Quote from: NewLiberty on November 16, 2013, 03:08:32 PM

Quote from: crumbs on November 16, 2013, 12:52:19 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on November 16, 2013, 11:35:18 AM

Quote from: crumbs on November 15, 2013, 01:06:52 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on November 14, 2013, 10:29:38 PM

Quote from: crumbs on November 14, 2013, 02:41:24 PM

All you have done thus far is critique. As they say, the most dispensable person in the theater is the critic

Ought I leave that role to you alone?

The notion that something is perfect, or even best, simply because it succeeded is the death of innovation.

The notion of success being an indicator of worth is the fundament of every attempt to validate the unregulated free market & similar socio-Darwinian baloney Undecided

Even if your goal were validate the unregulated free market & similar socio-Darwinianism with your fundament, the panglossian monadology of "it is, therefore it is good", is thin gruel.

Of course it is. What survives is what survives "What is best" is a predicate without a subject (Best for (what???)).
The free market is guaranteed to give us simply that which survives (succeeds), nothing more or less.

"Panglossian monadology"? Leibniz's "everything that is, exists according to reason, and thus this world is the best of all *possible* worlds"? The sage words of Killdozer further clarified that metaphysical stance for us, the modern scholars:

Let me tell you something my friend
In the best of all possible worlds
That is to say
In this world as well as all other worlds
Why i'm the best of all short-order fry cooks!

Is your premise that the free market produced all the governments, and because they are here is why they are good? Or is this a reductio ad absurdum of someone else's straw man?

Lol no. I simply pointed out that your claim of governments having "...monopoly on the right to kill, steal and imprison and impoverish" is absurd.

If you would like me to take a position on this, i'd point out that "the governments" may be good for some (things/people) and bad for others. The word "good" needs context, or at least a subject to be meaningful.
(Is killing "good"? A meaningless question. It's good for the killer, ideal when there's killing to be done. For the victim, not so much.)