Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et

Well who is the rest from?

You seem to have a knowledge of sidelines of the liberatarian economic understandings and the Austrian school. So did you read Menger and Mises or at least a comprehension? Because you might not understand what the rest is about. I know the parable of the broken window of course but never read "la Loi" or a comprehension of that.
To me quite honestly it seems you like some ideas but do not understand them to all extend. And if you have a degree in something does not make you an expert, it still makes you a scholar. You know even if you like the idea and agree to it you still have to be critical about it. That is a good advice for your bachelor thesis, take it from someone who finished his diploma and the thesis with a 1,5. Be critical even if you seem to fully agree with it and find the roots of the thesis, even if you still like the thesis take into consideration why other people disagree.

Well who is the rest from?

The Road to Serfdom -> Friedrich Hayek
Anarchy, State and Utopia -> Robert Nozick

Does this make any sense to you, Levitate, or not?

That depends on the indifference of the actors described in that (purely hypothetical) situation. For some rich people, it might be more profitable to keep the poor riot, with eventual damage as consequence.

Now, you know I am NOT against the government an sich, that I consider a necessary evil. The government is needed in order to enforce the law (including the rights of all citizens). So when the poor riot, the government must take action against those who harm the possessions of the rich (that is a fundamental law, the non-initiation of violence must be respected and offenders must be dealt with by the government (with violence if necessary).

Given that it are the poor who initiate the violence, it is not 'right' to ask (and certainly not 'right' to force) the rich to pay some contribution to 'keep the poor calm'. Even if that is in their own interest (if that is the case, they probably will pay the poor themselves, even without the government interfering because it is in their interests). You (as the government) cannot force people to do what is in their best interests. Why? Because people should be free to make their own decisions and because sometimes, it is not clear what is in the interests of certain people.

So yes, it does make sense what you say, but I simply don't agree with it, because people should be able to chose if they want to act in favor of their interests (remember that if it is in their interests, they will pay; if there is a government or not doesn't influence this).

We don't have a bachelor thesis, only in master. My thesis will be about accounting and financing, so it won't have any to do with this ;-)

And yes, I will always defend maximal freedom. Always. Even if that is less profitable than other options.

You are as funny (or a really sad person) as catholic fundamentalist in USA...

The poor start demonstrating. Theoretically it could happen that the poor start destroying the capital. It could then be cheaper to pay the poor instead of letting them riot. Suppose that a couple of the rich don't want to pay, then the poor and the rich that are willing to pay can form a front against those who don't want to pay (the rich that want to pay have to pay less if they can force the others, or the poor will get more)

I don't think giving in to extortion is a good solution for your problems. It will only lead to more extortion.

The big bosses usually care more about themselves than they care about anyone. I actually had the chance to talk to a few ppl who are major players in this world after working hours and most of them were only looking to increase their own fortune and well being.
I assume if you have those ideas you try to strike it rich one day. Good luck with that. If your parenthood or education or your bright mind would give you some kind of a clue, think about those who were not as fortunate then you were. I am not talking about me.

So the state is a perfect solution for keeping 'extremely high wages and bonuses' low? Did you even hear about how much money these parlementarians of the EU make per month? Extremely much.

And it is an absolute fallacy to think that libertarians do not care about poor people. Forcing people to pax taxes to the state, to eventually subsidize the poor, is not social, it's theft. You are not a good and moral person if you applaud taxation, and you are not an immoral person if you take a libertarian stance and say 'NO' to taxation.

I don't think YOU even understood the slightest of libertarian defences of libertarianism.

The difference is that my argumentation is not only based on one book ;-)

Too bad I went - I quote your words - from 'impressing for you age' to a fundamentalist in a few months time ;-)

I don't think giving in to extortion is a good solution for your problems. It will only lead to more extortion.

Exactly. Give them a hand ...

That depends on the indifference of the actors described in that (purely hypothetical) situation. For some rich people, it might be more profitable to keep the poor riot, with eventual damage as consequence.

Now, you know I am NOT against the government an sich, that I consider a necessary evil. The government is needed in order to enforce the law (including the rights of all citizens). So when the poor riot, the government must take action against those who harm the possessions of the rich (that is a fundamental law, the non-initiation of violence must be respected and offenders must be dealt with by the government (with violence if necessary).

Given that it are the poor who initiate the violence, it is not 'right' to ask (and certainly not 'right' to force) the rich to pay some contribution to 'keep the poor calm'. Even if that is in their own interest (if that is the case, they probably will pay the poor themselves, even without the government interfering because it is in their interests). You (as the government) cannot force people to do what is in their best interests. Why? Because people should be free to make their own decisions and because sometimes, it is not clear what is in the interests of certain people.

So yes, it does make sense what you say, but I simply don't agree with it, because people should be able to chose if they want to act in favor of their interests (remember that if it is in their interests, they will pay; if there is a government or not doesn't influence this).
Forgive me for just mentioning it a government, but I mean that there could be a strong force to establish a taxation and redistribution mechanism operated by the government.

Point however is that the broken window fallacy can be used to justify a smaller government (however, also the costs of social work etc. might be lower than abolishing it all), but it is harder to justify a night-watchman state solely on that basis.

Point however is that the broken window fallacy can be used to justify a smaller government (however, also the costs of social work etc. might be lower than abolishing it all), but it is harder to justify a night-watchman state solely on that basis.

The broken window fallacy isn't a way of justifying such a state. It's a way of countering Keynesian economists, like those who say a war can be good for the economy (economists like Krugman).
(editado)

Well if you live in a social market economy like Germany it is. for your information. I am more than sure I have more knowledge about that than you.
Paying taxes to support the state, the government is a good thing. To make education, infrastructure and so on available for everybody is important.
Paying for those who can't work is essential, paying for those who don't want to not so much. But that is a problem of the system.
YOU don't seem to know what you are talking about to be frankly honest.
Mainly because your statement does not make sense. Ever read anything about libertarianism to abolish taxes? No I doubt that highly.
So basically thanks for the bs but go the other way.

Mjakk, I don't see what the broken window fallacy has to do with the justification of the state or the justification of libertarianism? It merely states that breaking 'stuff' with the goal of achieving economic stimulation is wrong, because it does not achieve that. The same $10 that would be used to fix the broken window would be spent too if the window had not been broken. Whether there is a government or not, this does not matter.

Stop thinking you're the only one who knows about this. Your support of the big government is rather weak itself.

Paying taxes to support the state, the government is a good thing. To make education, infrastructure and so on available for everybody is important.

Tell me, why is it important for all of us that there is public transport?

Paying for those who can't work is essential, paying for those who don't want to not so much. But that is a problem of the system.

You have to evaluate a system including its flaws, its problems.

Paying taxes to support the state, the government is a good thing. To make education, infrastructure and so on available for everybody is important.

Please defend your thesis that there would be no education or infrastructure for everyone in anarcho-capitalism. Because I don't accept it. I accept the contrary. I have read enough theory to believe that there would be indeed enough provision of education, infrastructure and health care in an anarcho-capitalist world. It's just difficult for you to accept, because you are used to the half socialist country you live in.

Paying for those who can't work is essential, paying for those who don't want to not so much. But that is a problem of the system.

Why is the state the only means to pay those who can't work? Didn't the church do the same, when the government was not so active hundreds of years ago? And how are you going to solve the problem of the system? In my opinion, it is impossible, as the costs of checking every welfare recipient would be gigantic.


It seems to me that, while you have read some literature on the Austrian School and libertarianism, you do not grasp the basics and you are unable to 'think out of the box', and be out of your comfort zone. You only see the government now and her interventions in the economy, but you can not think of what would happen if the government would not be there, and would not intervene. If you ask me, this is the main point of economics.

If you ask me, this is the main point of economics.

lol

I don't argue with stupidity or religion. Stopped that a long time ago. So in this case stupidity.