The problem is that the State exists to abuse the rights of the people
I don't understand how or why profits ending up on private hands is bad, you are a private hand and the State robs you all the time
I don't understand how or why profits ending up on private hands is bad, you are a private hand and the State robs you all the time
The state exists for a multiplicity of reasons - some of which are harmful and some of which are beneficial.
And if the state doesn't exist then other actors will step in to and will also do a mixture of harm and good.
Any attempt to handwave away the nuance just sounds silly.
Other actors would also be States, we the people should fight against all States, not just the current one
They just hope to be on top this time.
Which rights are these and by what authority are they bestowed? Let's assume I'm an athiest for the sake of argument.
You're positing the existence of natural rights without specifying how they came into being and how they are enforced.
Generally "rights" in the normal sense of the word are created by... well... states.
I'm not naive and I'm aware of the history of anarchist thought. But I'm not sure which flavour you're espousing.
The State takes away your right to live your life and use your property, and empowers Corporations to make them richer at your cost. In the meantime, the State murders a lot of people.
Your rights must be enforced by yourself until free-market alternatives to the State are created
That, sadly, is why any analysis of "rights" is vacuous unless it is accompanied by an analysis of "power".
I wonder if you might be confusing "ought" for "is"?
There is a lot of material to read on the denationalization of roads, it's not impossible by any means
At least the combination of ideology and internet connection is mainly psychologically destructive. It’s a step up from ideology and gunpowder’s uncanny ability to provide close-up views of friends bleeding to death.
Pragmatism might be defined as anti-ideological or it might be rooted in empiricism or actually it is quite the opposite of pragmatic to even wonder about such things.
We can talk, we can agree, we can use our physical and common senses, and we can do things together that are meaningful and make sense. We don’t really need the modernist requirement of axioms and their extrapolations.
Sure, rocketry benefits from models and empirical results and for a very simple reason: reproducing the results and proving to yourself that your ideas work through direct experience, the foundation of science itself.
The liberal arts are by necessity of a different epistemological foundation for a simple reason: we cannot currently model the entirety of our world in ways that are conducive to falsification. We get hints and generalizations. History is the foundation of these disciplines and trial-and-error across decades of lived experience the laboratory.
This necessarily adds a political dimension as everyone needs to be convinced to be willing participants in near planet-sized experiments.
For the most part people are satisfied with public roads and conservative with their approach to locomotion.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. There we go, a workable definition of pragmatism pops out at the end.
I actually have NEVER heard of someone being satisfied with the roads or strees in their city/county/
The problem is that the State doesn't work, it continually murders tons of people every year, it continually suppresses peoples rights every day, and it continually robs everyone of us of a better world.
The fact that you are currently privileged enough to not feel the oppression, or not understand as oppression and just accept it as a fact of life, is good for you, but it is incredibly abhorrent to just dismiss what I say by saying absolutely nothing
Before people reply to this comment arguing with me about roads, it's worth stating that I'm not an ancap myself and do not believe everything including roads are better privatized.
Can you suggest a better term? How would you feel about "Austrian Economics"? I once tried "Mises economics" but that caused a lot of confusion.
Given this reality of economics in Austria, the term "Austrian Economics" also seems like a misnomer.
Maybe something like "Austrian Marginalism" would be clearer?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austromarxism [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Kreisky
Which, sure, that's like your opinion man (or you are talking about some North Korea'esque regime). But what can even be argued here?
But in this case, this is more a problem of corruption and incompetence than the existence of a government...just saying that "build your own roads" is not the absolute rebuttal you think it is.
But I didn't think I'd need sources, it's almost a meme how everyone thinks school is where your curiosity dies.
Everyone says we need schools, just not the ones we have, or the ones we had, or the ones we will have.
The school system is the monopoly of the government to say what is important for children to learn, mostly to obey authority