The Top 10 Fails of OWS

1 – OWS – Capitalism is to blame.

Crony capitalism is to blame. For example Bush had Halliburton, Obama had Solyndra. The truth is that minus governments, the bailouts (which a good many of the banks never asked for or wanted) would never have been given. Minus government, we would be able to save for our own retirement and make our own financial plans. Minus a central bank, trade and other currencies could be used to take away the power from the banks the government is in bed with.

2 – OWS – Socialism is the way to go.

Kind of hypocritical. North Korea, China, Russia, etc all have roots in socialist doctrine (though once something becomes a central policy, it true meaning is always lost), and they would never move there. No – they want to turn what little free market we have to a socialist system that always ends up busting.

3 – OWS – The government needs to take from the wealthy and give to us or our interest.

So it’s okay to steal as long as it benefits us. The only truth behind this is that it will pour money into the unproductive as it has in the US, and the only reason it is not seen as the failure it is? Because they simply print more money to make up the difference to continue the charade.

4 – OWS – We need more regulation.

More regulation will not help a thing. For one, the regulations already in place could have been used to prevent Enron etc . However Fannie and Freddie got a pretty good deal – not due to lack of regulations, but through the government bailing them out. Ultimately though, there are over 1,000,000,000 pages of law already in existence in the US that no one person could read in their entire lifetime much less understand. Why can’t people just admit that no amount of regulations can stop human behaviour?

5 – OWS – We need regulations to prevent the capitalist pig from taking advantage of the workers.

To start with, very few people are born into wealth – and those that are tend to either live wisely through good investment, or burn it fast and have nothing to show for it at the end of the day. This means that most people have to earn it. Now in a true capitalist system, the amount of wealth that can be accumulated would not be nearly as high as it is, and failure would be allowed. Because of the bailouts, the phrase ‘the bigger they are, the harder they fall’ has turned into ‘the bigger they are, the more cash they burn at everyone’s expense’.  In point of fact, it is either the manipulation of regulations, or bribery that has allowed the wealth distribution in society to become so skewed.

6 – Everyone has a right to a decent wage.

No they do not. Everyone has the right to work to earn a decent wage – major difference. The value of your work depends on the consumer demands for it. Say you grow a bunch of corn, but no one wants it. You put out a lot of effort to grow and harvest it, so you think it must be worth something. But farmer Joe already harvested his and this provided for the existing need for corn. You came too late. As such, farmer Joe enjoys the fruit of his labor.

You see another opportunity to sell your corn, but not at the price you were looking for. So you hold off. Before long, another person harvests his corn and sells it for that price. The price of corn continues to fall and you keep waiting. Soon your corn goes bad and is worthless and you are left with nothing. You see Joe enjoying the fruits of his labor, and the other farmer not as much, but still better off then you. If you petition the government to compensate you for this apparent loss at this point, it is no one’s fault but your own.

In your book, it would be okay to have the government take from Joe and the other farmer just to feed you and yours. Joe can afford it. He grumbles but can afford it. The other farmer however is forced to give up on getting anything other than necessities. All because you wouldn’t settle. Instead of looking at the situation and seeing if you could have sold your corn somewhere else or sold it earlier for less, you let your labor go to waste. Instead of learning from this, you blame society and free markets. In OWS terms – MORE REGULATION!  Come on – really???

7 – OWS – We are all owed fair treatment and necessities!

I have worked my butt off my entire life for these ‘greedy capitalist pig companies’. I started out with the clothes on my back. Through over 15 years of hard work I finally became moderately successful, and have a much more promising future. I also noticed that I could have been at the top by now, but I don’t want that. I am comfortable where I am relatively speaking and have no wish to have a massive mansion or yacht or what have you. I have seen rich people making over 200k a month (that’s right, a month – not a year, but a month) – living the high life as so many dream they could. I have seen those people hit 1 good string of bad luck and lose everything – and I mean house, cars, clothes, golf club memberships – everything. Point is – a smart guy knows the risk involved in being on top, and as such, very few of them actually want it.

However minus the guy up top, everyone else would be dependent on themselves for employment. We currently have 10+ million people out of work – most of which seem to want more regulations and taxes to help them through. This means that regulations and taxes in their head are not the reason they are out of work – so what is stopping them from working?

The point here is that you deserve what you get and few are born into success. You have to start out at the bottom and you don’t like it. Get over it, the world doesn’t OWE you anything. Minus the rich, only government could give you anything, and they can only give what they get in taxes and collect in debt. Rich people are not perfect and some are complete slime balls, but stop empowering them by granting government more power eh?

8 – OWS – Democracy is the answer!

Democracies only shot at working is with a highly educated people who have strong moral values and aren’t afraid to stand up for what they believe in and hard work. The smart kids at school are called nerds and geeks. In the real world the slackers grow up and blame their successful others for taking advantage of them. In school, anything goes as long as you don’t get caught. In the real world, you grow up and suddenly have to take responsibility for your own actions, but don’t want to because it’s unfair.

Everyone grows up in body. Unfortunately it seems that they leave their mental gearing in middle school stage and stop from there.

The final caveat on democracy is that it has to be voluntary. This means that the majority cannot come up with a poor policy of compromises, and cram it down the throats of others who see it for the foolishness it is. If it democracy worked so well, then it would not require others to continue to pay for it who do not agree with it.

9 – OWS – No one is better than everyone else

I see little point in discussing this in any depth. The fact that they have to sit down in protest, saying the same things over and over again that led to their situation to begin with kinda points toward the opposite.

10 – OWS – Ron Paul is a racist, homophobe asshole.

Truth – Ron is not racist and the only thing that caused this whole line was an old brochure written by someone who at one point worked for him. He has addressed this many times over the years, and so far, nothing has ever been produced to further such an accusation. He is not a homophobe, and even states that even though he does not believe in homosexual relations himself, that people should be free to make that choice for themselves, and that it is not up to government to tell them what to do. Hardly the makings of a homophobe. The last word was just childish and I am not even going to bother addressing it.

In this closing point, we see the final reason why movements like OWS always fail. They require group thought which in turn renders anything meaningful to become worthless. This is because you cannot enact a central policy that meets the needs of everyone. The more you try the more damage you do plain and simple. So far OWS has condemned hierarchies, but nevertheless, made one of their own. The list of such things goes on and on, which is why OWS is nothing more than living proof on why large democracies can never work.

 

, , , ,

10 Responses to The Top 10 Fails of OWS

  1. Brian Keavey December 13, 2011 at 10:59 pm #

    OWS has no monolithic agenda; these “fails” are of particular individuals(even if they are rather numerous). There are Ron Paul supporters and even market anarchists involved with OWS. And plenty on the Right want gov-goodies too; during the health-care town hall forums/protests a couple years ago, there were actually people offering up the surreal demand to “Keep Big Government out of Medicare!”

  2. David Shirk December 15, 2011 at 3:41 pm #

    @Brian – The point is that a protest that holds so many mixed messages never helps anything – even if those on high decided to the protestors – who would they listen to, why would they listen, and how do you favor one side over the other when you are a democratically elected official? I think so far that people like Valerie and Bill have the right of it – and that is to use it find others who want real change for the better but just lack the information needed to help them. To be honest both of them are far better then me, because I am not willing to take that time and effort to try to make a change in something I do not feel will hold any difference in the outcome of things.

  3. Jared February 17, 2012 at 6:02 pm #

    Allow me to play the Devil’s advocate.

    1. Why go back to the laissez-fairre exploitation of the industrial revolution?

    2. Likewise, if you want to live under anarchy, I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.

    Democratic socialism is not the same as dictator-led socialism.

    3. Other people are merely dealt poor hands in life, and you could have been one of them.

    4. Regulations could have stopped banks from making credit default swaps. Although there are many regulations, they usually only pertain to particular industries, which you must follow if you work in such an industry. Problems are created by people not following the rules, or a lack of rules.

    5. This is all just speculation. Anyway, if only a few people are born into wealth, then we only need to tax a few people.

    6. In your analogy, if I sell the corn first or second, one farmer will always end up going hungry. Musical chairs is not a fun game to play in real life. Sometimes it is necessary out of fairness and equality to redistribute the wealth in society.

    7. But there ARE rich people, and all we have to do is redistribute their wealth to provide everyone with the necessities they need.

    The rich are not empowered by the big governments in Sweden and France. 

    8. Democracy is not brilliant, but it is when compared to the alternatives: Somalia or China.

    9. I don’t remember us saying such things, except that great disparities in wealth should not be tolerated.

    10. Anyone who wants to legalize racial discrimination is racially discriminant.

    Well, I am being a DA.

    I think it is important to always point out the gun in the room at least initially, and then talk about things like the fairness of voluntary exchange later (otherwise it becomes a fairness contest between the systems). 

    It is also useful to point out the incentives, i.e. how do the incentives of redistributing the wealth in society differ from stealing the wealth in society? If mafia extortionists held elections, wouldn’t the incentives of shopkeepers be exactly the same as voters for a government?  

  4. David Shirk February 17, 2012 at 7:01 pm #

    @Jared:

    1. “Why go back to the laissez-fairre exploitation of the industrial revolution?”
    Where do you find this? Henry Ford paid his workers a great wage for the time to maintain skilled labor…I am wondering – what exploitation are you referring to?

    2. “Likewise, if you want to live under anarchy, I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.”
    Somalia is not an anarchy – it is a country that for the past 30+ years has been in tribal turmoil due to foreign intervening – typically foreign aid creates even more imbalancing thus ensuring Somalia can never regain stability. Sorry – you have to do better than that.

    “Democratic socialism is not the same as dictator-led socialism.”
    Where do you find a historical example of this? If the majority of voters can elect a leader to involuntarily rule over the majority of society as a whole without their consent – what else do you call it?

    3. “Other people are merely dealt poor hands in life, and you could have been one of them.”
    I was one of them. I have worked since i was 15 and left home when I was 18 with the clothes on my back. Never once did I ever ask the government for a handout or anything else. it took me 12 years of scratching and clawing, but I am finally stable and happy. The moral of the story is that by giving a person who gets dealt a bad hand a living means prevents them from learning how to do so on their own.

    4. “Regulations could have stopped banks from making credit default swaps.”
    yes and no. Some of the swaps were legal. Thing is, people are to trusting when investing their life savings and were all to willing to go along with it. As much as I hate to say it, it is their fault for investing their money into something that seemed to good to be true. Actually, I dont feel sorry for them one bit.

    “Although there are many regulations, they usually only pertain to particular industries, which you must follow if you work in such an industry.”
    True = and the more regulated the industry, the more expensive and dependent on government it becomes.

    “Problems are created by people not following the rules, or a lack of rules.”
    Problems are created by people allowing themselves to be taken advantage of out of fear. Also they cannot compete with their employers due to lack of funds, and lack of knowledge on the regulations – both of which would not be that big of a problem in a free market. All to often, people dont start a business to compete with their former employers because they know there is no way to with the current regulatory and monetary policies.

    5. “This is all just speculation. Anyway, if only a few people are born into wealth, then we only need to tax a few people.”
    The more you tax the wealthy, the less the spend. Also, people born into wealth typically lose it pretty quickly. The common exceptions to this are the uber rich power brokers who utilize tax shelters etc to avoid the costs here at home. Plus, you can tax the uber rich at a 50% rate and still not even come close to paying for the rest of society, so that argument fails there too – dont believe me, check out the IRS tables on what was collected from whom. Also, why should they be taxed? Why should they allow their ideas and work to be taken from them to pay for things they know don’t work? It is also important to note that most of the people claiming to want to pay more taxes (the really rich ones) do not actually do so. it is all a dog and pony show to look good to appeal to more people.

    6. In your analogy, “if I sell the corn first or second, one farmer will always end up going hungry.”
    When did I say that? Most people eat corn, and there is never a shortage of buyers for it – how on earth do you think one farmer will go hungry because another sold their corn first?

    “Musical chairs is not a fun game to play in real life.”
    Nonsense, I loved the game.

    “Sometimes it is necessary out of fairness and equality to redistribute the wealth in society.”
    Citation please. If person x does not appreciate or understand what they given, where it comes from, and what makes it tick, then they will inherently make poor use of it and squander it. Also, if what you say is true, then Russia, China, and a myriad of other countries would be booming right now…Funny how even Denmark is running into serious problems with this. In the end, you have people like me. We produce, and love to give to charities that really need it. I cannot however abide having money taken from me to give to causes and people I dont know, and when i come to know them, hate them.
    Seriously though – when in history as taking money from the produucers and giving it the ‘less fortunate’ ever worked?

    7. “But there ARE rich people, and all we have to do is redistribute their wealth to provide everyone with the necessities they need.”
    We do not have to do anything. If you believed in helping the poor so much, then you would either teach them your trade so that they to can produce, or you would give your own money to feed them. If you are willing to do neither in an amount that would work, then it wrong to ask someone else to do so. I dont know how man y rich people you know personally but I have met quite a few in my life, and they work their butts off from sunup to sundown to get it. Meanwhile I drive anywhere in an inner city or walk around, and see people just ‘hanging around’. I would stop by a local library and such areas and guess what – its empty! Point is, it is wrong to steal from the hard working to pay for those who continuously make poor descisions.

    “The rich are not empowered by the big governments in Sweden and France.”
    Really? I am not overly familiar with Sweden – nor France of Today. Historically speaking however France has a long history of heavy regulation and taxes, and the people have never shown a benefit from out. Go outside of the main cities and tell me again how well such things work.

    8. “Democracy is not brilliant, but it is when compared to the alternatives: Somalia or China.”
    Somalia as stated earlier is the result of foreign meddling in an already short fused situation. Tired of hearing it as an example of a ‘non-democratic failure’. We have a democracy here that has voted to interven in countries like Somalia for a very long time now, and wonder why it never works…blind leading the blind….
    As fo China, yes, its no real democracy. Yet look at any major nation on the planet who adopts democracy and you tell me how free and happy they end up. Democracy is not brilliant – it is a long term disaster in which people x can puch around people y with the backing of their government.

    9.”I don’t remember us saying such things, except that great disparities in wealth should not be tolerated.”
    In a free market, government regulations would not allow for only big companies to flourish as they would be the only ones who could afford armies of lawyers and compliance officers. Minus that, smaller companies would be able to compete on a much more level field. Also, large corperations have a much greater tax advantage than a small mom pop shops.

    10.”Anyone who wants to legalize racial discrimination is racially discriminant.”
    So let me get this straight. Anyone who wants to legalize free speech is a racist? I gotta tell man, the racism game is alive and well, and on ALL sides. One thing I have learned in life is that people who are racist will be that way no matter what the law says. Furthermore I have seen people lose their jobs simply by saying the wrong thing at the wrong time – their words were overheard by a third party, taken out of context, and viola. Also, lets talk about EO for a moment. Companies get massive tax breaks etc for going above the EO requirements – and as a result, you end up with hiring managers getting fat bonuses for hiring ethincity over productivity.
    You seem to follow this mantra that if the government makes something illegal, that it will stop. Let me ask you – when in hostory has that ever actually happened outside of the cataletic converter changes on cars in the 80’s? The truth is that despite drivers licences, cops still got shot on pull overs, people still get into accidents just as much as they did before hand, and criminals are not often dumb enough to drive theior own cars…who knew? Thighter gun and drug laws have only made things worse. Financial laws and regulations only serve the power brokers.

    What else have you got?

  5. David Shirk February 17, 2012 at 7:08 pm #

    I forgot to add this. If I work hard my entire life, and my son ends up as I did. If I save up a good amount with good land, a good home all paid for – they are mine to do with as I please. I can give them to my family, and it would be my right and honor to do.

    I feel sorry for the scumbag who says they have a right to such things because they were ‘dealt a bad hand’. Such people had better never try to take from my son or me while I am still drawing breath.

  6. Jared February 18, 2012 at 3:56 am #

    I recognize this article was not intended to be an exhaustive criticism of the likes of OWS, but if and when you offer it directly to them, it would be useful to illuminate where they are coming from. E.g. most people from OWS have the naive, emotionally-driven belief that government can provide anything as long as you give it enough power.

    1.
    So why risk uncrony capitalism when regulated capitalism can always provide more equal living standards? Unfortunately, theft is good for the thief in the short-term.

    “Where do you find this? Henry Ford paid his workers a great wage for the time to maintain skilled labor…I am wondering – what exploitation are you referring to?”

    Everyone has heard of the “dark, Satanic mills” or “sweating” that was common throughout the era, and is now manifested in third world sweatshops. Those of OWS believe this is what laissez-faire capitalism represents… are they correct?

    2.
    “Somalia is not an anarchy – it is a country that for the past 30+ years has been in tribal turmoil due to foreign intervening – typically foreign aid creates even more imbalancing thus ensuring Somalia can never regain stability.”

    Indeed, but my point here is that it is bad practice to use ‘like it or leave it’ arguments, like telling the socialists to go and live in China or Russia, because anarchists are always told this sort of thing.

    “Where do you find a historical example of this? If the majority of voters can elect a leader to involuntarily rule over the majority of society as a whole without their consent – what else do you call it?”

    There is a big difference between government by 51% and government by 0.1%. However, liberals are generally unable to see that a democracy is a ‘dictatorship’ of the majority. When they see it, they dismiss it as a necessary EVIL. Tackling this depends on the perspective they try to take.

    If it is argued that the poor quality of government programs provided by regimes results from “a lack of participation” by the citizens, this can be logically extended; Western government programs would still be of poor quality compared to their private sector alternatives, due to the lack of participation that voting provides relative to direct, individual payments.

    If it is argued that citizens have “no say” in government programs provided by regimes, this too can be logically extended; the democratic minority would be better off if everyone directed their own finances where their own say is a direct contractual agreement.

    3.
    “I was one of them. I have worked since i was 15 and left home when I was 18 with the clothes on my back. Never once did I ever ask the government for a handout or anything else. it took me 12 years of scratching and clawing, but I am finally stable and happy. The moral of the story is that by giving a person who gets dealt a bad hand a living means prevents them from learning how to do so on their own.”

    Perhaps I could have put this better. Do you have a pre-existing medical condition and no health insurance? Were you sexually abused as a child, and need expensive psychiatric sessions to cope in the world? How can the *really* needy be *guaranteed* to get the help they need?

    5.
    “yes and no. Some of the swaps were legal. Thing is, people are to trusting when investing their life savings and were all to willing to go along with it. As much as I hate to say it, it is their fault for investing their money into something that seemed to good to be true. Actually, I dont feel sorry for them one bit.”

    This is why libertarians don’t get very far. “Well, it’s probably your fault for being in your position, so deal with it.” Whenever people get themselves into sticky situations that government regulation could have prevented, libertarians resort more or less to the Darwinian argument: “those people would die off and be replaced by smarter people.”

    Its not that this argument isn’t logical, but if you’re not at the top of the gene pool, you view this as a threat, and government as a tool for your survival. It’s a good argument for arousing smugness amongst libertarians, but it hasn’t worked well at converting people to the cause of freedom.
    Pointing out the gun in the room is better for the latter.

    “True = and the more regulated the industry, the more expensive and dependent on government it becomes.”

    It can be hard for people to see past the storefront and connect the dots of government regulation behind the scenes. So perhaps it would be good to exemplify an entirely government-controlled industry, e.g. the law courts; the fees are ridiculously expensive, the rules are a nightmare to navigate, and those who can afford to go to court end up waiting years for justice. Then people just need to recognize that under a coercive monopoly, the courts are always the best they can be. I personally place a lot of importance on changing the argument to suit the opposing perception.

    7.
    “Really? I am not overly familiar with Sweden – nor France of Today. Historically speaking however France has a long history of heavy regulation and taxes, and the people have never shown a benefit from out. Go outside of the main cities and tell me again how well such things work.”

    France is frequently rated as one of the best places in the world to live. You can literally get the government to do your laundry there. The rich have been put in their place.

    8.
    “In a free market, government regulations would not allow for only big companies to flourish as they would be the only ones who could afford armies of lawyers and compliance officers. Minus that, smaller companies would be able to compete on a much more level field. Also, large corperations have a much greater tax advantage than a small mom pop shops.”

    Sure, but income inequality will always be an aspect of the free market (even the DA personally agrees). Some people just produce more than others, sometimes a lot more. If they are allowed to keep all they produce, CHILDREN born into poverty while other children are born into manors. The lottery of life is so disgustingly unfair that we HAVE to do something about it. If people are in a bad position, that is mostly because of their environment and upbringing.

    10.
    “You seem to follow this mantra that if the government makes something illegal, that it will stop. Let me ask you – when in hostory has that ever actually happened outside of the cataletic converter changes on cars in the 80′s?”

    Tax evasion is illegal, but the fact that government exists, demonstrates that it has a reasonable power to stop some things.

    Other than that, the DA would reluctantly agree with your arguments if they were explained in detail and presented well, of course – this is not necessary amongst libertarians.

  7. David Shirk February 22, 2012 at 7:18 pm #

    “I recognize this article was not intended to be an exhaustive criticism of the likes of OWS, but if and when you offer it directly to them, it would be useful to illuminate where they are coming from. E.g. most people from OWS have the naive, emotionally-driven belief that government can provide anything as long as you give it enough power.”

    I have little time to address your points as they deserve. For years I have been writing my say or two cents, and frankly i am tired of it – heck – people do not need my two cents anyway. It does not benefit me in the slightest to continue on writing about ‘what i know’ – such has never changed a thing. it does not benefit them either.

    People are going to do what they want to do to the best of their knowledge, as will I. Being that I receive no benefit from any entity other than my employer, I say let the best man win. For over 12 years now I have been contending with other ideals, and I am weary of it.

    Finally, the breakdown has started, and I have no more reason to write any more – I have spoken my peace. What happens now is actually of very little consequence to me personally and mine. My only goal now is to avoid painting a target on myself for the moment.

    May peace, freedom, and prosperity find you and yours.

  8. Jared March 7, 2012 at 8:45 pm #

    Sure thing.

    My previous messages might have had an annoying, paternalistic twang, but I don’t see how that can be avoided when giving constructive criticism. They weren’t intended solely for you, but also for anyone interested in having these kinds of debates. I assumed you were, given what you had posted.

    It’s interesting that you feel giving your two cents has not been very productive overall. I’ve seen and heard this kind of thing a lot before in other camps. It seems a more productive way forward might be to get into the business of exchanging goods/services with other libertarians. I might add a video to my YouTube profile (Voluntaryist72) later about this.

  9. David Shirk March 28, 2012 at 10:53 pm #

    It’s not that i don’t care anymore man. The simple fact is that I spent many years and all of time poured into this – and found that what will be will be.

    Also I would be a hypocrite to go around preaching ideals of freedom and not using the freedoms that i have toward bettering my life and that of those around me. Being that I truly believe what i have said, I can no longer take the time to preach or engage in once conversation that leads right back to square one. You squash one difference and another rears its ugly head. Unlike a short youtube video, it takes hours of meaningful discussion with someone who actually cares to make any headway. This is time i sorely lack.

    Finally, I don’t really belong here. I have always believed and still do that mass movements can only go so far before they lose their meaning. As such, I will belong to a movement only for so long though before i need to break away. Besides, this civil disobedience thing – works great for awhile, but engaging in it has become a war of attrition = one that i can no longer engage in given the curent situation.

    So it comes down to me doing what i do best – preparing for the real deal knowing full well what the result will most likely be when this game plays out. I am sorry that I can no longer waving a set of ideals, but the ideals have not entirely fit out in the real world either. So its time to do things my way that i know works for me and mine – which is probably different than what works for you and yours.

    Good luck and God’s speed.

  10. Jared April 2, 2012 at 5:27 am #

    [These posts have run away with themselves, and its not really the best place for them… but hey, they’ve been beneficial personally.]

    “Also I would be a hypocrite to go around preaching ideals of freedom and not using the freedoms that i have toward bettering my life and that of those around me.”

    This is one reason why I’ve recently thought that the ‘argument from effect’ is still very useful by itself. Going around telling people that “taxation is theft” and there are no “positive rights” can actually be hard to do, simply because we’re all so enmeshed in the state. No matter what I do, government subsidizes my life in certain ways, and this is ultimately reflected as “do as I say, not as I do”.

    On the other hand, I now think arguing on a utilitarian basis is reasonable, especially when you happen to live in a socialist jurisdiction. If others want to bring up morality, that would be the time to negate it with ironclad libertarian ethics. Your use of ethics would be more convincing, since you’ve done more ‘walking’ than ‘talking’.

    “Being that I truly believe what i have said, I can no longer take the time to preach or engage in once conversation that leads right back to square one. You squash one difference and another rears its ugly head. Unlike a short youtube video, it takes hours of meaningful discussion with someone who actually cares to make any headway.”

    The trouble is that people are so bitterly invested in their beliefs about politics, and given that it is the tool for intruding into other people’s lives, this should be expected. It is one thing to put down other people’s beliefs, but it is another thing entirely to convince people of anarchism. But I think libertarians can make a lot of impact simply by shaming other people’s arguments to the point where they stop using them. That doesn’t mean they join the opposition, but it does silence them to some extent. The more that statist arguments are silenced, the more that libertarianism will eventually get heard.

Leave a Reply

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.