There is much to challenge in it, and some has already been challenged by people like Ryan Carey.
I have called for anarcho-capitalism as an alternative to the welfare state and made that point clear throughout my arguments. I cannot provide a plan for an unplanned society, that society would be governed by the laws of human action.
I have not claimed my system is utopic, only that it is superior to the one in place. Would this be considered a good case against democracy in the days before it was implemented or would we take the superior theory of democracy over dictatorship as enough?
I am simply calling for the very same step. In any case, I was never explicitly required to argue for anything besides society sans the welfare state; that itself is an alternative. Throughout the debate, I will maintain that I can use economic laws as arguments without having to do a scientific test of anarchism in my back yard.
His approach makes heterodoxy impossible while he demands it of his opponent. Healthcare Still no arguments from Con. He implies but cannot show a causal relation between wealth or healthcare efficiency and socialization to explain the corollary relation shown by the data.
I provided an economic analysis of healthcare and suggested reasons for a private alternative , which he ignored. For the majority of this point he just continues his long ad populum as though it is an economic theory.
No matter how many people agree on something, logic is needed to demonstrate its validity. Economy Con continues the same unemployment line even though it was already dealt with. People who work in the NHS could just work in private health service, minimal unemployment would result.
Without subsidies to unemployment, unemployment would actually go down because, as noted previously, subsidies increase what is subsidized. He tells us someone disagrees with me, which is not an argument.
No reasons why the Austrian position is wrong were provided. I explained why the statistics are misleading and are subject to interpretation, but Con chose to ignore my explanation and flatly insists that the data paint a perfect picture of reality.
His statistics for this point come from there. I cannot interact with those statistics because I do not own the book. Con falsely interprets own statements as objective and mine as subjective when there is no difference between them from a neutral standpoint.
Unlike Con, however, I backed my observations with some analysis instead of blindly relying on statistics. Con gives us no reason why marketization actually causes not just correlates with social problems while I cited and explained policies of government intervention that directly contribute to social problems.
There is no reason to believe democracy is inherently more humanitarian than anarchy. His comparison of anarchy to dictatorship is much less credulous than my comparison of socialism to communism, for obvious reasons.
Democracy and dictatorship are most properly grouped together: I have cited on my CA3, C1, and C2 that the state directly harms people and that it hurts the economy on CA1 and CA2, so this arguments should favor the anti-state position.
Consent and Force Popular support does not match the definition of consent I used in Round One at all. Five of my neighbors consenting to something is not equivalent to me consenting to it; consent is an individual decision. Power and Violence Con offers no logical rebuttal to my argument that the state is unaccountable beyond, ironically, his opinion.
Nowhere is it legal to have a gay heroin orgy in your front yard despite the full permissibility of such behavior under the legal framework I outlined, which was not challenged by Con. Prevention of this activity must be carried out through violence against innocent people, which is immoral and reduces their quality of life.
This behavior is inherent of the state. I have little to say because he has made basically no arguments. He claims with no logical support that governments can be held accountable and controlled to prevent this, which leads me to my next point… C3: Rule, Control, and Economics Totally dropped by Con.
He has no response to my charges that the state has a demonstrably failed incentive structure which encourages exploitation and plunder rather than capital development.
As Hoppe explains in A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, caretakers rather than owners of goods will exploit them for personal gain rather than enhancing future value .
He has no response to the fact that the state creates a natural ruling class. While in democracy the people theoretically have power, control is still essentially oligarchic.In , Congress enacted the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in order to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and decrease the cost of health care.
At the same time, this arguer has failed to take into account that those listening to this argument live in the inner city, have brothers and sisters, perhaps older relatives who attended the very schools being disparaged or, in their eyes, "put down" yet one more time.
Secession summary: the secession of Southern States led to the establishment of the Confederacy and ultimately the Civil War. It was the most serious secession movement in the United States and was defeated when the Union armies defeated the Confederate armies in the Civil War, We may not always know it, but we think in metaphor.
A large proportion of our most commonplace thoughts make use of an extensive, but unconscious, system of metaphorical concepts, that is, concepts from a typically concrete realm of thought that are used to .
Two references worth reading in light of the last post. there is much clear evidence that Hayek himself had always intended his argument to apply with equal stringency against command planning and the welfare state alike (see, e.g., Hayek ,  , , and  ).
Indeed, as we. Of course Hillary isn't a name that's new or unfamiliar to anyone, since she has already served two terms as co-president. But now her goal is to the the President of the United States, officially and without taking a back seat to anyone.