A tricky spot liberatarians can land in is when the opponent uses the 'appeals to evidence technique' of justifying state action.
'Well look at x industry, it's all privately owned and services are shit so socializing everything or partially socializing is a better way to go', the statist says.
And then the burden is on the libertarian to make causal links on why costs and prices are going up while service quality is going down, capital is being destroyed rather than preserved, pull the correct threads to find the regulations and laws which are preventing competitive pressure from existing.
The statist who claims to look at things scientifically and objectively based on evidence is looking at things neither 'scientifically' nor 'objectively' but with a theoretical framework that is arbitrary and biased against entrepreneurs, when he says regulations or socialization can improve quality, bring down prices and costs.
Entrepreneurs, as in the Misesian sense, spot opportunities others have not yet spotted and capitalize on them. And regulations exist to handicap them. Competition exists or *can potentially emerge* to punish them for making the wrong choices and making inefficient decisions about the use of resources. He must always be alert to losing his market share should he keep prices too high and cut costs too much in a way to bring the quality of his offerings down.
The kind of person who sits in an ivory tower and writes regulations based 'on evidence', ie, the bureaucrat, will not want to recognise these opportunities or can't do it because it's not profitable from him. He can't or won't think of ways to solve problems because that's really not his job. His job is to increase the number of regulations and budgetary allocations to his department.
And the fiat component of incentivizing over-production and malinvestment cannot be dismissed.
Looking at evidence is well and good, but because statists have a theoretical framework that looks at and arranges the interpretation of evidence as justification of state action by default, it's difficult to tackle the things they say.
npub1xn…43qnl
2026-10-05 17:15:36 UTC
Author Public Key
npub1xnc64f432zx7pw4n7zrvf02mh4a4p7zej3gude52e92leqmw8ntqd43qnlSeen on
wss://nos.lolwss://relay.snort.socialwss://relay.primal.netwss://relay.damus.iowss://relay.ditto.pubwss://nostr-01.yakihonne.comPublished at
2026-10-05 17:15:36 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "744f81d66081f62f8d60c81d9c42fd29ddc63a936664a04713a1346d6870ceeb",
"pubkey": "34f1aaa6b1508de0bab3f086c4bd5bbd7b50f8599451c6e68ac955fc836e3cd6",
"created_at": 1791220536,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"client",
"Primal Android"
]
],
"content": "A tricky spot liberatarians can land in is when the opponent uses the 'appeals to evidence technique' of justifying state action. \n\n'Well look at x industry, it's all privately owned and services are shit so socializing everything or partially socializing is a better way to go', the statist says.\n\nAnd then the burden is on the libertarian to make causal links on why costs and prices are going up while service quality is going down, capital is being destroyed rather than preserved, pull the correct threads to find the regulations and laws which are preventing competitive pressure from existing.\n\nThe statist who claims to look at things scientifically and objectively based on evidence is looking at things neither 'scientifically' nor 'objectively' but with a theoretical framework that is arbitrary and biased against entrepreneurs, when he says regulations or socialization can improve quality, bring down prices and costs.\n\nEntrepreneurs, as in the Misesian sense, spot opportunities others have not yet spotted and capitalize on them. And regulations exist to handicap them. Competition exists or *can potentially emerge* to punish them for making the wrong choices and making inefficient decisions about the use of resources. He must always be alert to losing his market share should he keep prices too high and cut costs too much in a way to bring the quality of his offerings down.\n\nThe kind of person who sits in an ivory tower and writes regulations based 'on evidence', ie, the bureaucrat, will not want to recognise these opportunities or can't do it because it's not profitable from him. He can't or won't think of ways to solve problems because that's really not his job. His job is to increase the number of regulations and budgetary allocations to his department. \n\nAnd the fiat component of incentivizing over-production and malinvestment cannot be dismissed. \n\nLooking at evidence is well and good, but because statists have a theoretical framework that looks at and arranges the interpretation of evidence as justification of state action by default, it's difficult to tackle the things they say. \n\n",
"sig": "a485b1db87ba92db2730142a407537c405281eb6c2af9eb339dca5f19c7be0164cfcf63bdcc6e647f0a6d66f8b556062af5c6bbc924b930f3f21261dd28f9950"
}