreat to the areas where we are talking about putatively obvious "public goods" (in quotes as an economic term of art) in order to justify slavery, e.g., roads, national defense, environmental protection, &c. Declaring that "muh roads" can only be accomplished through state tyranny and a standing army leads directly to the various other areas where they want to demand state ownership/control, e.g., healthcare, schools, communications, &c., &c.

To anyone who is interested, there is an OP and some follow up in the first couple of pages in this thread that has material addressing the lunacy that traveling on a road is only possible through the state.

Out of curiosity what type of state do you want? What is ideal for you? No state(?)

I simply assert the burden is on the state to prove theft of private property is necessary. Not the other way around.

Don't you also believe that if you don't personally approve of a law, you should not be bound by it?

[Fife]

"Personally approve" is loose language, meaningless relativistic marxist claptrap. A law is just or it isn't.

[jediuser598]

"Personally approve" is loose language, meaningless relativistic marxist claptrap. A law is just or it isn't.

That's ironic. You say my language is loose then provide some loose language of your own. Stop dodging the question Ayn Rand. If you don't agree with a law, should you have to abide by it?