bloomj31:But that's the left's argument. These people can't help themselves, someone needs to help them, bring in the government.
How about "these people can't help themselves, someone needs to help them - get the government the hell out of the way"?
JAlanKatz: How about "these people can't help themselves, someone needs to help them - get the government the hell out of the way"?
I buy that. Leftists don't. They don't understand implicit aid.
bloomj31: buy that. Leftists don't. They don't understand implicit aid.
I actually just wanted to make sure you were ok with it. However, I'd urge you to consider that there are many groups that are labelled "the left" and not everything you say applies to all of them. There are lots of libertarians out there in the media with whom I very much disagree, and I imagine there are leftists who are tired of the "official" leftist position, too. Many old-leftists, Chomsky, Zinn, Gravel, Nader, and so on, are much more interested in ending corporate welfare than in welfare. Indeed, you can find plenty of places where these folks will refer to welfare programs and similar policies as the attempt of those in power to buy off those disadvantaged by their systems, and to avoid radical change. Chomsky in particular is an eye-opener on labels; he has some very interesting writings where, for instance, he'll complain bitterly about Reagan, pointing out that he's offended by the Reagan platform not as a leftist, but as a free-market supporter - he's outraged that statist policies designed to transfer wealth between classes are called "free-market" or that you can train soldiers working for foreign powers to commit acts of terror abroad, or arm aggressive groups in other countries, and call it "defense."
In my opinion, leftists are much better than rightists at seeing legitimate issues. They see very clearly the imbalance of power, the inequities, the absurdity of an economy that produces goods too expensive for the consumers to buy (how anyone can believe this to be a market outcome is beyond me). What they do not see so clearly is the solution.
Imagine that the government, under party A, conducted a large transfer of wealth from one class to another. Party B opposed this action, but lost - party B being the voice of free markets at the time. Having lost, B did what they considered the best available thing - they maintained that the recipients of all this wealth should in some way compensate those from whom it was taken, so they extracted some money from them on a yearly basis, to reimburse those who lost. For its part, though, party A continues to insist that these correctives are wrong - calling itself the party of private property and free markets (disingenuously, of course - they're the party who favored theft initially) they maintain that it is wrong to extract wealth from the wealthy, and declare that B really just hates productivity, and the like. Now, over time, B loses track of its position, and somehow comes to believe that really, the ideal society is one with lots of wealth transfer - forgetting that the reason they favored these transfers initially was simply to reimburse the losers, and that originally, they believed that the ideal was laissez-faire - the means becomes its own end.
Which of these parties is better? Historically, B is. In terms of actual policies, neither is. The correct position is to favor neither. A has never been right, and B hasn't been right for decades.
Byzantine: Jackson LaRose:It's hard to say these people are just shiftless. They are just not very intelligent. The first thing I'd do is put the animals on feed lots so they're not shitting at everybody's front door which brings disease-spreading flies. Then I'd look at the human facilities, which I'm betting are similarly way too close to living quarters. Then I'd start thinking about things like crop rotation, potable water, trade between villages, etc. But people in that IQ range don't think much beyond the immediate day.
Jackson LaRose:It's hard to say these people are just shiftless.
They are just not very intelligent. The first thing I'd do is put the animals on feed lots so they're not shitting at everybody's front door which brings disease-spreading flies. Then I'd look at the human facilities, which I'm betting are similarly way too close to living quarters. Then I'd start thinking about things like crop rotation, potable water, trade between villages, etc. But people in that IQ range don't think much beyond the immediate day.
Which is why free markets/anarcho capitalism can only emerge in civilized societies. Other humans lived in similar conditions and were able to trade, realize the benefits of the division of labor, realize the benefit of capital accumulation, and pull themselves out off poverty. Of course, they didn't know those terms and the theory, but they could tell that having a shovel beats not having a shovel.
Byzantine:They are just not very intelligent. The first thing I'd do is put the animals on feed lots so they're not shitting at everybody's front door which brings disease-spreading flies. Then I'd look at the human facilities, which I'm betting are similarly way too close to living quarters. Then I'd start thinking about things like crop rotation, potable water, trade between villages, etc. But people in that IQ range don't think much beyond the immediate day.
LOL, pretty ambitious stuff. How do you build a feed lot with no money? What crops? Do you think these people are so stupid that they wouldn't try that stuff out if they could, they would rather just live in abject poverty until their premature death?
This guy was probably just a dumbass too, huh?
Giant_Joe:Which is why free markets/anarcho capitalism can only emerge in civilized societies.
Define "civilized".
bloomj31: Basically, I can't be taken seriously when I criticize leftist policy because I've never been poor,
So you cant debate suicide until youve commited suicide yourself?
So you can't be for or against killing cause you've never killed anyone?
And you can't be for or against abortion cause you were never pregnant?
And you cant be pro or anti immigration policies cause yiu are not an immigrant?
And they can't demand taxes on the rich cause they were never rich
Where will it end?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
you cant study geometry until you are a triangle
Byzantine: Jackson LaRose: Define "civilized". City-forming, which enables people to subdivide labor and accumulate capital. Civilization is a process of accretion, starting from mud huts and proceeding to cathedrals. It requires a critical mass of individuals with sufficient intelligence and low time-preference.
Jackson LaRose: Define "civilized".
City-forming, which enables people to subdivide labor and accumulate capital. Civilization is a process of accretion, starting from mud huts and proceeding to cathedrals. It requires a critical mass of individuals with sufficient intelligence and low time-preference.
And a state.
Byzantine:The ones that do figure out early on that they need to get the fuck out of the village.
Of course, you assume they have the means to leave, or the means to find somewhere better to go.
Byzantine:Civilization as I defined it does not require a State.
Could I have an example of a stateless civilized society?
Byzantine:In many ways, the State is a de-civilizing force, particularly with its egalitarian schemes frustrating the division of labor.
I think you are strictly defining the state as an institution interested in egalitarianism, which it doesn't have to be.
Byzantine:Renaissance Italy.
So Machiavelli wrote "The Prince" in a stateless society?
Byzantine:No, but the modern democratic State, which--let's be practical here--is what we all generally have in mind, is militantly egalitarian.
Hey man, don't put words in my mouth here. I was thinking about the types of states that existed at the dawn of civilization.
Byzantine:They bore little resemblance to the modern State.
I don't see how that makes them stateless.
Byzantine:Is your premise that civilization requires the State?
No, it's that without the state, civilization would not have gotten off the ground, and vice versa. I'm not saying that now that civilization has gotten started, we could shed the state, but in the beginning, you couldn't have one without the other.
Byzantine:Unlike the modern State, the nobility had an ownership interest in their domain, and found their actions constrained accordingly. The result was an unleashing of human creativity that we may never see again.
But each ruler still had a monopoly of rule within their relatively small principalities, bishoprics, kingdoms, and merchant republics.
Byzantine:The State, being wholly parasitic
I'd say more symbiotic in the beginning.
Byzantine:must rely on civilization as its sine qua non
And my contention is that initially, the same could be said about civilization.
Byzantine:The reverse is not true.
Not anymore, but I think it would've been initially. Otherwise, why would the state be an almost universal institution today?
Jackson LaRose:No, it's that without the state, civilization would not have gotten off the ground, and vice versa.
This simply can't be true as written. I would suggest that only half is true. You cannot have a state without civilization. Civilization without a state, well, to have either you have to start with civilization and develop the state later, if my first claim is true. In fact, I'd go further and say you cannot build a civilization with a state. You can build one once you have some civilization, but cannot build civilization in the presence of an entity which claims a right to take away what you produce when it chooses. If you have no capital structure, and such an organization, I don't see how the process of capital formation can occur.
Hoppe has a paper on this subject, actually.
JAlanKatz:You cannot have a state without civilization. Civilization without a state, well, to have either you have to start with civilization and develop the state later, if my first claim is true.
I think it's more of a case of co-evolution.
Nomadic tribe has chieftain to protect against lions, other tribes.
Sedentary tribe has king to watch over granary, and protect fields from barbarians.
And so on and so forth.
JAlanKatz:ou can build one once you have some civilization, but cannot build civilization in the presence of an entity which claims a right to take away what you produce when it chooses.
If they have the spears, and you don't they they call the shots. Since settlements were so small in the beginning, it would be easy for an ambitious hood to monopolize power, confiscate the grain, and redistribute it (especially when the parasitic priest class joins in to literally "put the fear of God" in the poor farmers). This is what the Mesopotamian Ziggurats were, large temples/grain collection/distribution centers.
Byzantine:The difference with the modern State, again, is that you had to outbid other principalities if you wanted to keep Da Vinci around.
That doesn't seem too different than the best and brightest being lured with a prestigious university post to one modern country, or another.
Jackson LaRose:If they have the spears, and you don't they they call the shots. Since settlements were so small in the beginning, it would be easy for an ambitious hood to monopolize power, confiscate the grain, and redistribute it (especially when the parasitic priest class joins in to literally "put the fear of God" in the poor farmers). This is what the Mesopotamian Ziggurats were, large temples/grain collection/distribution centers.
Fine, that works for grain. The question is, though, under such conditions, would you develop capital structure?
JAlanKatz:Fine, that works for grain. The question is, though, under such conditions, would you develop capital structure?
What do you mean?
Jackson LaRose:What do you mean?
Your position, if I am understanding you correctly, is that the rise of civilization cannot take place without a state. I ask you this - imagine a world before civilization. Most notably, there would be no time-structure of production, no capital structure, just immediate consumption of what is produced. To get civilization, that has to change. But what is the incentive to build capital structure, to invest in longer production projects, if there happens to be a band of thugs around who you know will take from you what you produce? In such conditions, you'd want to keep on doing what you're doing, and invest whatever energy and time you have left in protection, not production.You certainly don't want to go building irrigation systems, fencing off land, and so on.
JAlanKatz: In such conditions, you'd want to keep on doing what you're doing, and invest whatever energy and time you have left in protection, not production.You certainly don't want to go building irrigation systems, fencing off land, and so on.
Division of labor and mutual exchange are naturally beneficial and occur naturally, even with language barriers. Capital may start small and easily self-protected, but in its ability to produce a surplus given immediate consumption, it can develop a capital structure -> this is not mutually exclusive to protection. In fact it is self-reinforcing. Maybe my spear is useful for both defense and hunting.
The problem is really that the powerful are driven to become the state, not that anyone cannot use capital investment to become more powerful.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
You should just ask them:
"so when you are shopping in the store do you buy whatever gets you the most for your money or do you buy whatever you think is most fairly priced"
Then ask them why it's okay for a household to do this with groceries but not okay for an entrepreneur to do this with labor.
JAlanKatz:the rise of civilization cannot take place without a state.
And vice versa. They mutually developed.
JAlanKatz:I ask you this - imagine a world before civilization.
It was probably pretty sweet.
JAlanKatz:But what is the incentive to build capital structure, to invest in longer production projects, if there happens to be a band of thugs around who you know will take from you what you produce?
They command you to, under penalty of punishment, or they scare you with the threat of divine retribution (don't forget, this is way back we are talking here).
JAlanKatz:You certainly don't want to go building irrigation systems, fencing off land, and so on.
If you are commanded to, you will. Given you logic, why doesn't everyone quit making more money than it takes to be under the poverty line, since they wouldn't have to pay taxes anymore?
There are examples of this historically, like the Latifundia, or even serfdom. In exchange for security, peasants are willing to give most of their products of labor.
Jackson LaRose:And vice versa. They mutually developed.
I'm sorry, this just can't be true. Two non-identical conditions cannot be necessary conditions for each other, if either came to exist at any time.
Jackson LaRose:It was probably pretty sweet.
Why do you say that?
Jackson LaRose:They command you to, under penalty of punishment, or they scare you with the threat of divine retribution (don't forget, this is way back we are talking here).
If you intend to build capital structure through command, those commands will need to be specific. But this is exactly what Hayek says will not work - a central planner deciding the particulars of what type of capital structure to build, and having it actually do something productive in the end. On the other hand, if you just say "build capital structure or die" you'll get nothing worthwhile either. See Atlas Shrugged.
Jackson LaRose:If you are commanded to, you will. Given you logic, why doesn't everyone quit making more money than it takes to be under the poverty line, since they wouldn't have to pay taxes anymore?
As I acknowledged before, once a certain standard of civilization has been built, the state and civilization can coexist. Once we have some capital structure, and the investment is already there, the payoff margin for further improvements grows. In addition, civilization brings with it expectations of civilized behavior, which we frequently apply even to actors who turn out to be uncivilized. So, before civilization, there is no expectation of keeping things you build when the stronger folks are watching you, but after civilization, there is.
Jackson LaRose:There are examples of this historically, like the Latifundia, or even serfdom. In exchange for security, peasants are willing to give most of their products of labor.
Sure, and that's exactly the issue. Serfs give up their grain and their labor, and for that very reason, they spend their time producing grain (enough to pay off the master and live) and not building capital structure. That's why we had this industrial revolution after the fall of the ancien regime, as Murray Rothbard describes.
JAlanKatz:I'm sorry, this just can't be true. Two non-identical conditions cannot be necessary conditions for each other, if either came to exist at any time.
Well, fill me in; Chicken, or egg?
JAlanKatz:Why do you say that?
Tribal societies always seem to involve lots of sleeping.
JAlanKatz:If you intend to build capital structure through command, those commands will need to be specific.
Sow this field, give me the grain.
JAlanKatz:Sure, and that's exactly the issue. Serfs give up their grain and their labor, and for that very reason, they spend their time producing grain (enough to pay off the master and live) and not building capital structure. That's why we had this industrial revolution after the fall of the ancien regime, as Murray Rothbard describes.
This may just boil down to definitions of "civilization". I'm talking at the beginnings of division of labor, not only post-industrial revolution.
Jackson LaRose: Byzantine:They bore little resemblance to the modern State. I don't see how that makes them stateless. Byzantine:Is your premise that civilization requires the State? No, it's that without the state, civilization would not have gotten off the ground, and vice versa. I'm not saying that now that civilization has gotten started, we could shed the state, but in the beginning, you couldn't have one without the other.
Don't you get it? The conservatarians are only opposed to "the modern state" and statism-with-egalitarian-pretensions. On the flip side, they're explicitly pro-state if it's plutocratic, monarchic, or feudalistic in nature - they'll just semantically define it's statehood out of existence.
Brainpolice: Jackson LaRose: Byzantine:They bore little resemblance to the modern State. I don't see how that makes them stateless. Byzantine:Is your premise that civilization requires the State? No, it's that without the state, civilization would not have gotten off the ground, and vice versa. I'm not saying that now that civilization has gotten started, we could shed the state, but in the beginning, you couldn't have one without the other. The conservatarians...
The conservatarians...
Oh great, another made up word. Let's call everyone who supposes that maybe at a more primitive state, wherein coercion was never questioned amid mankind, that the state was seen as necessary by as many as it is today who see it as un-necessary. Seriously, I'd love to see what an alternative history would've looked like where the statists were the minority & the state as a concept didn't catch & was looked upon as absurd, but that didn't happen did it? I would love to see the cavemen operate under the principles of market anarchy & non-coercion amid butchering their neighbors for cheating on their mates. Why isn't this called being a realist, let alone rational? Such an analysis does not condone the state, it simply doesn't pretend that long ago in a far far away galaxy, there was a stateless utopia that was the natural law & was ruined by others who didn't believe in said stateless utopia, bringing about a paranoia towards anyone who disagrees with those who agree to that, as statists. I mean, if I'm completely wrong (I don't think I am), then what a mess.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Jackson LaRose:Well, fill me in; Chicken, or egg?
I have already given my opinion: that civilization predates the state as an organized form. Sure, before the rise of civilization there was violence, but as an organized, self-conscious state, I maintain that you cannot form such a thing without civilization, and that civilization cannot arise with such a thing present. However, such a thing can (and does) come into existence later without destroying civilization, although it does have a decivilizing influence. See Hoppe.
Jackson LaRose:Tribal societies always seem to involve lots of sleeping
And being killed in your sleep...
Jackson LaRose:Sow this field, give me the grain.
And this builds capital structure how?
Jackson LaRose:This may just boil down to definitions of "civilization". I'm talking at the beginnings of division of labor, not only post-industrial revolution.
Why would you want to call the beginnings of the division of labor (which I don't quite see either) civilization? I would say that civilization is a state of being in which people respect some basic rights of others and look down on aggression, to some extent. It's a continuum, of course.
JAlanKatz:that civilization predates the state as an organized form
I would argue that view is somewhat simplistic. It wasn't like one day, some Egyptian woke up and said "you know, I think I'm going to start agriculturing today". It was a gradual evolution into division of labor. I think the "which was there first" argument is fallacious, because they both "grew up" together, like the chicken and the egg.
JAlanKatz:See Hoppe.
JAlanKatz:And being killed in your sleep...
that's what a night watch is for.
JAlanKatz:And this builds capital structure how?
What do you mean by capital structure?
JAlanKatz:I would say that civilization is a state of being in which people respect some basic rights of others and look down on aggression, to some extent. It's a continuum, of course.
All people? The majority? If either of these is what you meant, then I would say we still haven't quite gotten civilized, using your definition.
Jackson LaRose:I would argue that view is somewhat simplistic. It wasn't like one day, some Egyptian woke up and said "you know, I think I'm going to start agriculturing today". It was a gradual evolution into division of labor. I think the "which was there first" argument is fallacious, because they both "grew up" together, like the chicken and the egg.
How could they grow up together? You're saying that simultaneously, people came to believe that they should treat others with respect and dignity and also, at the same time, built an organization which does the opposite?
Jackson LaRose:that's what a night watch is for.
Once again, that is the problem. You're investing all your resources in safety out of necessity.
Jackson LaRose:What do you mean by capital structure?
Round-about structure of production, time structure of production, whatever you want to call it.
Jackson LaRose:All people? The majority? If either of these is what you meant, then I would say we still haven't quite gotten civilized, using your definition.
As I said, it's a continuum, not a binary condition. Different societies are more or less civilized at a given time.
JAlanKatz:You're saying that simultaneously, people came to believe that they should treat others with respect and dignity and also, at the same time, built an organization which does the opposite?
No. What does civilization have to do with respect and dignity?
JAlanKatz:ou're investing all your resources in safety out of necessity.
Which is how a state gets born.
JAlanKatz:Round-about structure of production, time structure of production, whatever you want to call it.
Why would a state prevent this from happening?
JAlanKatz:Different societies are more or less civilized at a given time.
I think we are using two completely different concepts of civilization to qualify our positions.
Jackson LaRose:No. What does civilization have to do with respect and dignity?
I have no idea what to make of this. What do you mean when you say "treat people in a civilized manner"?
Jackson LaRose:Which is how a state gets born.
Well, no. A state is not a protective agency, a state is a self-enriching agency.
Jackson LaRose:Why would a state prevent this from happening?
As I've said, because there's no reason to invest in the capital necessary to have these round-about production methods if you expect that at any moment, your land and property can be seized by this group which expressly states that it may do so.