Daniel Muffinburg: So the economic depression we're heading into, because of the state, is not so bad?
So the economic depression we're heading into, because of the state, is not so bad?
I'm not entirely convinced we're headed into a depression and I'm also not convinced that depressions are always caused by state interference in markets. Markets can and have produced depressions on their own. Bankers can fall victim to the same euphoria that borrowers and speculators do. This isn't to say that central banks haven't been at the heart of booms and busts before, just that they haven't always been at the heart. Booms and busts can happen with a state or without a state. They can probably happen with multiple floating currencies too. This doesn't excuse market intervention, it just means that I don't accept the strong efficient market hypothesis.
bloomj31: Look, I know there's no way in hell you guys are ever going to have your minds changed by talking on a forum. Ultimately, your own lives will either confirm or deny your own philosophies. What I'm saying is that I understand people who can't accept an-cap. I knew I'd be attacked for saying that here. But I thought I'd throw in my two cents and I have.
Look, I know there's no way in hell you guys are ever going to have your minds changed by talking on a forum.
Ultimately, your own lives will either confirm or deny your own philosophies. What I'm saying is that I understand people who can't accept an-cap. I knew I'd be attacked for saying that here. But I thought I'd throw in my two cents and I have.
Who's attacking you? Names, please.
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Then why do we need the state? For what purpose? The amazing thing about humans is that they can be totally hypocritical without having everything unravel. So while the state has legitimized one form of theft, the state still protects people from other forms of it. It's an amazing thing.
Daniel Muffinburg: Then why do we need the state? For what purpose?
Then why do we need the state? For what purpose?
The amazing thing about humans is that they can be totally hypocritical without having everything unravel. So while the state has legitimized one form of theft, the state still protects people from other forms of it. It's an amazing thing.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
But Daniel, are humans rational, sensible and consistent?
ama gi:The reason I am growing weary of anarcho-capitalist theory is because it seems to involve reinventing the wheel. Anarcho-capitalist theory seems to involve tearing down government bureaucracies, and then replacing them with private-sector bureaucracies that are modeled after the State bureaucracies.
Thats partially true. What Ancap seeks to address is the economic calculation issue akin to state-run systems and coercive monopolies alike. Removing the coercive monopoly puts economic calculation back into the game. By Econ calc I mean, directly addressing the needs of the individual, the consumer.
Calling it re-inventing the wheel isn't entirely correct. We don't know what types of security services will be rendered on the free market. Those types of discussions are to be left to the speculative entrepreneur.
Without the ability of being a coercive based monopoly the state wouldn't be so bad. It wouldn't be a state, but a businesses seeking to address consumer demand. The rest of the PDA argument is entirely speculative and prudent at this point in time. If you don't like how security is delivered to you than change services, or make your own.
Attacking the aesthetics of how it sounds doesn't make it a bad idea or a good idea. Its mostly beside the fundamental point of ancap. It would be more productive if we stuck to the arguments of why Ancap may or may not fail rather then get caught up on it's naming convention. Unless that is what your post was to be about?
ama gi:Not only is the acronym ridiculous, but the concept itself is unsavory. I don't want armed, uniformed, trained cops patrolling the streets, tax-paid or otherwise.
This statement is awfully hypocritical? Your scared of a private security agency so you defer to public ones. Your scared because you believe private agencies will exploit you and take advantage of your property. But you defer to security system that does that by default. Public security agencies are a direct violation of your rights, unless they are volunteered into existence.
Your scared of a what-if, and you deter to an actuality of negative exploitation. If you are worried about abusive PDA's your first attack should be against the in-efficiencies of state police, not against hypothetical fear stories of PDA's. You cannot argue against PDA's and be pro state police without having an inconsistent case.
ama gi: As much as I dislike the State, I think "anarchocapitalism" could be worse! The uncertain environment of the marketplace would make everybody want to have to best-armed, most powerful private army. Each "PDA" would try to be better armed than the other guy, and eventually the subscribers would have to pay for the inevitable arms-races.
This is quiet a claim. PDA's have to work within market laws. That means being efficient and returning a profit. That doesn't mean using it's revenue to develop a space shuttle or missile defense grid program. Unless it was their desire to loose their customers and ultimately their funding.
ama gi:In anarcho-capitalist theory, private property reigns supreme
negative. It's the sovereignty of the consumer that reign's supreme in ancap.
ama gi:I was stupified! The author simply assumed that every single person would be willing and able to purchase "insurance". This "insurance" sounds almost like a tax. Anybody without this "insurance" would not be able to purchase anything or even walk down the street. He would be almost like an illegal alien, with no legal "citizenship".
I haven't read it but I assume you realize it's only hypothesizing about types of business models in an ancap society? Not necessarily what will happen. Your welcome to take issue with what he says but that doesn't mean Ancap is flawed per se, it may mean his argument is flawed I'm somewhat disappointed that you give it so much weight and don't realize that it's all speculative talk.
ama gi:Such a concept is ridiculous in my opinion. If somebody commits a crime, they should be arrested, tried, and punished regardless of what "PDA" they have or what contracts they have or have not signed. I think it is the responsibility of the community to determine the innocence or guilt or the suspect in a fair and just manner. And if that makes me a communist or statist, so be it.
For all the reasons you attack Anarcho Capitalism you defer to a state system which essentially the same thing though without economic calculation. First off defining criminality is difficult, especially over large geographical regions. Some things like murder are simple, but on occasion finding out if it's murder or defense can be confusing. You assume it should always be cut and dry but it is, you pretend like it already is cut and dry with the state. I have a friend whos father was killed over a year ago. She's been waiting for a year to get any news of the killer from the pol dept. Meanwhile a cop was killed a few weeks ago, the entire state was dispatched to find the cop killer.
Point is? State police have no incentive to meet consumer demand, only incentive they have to is to maintain themselves and grow.
You want everyone in a community to decide the fate of a man via trial. You want all members of society to sacrifice their time in making such heavy judgements, yet you explode the idea of insurance. You argue, "What if someone can't get insurance". I argue "What if someone cannot assertain if he's a criminal or not"?
The trick you need to be carful of is removing yourself from this 'collectivist' 'societal' fallacy. We live in a world of individuals, and thusly only individuals can act. That means that individualsw ho murder will be tried by individuals. Not by the community. That means individuals may need to pool their risks via insurance. That means some individuals may decide not to as some individuals may not want anything to do with the judicial systems.
Try your best to weed out fairy tale notions. I know it's hard as Anarcho-Capitalism can already be seen as un-realistic to many but surprisingly we seem to get more obsured arguments against it which are far more un-realistic in the first place.
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: So the economic depression we're heading into, because of the state, is not so bad? I'm not entirely convinced we're headed into a depression and I'm also not convinced that depressions are always caused by state interference in markets. Markets can and have produced depressions on their own. Bankers can fall victim to the same euphoria that borrowers and speculators do. This isn't to say that central banks haven't been at the heart of booms and busts before, just that they haven't always been at the heart. Booms and busts can happen with a state or without a state. They can probably happen with multiple floating currencies too. This doesn't excuse market intervention, it just means that I don't accept the strong efficient market hypothesis.
What does that have to do with the current situation? Anyway, 20% plus unemployment plus higher rates of taxation while real wages are dropping seems pretty good to you? Transferring trillions of dollars of purchasing power to Wall Street and away from everyone else seems pretty good to you?
bloomj31: But Daniel, are humans rational, sensible and consistent?
Economically speaking yes, they are. We have not the tools to judge them otherwise. Lest we consider ourselves omniscient.
Obviously not, since you may one that's not.
ama gi:PDA stands for "personal digital assistant"; it does not stand for "private defense agency". Whenever I see the letters PDA, I think, "Are they talking about a Palm Pilot? No, wait, they are talking about some hypothetical anarchy police force."
Why would you think the former if you see it so often on this site?
ama gi:Not only is the acronym ridiculous, but the concept itself is unsavory. I don't want armed, uniformed, trained cops patrolling the streets, tax-paid or otherwise. As much as I dislike the State, I think "anarchocapitalism" could be worse! The uncertain environment of the marketplace would make everybody want to have to best-armed, most powerful private army. Each "PDA" would try to be better armed than the other guy, and eventually the subscribers would have to pay for the inevitable arms-races.
Ridiculous why? Nothing about AC guarantees uniformed cops patrolling the streets, especially if the streets are private. The last last two sentences don't make any sense. Those poor subscribers "have" to pay for the best PDA, because... they want it? Poor, poor, consumers.
ama gi:In anarcho-capitalist theory, private property reigns supreme, with private mercenaries enforcing property. I think that is quite unethical; I think that property rights should be protected with the minimum amount of force possible. Don't chase away a thief or trespasser with a gun, if you could use a pepperspray or an angry rottweiller.
Why can't private mercenaries use pepper-spray?
ama gi: The second example of private bureaucracy is the idea of "private legislatures" and "insurance companies" and "private courts" and whatever else. People would have to choose which private law-giver suits them best. These private law-givers would have to compete for customers, and customers would try to influence each other to accept their private lawgivers. At least under the current regime, the leaders can hold power for several years at a time; whereas under this so-called "anarchy", it would always be an election year.
The second example of private bureaucracy is the idea of "private legislatures" and "insurance companies" and "private courts" and whatever else. People would have to choose which private law-giver suits them best. These private law-givers would have to compete for customers, and customers would try to influence each other to accept their private lawgivers.
At least under the current regime, the leaders can hold power for several years at a time; whereas under this so-called "anarchy", it would always be an election year.
Yeah. Too dynamic, too responsive. If only shoes, cars, computers, etc... could be elected every X number of years.
ama gi:"Private law-givers" are totally unnecessary. People do not need to be "given" law; they ought to use their own social tact, civility, and common sense, with the occasional dispute being resolved by a competent jury.
Thats AC all the way.
ama gi: These "insurance companies" would regulate laws and resolve disputes through arbitration. In the book "Chaos Theory", the author says, if I recall, "In our model society, everybody would buy civil insurance, which would be similar to automotive liability insurance...." I was stupified! The author simply assumed that every single person would be willing and able to purchase "insurance". This "insurance" sounds almost like a tax. Anybody without this "insurance" would not be able to purchase anything or even walk down the street. He would be almost like an illegal alien, with no legal "citizenship".
These "insurance companies" would regulate laws and resolve disputes through arbitration. In the book "Chaos Theory", the author says, if I recall,
"In our model society, everybody would buy civil insurance, which would be similar to automotive liability insurance...."
I was stupified! The author simply assumed that every single person would be willing and able to purchase "insurance". This "insurance" sounds almost like a tax. Anybody without this "insurance" would not be able to purchase anything or even walk down the street. He would be almost like an illegal alien, with no legal "citizenship".
That isn't in Chaos Theory. Could you point is out to me?
ama gi: Under anarcho-capitalism, such "citizenship" would be necessary because all law would be based on contract. Somebody who had not specifically agreed in a contract not to rape or kill anybody would a lawless person, to be avoided at all costs. Such a concept is ridiculous in my opinion. If somebody commits a crime, they should be arrested, tried, and punished regardless of what "PDA" they have or what contracts they have or have not signed. I think it is the responsibility of the community to determine the innocence or guilt or the suspect in a fair and just manner. And if that makes me a communist or statist, so be it.
Under anarcho-capitalism, such "citizenship" would be necessary because all law would be based on contract. Somebody who had not specifically agreed in a contract not to rape or kill anybody would a lawless person, to be avoided at all costs.
Such a concept is ridiculous in my opinion. If somebody commits a crime, they should be arrested, tried, and punished regardless of what "PDA" they have or what contracts they have or have not signed. I think it is the responsibility of the community to determine the innocence or guilt or the suspect in a fair and just manner. And if that makes me a communist or statist, so be it.
Yeah, try looking up Estoppel. Problem solved. (Not the ethical problem, but you don't have an ethical problem there)
Daniel Muffinburg: What does that have to do with the current situation? Anyway, 20% plus unemployment plus higher rates of taxation while real wages are dropping seems pretty good to you? Transferring trillions of dollars of purchasing power to Wall Street and away from everyone else seems pretty good to you?
No, none of those things are good. But the question I can't help but ask is "couldn't that same stuff happen without a government?"
Daniel Muffinburg: Obviously not, since you may one that's not.
Fair enough. But at least I'm aware of it. What about the people who aren't?
bloomj31:Look, I know there's no way in hell you guys are ever going to have your minds changed by talking on a forum.
filc: Economically speaking yes, they are. We have not the tools to judge them otherwise. Lest we consider ourselves omniscient.
So how do we explain manias and panics? Are people acting rationally even when they're buying assets at prices that can't possibly be sustainable with the hope that they'll find the next sucker? Is that really rational?
Tex2002ans: bloomj31:Look, I know there's no way in hell you guys are ever going to have your minds changed by talking on a forum. Most of the people here have had their views changed due to debate on the forum... I was one of them. By reading the debates and ideas spoken here, I reflected on my own ideas, and saw how inconsistent they were, which is why I am now an anarcho-capitalist.But, why would anarcho-capitalists change their internally consistent views to something that is completely inconsistent (minarchism).You are the one who believes most people are evil, therefore we need to give these evil people a monopoly over everyone else, and hope they are benevolent with their monopoly.At least under anarcho-capitalism, the PDAs won't be able to forcefully take money away from everyone and print money out of thin air, they would have to pay for their violence themselves. Violence is very expensive, and the premiums which would have to be paid to a violent PDA, would be much higher than those paid to a peaceful PDA, who would be paid to protect your property (and be "minarchist"). Thus the market would keep PDAs in check, and keep them minimal.Under minarchism, nothing keeps the government in check since it is a monopoly, and can take money from you whether you approve of them or not... as history has repeatedly shown.
Is it possible that in the quest to make politics, economics and philosophy entirely consistent that you've signed onto a system that will never be tried and if tried won't work?
bloomj31:Is it possible that in the quest to make politics, economics and philosophy entirely consistent that you've signed onto a system that will never be tried and if tried won't work?
You could have said the same exact thing about Democracy. (Ignoring all historical evidence) Its still a big So what?
bloomj31: filc: Economically speaking yes, they are. We have not the tools to judge them otherwise. Lest we consider ourselves omniscient. So how do we explain manias and panics? Are people acting rationally even when they're buying assets at prices that can't possibly be sustainable with the hope that they'll find the next sucker? Is that really rational?
Well there's two explanations for this. The first is the Keynesian, and the second is the Austrian.
The Keynesian explanation says that animal spirits arise in people all at the same time, causing a frenzy in the market. After people have found out that they have mis-calculated, the government must step in to fix the problem.
The Austrian explanation says that credit expansion causes increased consumption and purchasing on the part of the producer and the consumer. Since the consumer purchases more (houses in this case, and has little use for them as an end-product) they end up having more stuff than they can use themselves. This leads to an unbalanced economy where some asset classes have increased activity and increased prices. In this case, the asset class has been houses.
I suggest that you read the first couple of chapters of Human Action to understand praxeology and what it means for a person to be "rational". http://mises.org/resources/3250
Giant_Joe: Well there's two explanations for this. The first is the Keynesian, and the second is the Austrian. The Keynesian explanation says that animal spirits arise in people all at the same time, causing a frenzy in the market. After people have found out that they have mis-calculated, the government must step in to fix the problem. The Austrian explanation says that credit expansion causes increased consumption and purchasing on the part of the producer and the consumer. Since the consumer purchases more (houses in this case, and has little use for them as an end-product) they end up having more stuff than they can use themselves. This leads to an unbalanced economy where some asset classes have increased activity and increased prices. In this case, the asset class has been houses. I suggest that you read the first couple of chapters of Human Action to understand praxeology and what it means for a person to be "rational". http://mises.org/resources/3250
You know I have this book, it was written during the housing boom. I think it came out around 2005 and it's called something to the effect of "How to play the housing market" or something like that, I have it around here somewhere. Anyways, I got this book after the banks had been bailed out and whatnot so I got to read it with the advantage of hindsight. And what I found remarkable was the assumptions being made about the prices of houses and how credit was going to be available forever and how we were seeing a new norm in housing prices etc. And I think to myself now that people really were in a period of irrational exuberance, to borrow the phrase. What I'm saying is that the Keynesian explanation may hold some water.
Angurse: You could have said the same exact thing about Democracy. (Ignoring all historical evidence) Its still a big So what?
So are you still willing to give it a shot?
They Keynesian explanation doesn't mention the increase of credit by a central bank being the cause for a "rise in animal spirits". The Austrian explanation does mention that the central bank is involved in the increased consumption that causes an unsustainable boom.
Giant_Joe: They Keynesian explanation doesn't mention the increase of credit by a central bank being the cause for a "rise in animal spirits". The Austrian explanation does mention that the central bank is involved in the increased consumption that causes an unsustainable boom.
Ok, has an unsustainable boom ever occurred where there was no central bank?
Manias and Panics? Such as?
bloomj31:Are people acting rationally even when they're buying assets at prices that can't possibly be sustainable with the hope that they'll find the next sucker?
To them they are, otherwise they wouldn't have made the purchase now would they? Also remember that there is no such thing as price stability. Such a concept is a deep fallacy.
bloomj31:Is that really rational?
Well when you die you can ask god, until then no man has the omniscient ability to judge.
Is it rational to buy a lottery ticket? Just because it's not to you does not imply a universal no. It certainly was economically rational for various million dollar lottery winners around the country.
So as I said, there is no such thing economic irrationality. The only way you could argue that there is would be under a state of omniscience.
bloomj31:So are you still willing to give it a shot?
Absolutely.* Are you ready to give up that failed objection?
*To be fair I don't consider myself an anarchist
Filc, let me finish Manias, Panics and Crashes by Charles Kinderberger, the Crash of 1907: Lessons Learned from the Market's Perfect Storm and Mackay's Extraodinary Popular Delusions before I really try to answer those questions.
During the housing bubble people were acting entirely economically rational. The price of credit was distorted and it gave the appearance to many that they could afford that which they actually could not. The ABCT does not define people as being irrational or stupid. It defines them as being misled and it defines the system as a whole being superficial.
bloomj31: Giant_Joe: They Keynesian explanation doesn't mention the increase of credit by a central bank being the cause for a "rise in animal spirits". The Austrian explanation does mention that the central bank is involved in the increased consumption that causes an unsustainable boom. Ok, has an unsustainable boom ever occurred where there was no central bank?
To be more specific, it is an expansion of credit, which can be facilitated by a central bank. Credit expansion can happen as a result of a central bank's activities. If you can find an unsustainable boom that wasn't caused by a credit expansion, then I believe (take my word with a pinch of salt, other member have much more expertise) you will have a good case against the theory.
bloomj31: Filc, let me finish Manias, Panics and Crashes by Charles Kinderberger, the Crash of 1907: Lessons Learned from the Market's Perfect Storm and Mackay's Extraodinary Popular Delusions before I really try to answer those questions.
Great, let me know if that book can tell you when someone is acting irrational. You and I can get together and build a societal framework that matches our rational criteria. Thanks comrade.
Angurse: Absolutely. Are you ready to give up that failed argument? *To be fair I don't call myself an anarchist
Absolutely. Are you ready to give up that failed argument?
*To be fair I don't call myself an anarchist
I'll be more inclined to give up my argument when more people are anarcho-capitalists.
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: What does that have to do with the current situation? Anyway, 20% plus unemployment plus higher rates of taxation while real wages are dropping seems pretty good to you? Transferring trillions of dollars of purchasing power to Wall Street and away from everyone else seems pretty good to you? No, none of those things are good. But the question I can't help but ask is "couldn't that same stuff happen without a government?"
Yes. So, how does that justify the state?
Daniel Muffinburg: Yes. So, how does that justify the state?
Couldn't those things happen without a state? Is correlation, in this case, causation?
I suggest you read Rothbard's America's Great Depression.
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Yes. So, how does that justify the state? Couldn't those things happen without a state? Is correlation, in this case, causation?
Look, if you want to be enslaved to the state, go ahead, but why should I be forced to do so?
Daniel Muffinburg: I suggest you read Rothbard's America's Great Depression.
Alright, I'll read that after I've read all these other books. I want to hear both sides on this.
Daniel Muffinburg: Look, if you want to be enslaved to the state, go ahead, but why should I be forced to do so?
You shouldn't have to be. If I could, I'd let all the an-cap people start their own area.
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Look, if you want to be enslaved to the state, go ahead, but why should I be forced to do so? You shouldn't have to be. If I could, I'd let all the an-cap people start their own area.
Then how can you justify the state we have now, and how could it possibly be not that bad when it enslaves people who choose not to be enslaved?
laminustacitus: mouser98:the basic premise behind an-cap is not that humans are rational or good, its that the state provides the framework for psychopaths to murder people and claim legitimacy while they are doing it. And why won't PDAs give both the framework, and legitimacy for psychopaths to murder people? mouser98:What you fail to realize is that no one is protecting us from the bad men now, and we don't even have the right to defend ourselves against them. If a man breaks into my house, and I call the police, they will bring him to justice. Your statement has just been falsified.
mouser98:the basic premise behind an-cap is not that humans are rational or good, its that the state provides the framework for psychopaths to murder people and claim legitimacy while they are doing it.
And why won't PDAs give both the framework, and legitimacy for psychopaths to murder people?
mouser98:What you fail to realize is that no one is protecting us from the bad men now, and we don't even have the right to defend ourselves against them.
If a man breaks into my house, and I call the police, they will bring him to justice. Your statement has just been falsified.
you don't get it.
what if those men breaking into your house are the police themselves just doing their job arresting you because you are Jewish?
Daniel Muffinburg: Then how can you justify the state we have now, and how could it possibly be not that bad when it enslaves people who choose not to be enslaved?
To answer this question with another: How does it help me to fight for your freedom from the state? What do I stand to gain?
bloomj31: Daniel Muffinburg: Then how can you justify the state we have now, and how could it possibly be not that bad when it enslaves people who choose not to be enslaved? To answer this question with another: How does it help me to fight for your freedom from the state? What do I stand to gain?
Allow me to answer your question with another,
What do I stand to gain by not robbing your house at gunpoint? Those were some nice paintings you just hung on your wall and that sofa would look good in my spare bedroom.
I don't know. I don't know your thoughts on this. Anyway, could you at least my question? Btw, nice to see that you finally make a non-collectivist statement or question.
filc: Allow me to answer your question with another, What do I stand to gain by not robbing your house at gunpoint? Those were some nice paintings you just hung on your wall and that sofa would look good in my spare bedroom.
I suppose if you think you can get away with it, you're free to try.
bloomj31: filc: Allow me to answer your question with another, What do I stand to gain by not robbing your house at gunpoint? Those were some nice paintings you just hung on your wall and that sofa would look good in my spare bedroom. I suppose if you think you can get away with it, you're free to try.
I'm assuming your discounting the economic intensive society has at removing the state?
And in other words. Your ok with stealing, robbing, pillaging, and extorting from your neighbor so long as you don't have to bear the consequences of doing so. You seem like a real stand-up guy!
Daniel Muffinburg: Then how can you justify the state we have now, and how could it possibly be not that bad when it enslaves people who choose not to be enslaved? I don't know. I don't know your thoughts on this. Anyway, could you at least my question? Btw, nice to see that you finally make a non-collectivist statement or question.
The question is not if it's bad or not. It is. The question is "do people stand to gain more from enslaving a few people like yourself than they do by allowing you to be free?" As long as everyone decides it's in their interest to not give you your freedom, you won't have it. If you can sell anarcho-capitalism better, it will win and so will you.