Education Won't be Available for Many in Market Anarchy

[Francois Tremblay]

Actually tmaq, I did change my beliefs when I was proven wrong (by Kevin Carson's work, Proudhon's arguments, etc). That is why I am not a market anarchist any more. Why are you still stuck?

[Tmaq]

Actually tmaq, I did change my beliefs when I was proven wrong.

So you can learn? Do you think you can do it again?

(Tell us about realism and determinism, Franc.)

That is why I am not a market anarchist any more. Why are you still stuck?

'Stuck' ... where, exactly?

Franc, even those times you've read what I wrote, you didn't understand it half the time. You get your terminology all fucked up all the time, for example, and hardly ever bother to ask any questions, and those that you do are loaded or leading, so whatever it is you think you know about my position, you're almost certainly wrong. You might make a correct guess...

See that short quote in my sig?

Guess who said it.

(Nice way to contradict yourself, by the way. Do they, or don't they, change their beliefs?)

-Tom

[Francois Tremblay]

Wonderful display of non-confront, as usual, tmaq. Keep on the stupid and useless work.

[Tmaq]

Wonderful display of non-confront, as usual, tmaq. Keep on the stupid and useless work.

And that was a typical example of FT bullshit.

Did you know that 'informative' is approximately identical to 'surprising?'

Try to surprise me next time you talk to me, OK?

(Do you mean stupid work like coining phrases that you later repudiate and writing books that you no longer trust?)

-Tom

[JonScholar]

Cue typical Tmaq bullshit, vitriol, what have you. Tmaq, you seem pretty well rehearsed in this stuff, I'm guessing based on FT's reaction to you that I'm not the first one to take issue with the way you address people. You should know there's a saying: If one man calls you an ass, feel free to disregard him. If 3 men call you an ass, start looking for a saddle.

I'm guessing we're way past 3 at this point. Might be time to go shopping

[Tmaq]

Cue typical Tmaq bullshit, vitriol, what have you. Tmaq, you seem pretty well rehearsed in this stuff, I'm guessing based on FT's reaction to you that I'm not the first one to take issue with the way you address people.

But you haven't. You've mischaracterized me several times, as you've done again here, and you seem to expect me to take those seriously. Criticism is not vitriol, and my critiques of your failed bullshit are not, themselves, bullshit. Sorry!\

You've also played all sorts of morality-play games, psychoanalysis, etc., several times...and evidently expect me to take those seriously too.

You don't know the half of FT's story. Would you like to see some of the more relevant parts?

You should know there's a saying: If one man calls you an ass, feel free to disregard him. If 3 men call you an ass, start looking for a saddle.

Unless the asses in question are getting their smug attitude back in their faces.

Likewise, people who take EMPIRICAL attitudes get an EMPIRICAL attitude back in their faces, the way they deserve and obviously prefer. Ask around, if you don't believe me.

The question for you is; why do you and Franc love it so much that you keep coming back to try again, if its really just me?

Better yet, why don't you just SHOW me how morally superior you are; put yourself above all the personal vitriol, and crush my criticism of your idea!

Then you can mock me for bullshit, if I respond the way you did, when your idea got confronted with the facts.

-Tom

[JonScholar]

You don't know the half of FT's story. Would you like to see some of the more relevant parts?

Wow. what an offer! Yes, I would love to see a synopsis of FT's 'story'. Please proceed.

[Francois Tremblay]

Oh boy, cue the good ol' "Franc is a meanie" parade again. He's trying to distract you from the fact that he's got nothing to say, as usual.

[Tmaq]

Oh boy, cue the good ol' "Franc is a meanie" parade again.

More like "Franc stopped paying attention again, and sounds like a doofus because of it."

I admit; I've made that criticism many times.

Ever wonder why? Most don't.

:roll: He's trying to distract you from the fact that he's got nothing to say, as usual.

Where have I heard that before during our conversations?

Where haven't I heard it?

Did you have something to say?

My first conversation with Franc; http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum ... it=realism

Consider that he, not I, have a reputation on the board you invited me to.

-Tom

[Francois Tremblay]

Why is tmaq posting a conversation where he basically humiliated himself by stating that he doesn't know why people don't like to go to jail?

I don't know. I don't understand tmaq. I don't think anyone does.

[Tmaq]

Why is tmaq posting a conversation where he basically humiliated himself by stating that he doesn't know why people don't like to go to jail?

Still haven't paid attention to what happened, huh?

That specific question was a set up for the fatalists/determystics, Franc; they can't answer it without talking about free will.

Try it, you'll see.

I posted it because Jon said he wanted to see the other half of your story; the one where you make a fool of yourself, close your eyes, and declare yourself the winner.

(Your repeated and sad face-plants in that thread over the meaning of standard philosophical terms would have made me feel humiliated...if I was the one who did it instead of you.)

I don't know. I don't understand tmaq. I don't think anyone does.

Put me on ignore, again. I'm sure that will help you as much as it ever did.

Ignore these, too:

http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum ... 32#p124532

http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum ... 42#p155642

http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum ... 19#p167319

What was that rule of three, Jon?

-Tom

[Atheist Statist]

JonScholar - a couple of years ago you might have induced a more spirited defense of anarcho-capitalism on this board - but oddly enough it seems that all the real enthusiasts have either left or changed their minds. Nowdays it's mostly just Tmaq and his tantrums. A bit sad really.

My take on anarcho-capitalism is that it's essentially a religion - a blind faith in the "free market". Your observation of its failure wrt education is certainly valid, but there are more fundamental (and funnier) failures imho. My personal favorite is conflict resolution on the free market, a la Friedman.

[Bones]

I have a question about market anarchism that maybe Tmaq or old Franc, Fran28 or what-have-you, might be able to answer. I think that in order for a social system to be sustainable, it would have to either give the people within it the incentive and ability to maintain it or prohibit the people within it from changing it. What is to prevent people from within a market anarchy from hiring a police force or army and creating their own government to regulate and control the market, putting an end to the system of market anarchy?

[Tmaq]

JonScholar - a couple of years ago you might have induced a more spirited defense of anarcho-capitalism on this board - but oddly enough it seems that all the real enthusiasts have either left or changed their minds.

'Spirited' or not my criticism still stands; Jon has totally failed to address it.

If he wanted a debate, he certainly isn't acting like it.

Nowdays it's mostly just Tmaq and his tantrums.

Criticism is not a tantrum. Otherwise, you just 'pitched a fit,' didnt ya?

You might also consider that criticizing Jon's claims is not the same as supporting an entire 'world view,' a mistake I also criticized in him.

A bit sad really.

Not nearly so sad as you and Jon both projecting your failure to address the topic onto me.

If my criticisms are so mistaken, why have you found it so difficult to cope with them in a rational way, as opposed to focusing on me, calling me names, mischaracterizing events, and finally declaring yourself the winner after refusing to face honest disagreement based on the evidence? (Remember the global warming thread you ran away from?)

My take on anarcho-capitalism is that it's essentially a religion - a blind faith in the "free market". Your observation of its failure wrt education is certainly valid

...unless you compare it with the relevant facts, as we've seen, above.

And "based on the evidence from history and human nature" is not in most people's definition of "blind faith" - did you overlook the decidedly empirical nature of Austrian Economic theory?

, but there are more fundamental (and funnier) failures imho. My personal favorite is conflict resolution on the free market, a la Friedman.

Nice insinuation.

Any substance behind it or is vacuous sniping your whole story?

-Tom

[Tmaq]

I have a question about market anarchism that maybe Tmaq or old Franc, Fran28 or what-have-you, might be able to answer. I think that in order for a social system to be sustainable, it would have to either give the people within it the incentive and ability to maintain it or prohibit the people within it from changing it. What is to prevent people from within a market anarchy from hiring a police force or army and creating their own government to regulate and control the market, putting an end to the system of market anarchy?

That was always my objection, too; its more moral, but it falls apart at a touch.

-Tom