Are there any links where there is a good list of some of the best books on Anarcho-Capitalism books?
Here you go, sir:
http://www.vforvoluntary.com/people-and-works
Any recent ground breaking ideas on how things would work in a stateless society?
Personally, I think ratings and reputation services would by far be the most important (wanted, needed, and effective). Second to that, business requires dispute resolution for interpreting contracts (becomes a standard industry for lawyers and field specialists; nothing special about this). Thirdly, there would be so much job and market opportunities and a strong rate of growth, and coupled with how cheap and simple security really is, the problem of crime becomes very uninteresting.
So I think that only leaves how land titles would be dealt with.
This.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Seriously, he's right.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
:Any recent ground breaking ideas on how things would work in a stateless society?
Anyone really trying to claim that they know how a stateless society would function either a priori or with the evidence at our disposal is a charlatan who does not understand the empirical nature of social institutions. Ergo, no.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
I think this is a bit strong. While I completely agree that nobody knows how a stateless society would function for sure, I don't know why somebody theorizing on how it would work is a charlatan. I think this is what the opening post was asking for: "Any recent ground breaking ideas on how things would work in a stateless society?"
: : Anyone really trying to claim that they know how a stateless society would function either a priori or with the evidence at our disposal is a charlatan who does not understand the empirical nature of social institutions. Ergo, no. I think this is a bit strong. While I completely agree that nobody knows how a stateless society would function for sure, I don't know why somebody theorizing on how it would work is a charlatan. I think this is what the opening post was asking for: "Any recent ground breaking ideas on how things would work in a stateless society?"
: Anyone really trying to claim that they know how a stateless society would function either a priori or with the evidence at our disposal is a charlatan who does not understand the empirical nature of social institutions. Ergo, no.
A "ground breaking idea" must stand on an epistemologically sound foundations, yet it is impossible that any fantasy (e.g. the one that assumes PDAs will emerge to follow the NAP) about how a certain society would function and how certain certain institutions would emerge. Any such knowledge is denied to man before empirical observation of that specific society. To deny that is simply lowering the bar of epistemological soundness.
So now, my original statement was not too strong, rather it was just as strong as it needed to defend the proper use of human reason and preventing charlatans from trying to apply it beyond its boundries resulting in not sound knowledge but only the pervesion of reason.
Laminustacitus:A "ground breaking idea" must stand on an epistemologically sound foundations, yet it is impossible that any fantasy (e.g. the one that assumes PDAs will emerge to follow the NAP) about how a certain society would function and how certain certain institutions would emerge. Any such knowledge is denied to man before empirical observation of that specific society. To deny that is simply lowering the bar of epistemological soundness.
Gee, I wonder how those entrepreneurs do it then, in areas where they do not have legal barriers blocking their paths ofc. I guess Steve jobs was a charlatan when he thought people would buy his ipad, silly conspiring fool.
The truth is the "Empirical nature of social institutions" is irrelevant in these situations. All thats happening is a healthy level of entrepreneurial brainstorming theorizing over an area that they are legally prevented from exploring. There is a reason why most empiricists do not understand in the least bit the phenomena that is, entrepreneurship.
: Laminustacitus:A "ground breaking idea" must stand on an epistemologically sound foundations, yet it is impossible that any fantasy (e.g. the one that assumes PDAs will emerge to follow the NAP) about how a certain society would function and how certain certain institutions would emerge. Any such knowledge is denied to man before empirical observation of that specific society. To deny that is simply lowering the bar of epistemological soundness. Gee, I wonder how those entrepreneurs do it then, in areas where they do not have legal barriers blocking their paths ofc. I guess Steve jobs was a charlatan when he thought people would buy his ipad, silly conspiring fool.
Furthermore, Steve Job's predicition, as does that of all entrepreneurs, does not involve the complete reworking of a civilization's social institutions.
:The truth is the "Empirical nature of social institutions" is irrelevant in these situations. All thats happening is a healthy level of entrepreneurial brainstorming theorizing over an area that they are legally prevented from exploring. There is a reason why most empiricists do not understand in the least bit the phenomena that is, entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship has absolutely nothing to do with the topic I am speaking about. What? Can I write a depicition of the world according my own metaphysical judgments of value, then defend its relevence by calling it "entrepreneurship"? Of course not! Such theories must rest upon epistemological sound foundations (yes, that is going to be my buzz word for this conversation because it is that important) thus the empirical nature of social institutions is of absolute importance, and must take the center of this entire conversation.
As Hayek has so wisely pointed out, the entire concept that man can design social institutions according to his metaphysical judgments of value (which is essentially what you are saying is possible) is impossible due to their empirical nature, they emerge from the real conditions of their environment, and due to the fact that the knowledge it would take to know what form an instution would take is simply too dispersed, in the extended order, to be accessed by the intellectual.
laminustacitus:Entrepreneurship has absolutely nothing to do with the topic I am speaking about.
I am not sure if you missed the point or not. The task of speculating how to best provide security on the market is an entrepreneurial one. The fact that you deny this can only be a healthy denial and disbelief that the worlds fruits are finite and must be rationed to a certain extent, and that you believe such rationing should not be done on the market. All speculations of market activities are as such, entrepreneurial activities and in the spirit of human creativity, this is what you take issue with. These topics are only subject to your scrutiny in so far as your willingness to employ them as a services, you playing the role of consumer. Any scrutiny beyond that is entirely superficial.
So I maintain. The task of how best to provide security on the market is a task up to entrepreneurs. Whether you like it or not, it’s reality. It is not the task of a social committee or any other superficial body of authority as you hold.
So this point has everything to do with entrepreneurship and your lack of understanding of that point, either that or your bias against markets, clouds your judgment on the matter.
: laminustacitus:Entrepreneurship has absolutely nothing to do with the topic I am speaking about. I am not sure if you missed the point or not. The task of speculating how to best provide security on the market is an entrepreneurial one. The fact that you deny this can only be a healthy denial and disbelief that the worlds fruits are finite and must be rationed to a certain extent, and that you believe such rationing should not be done on the market.
I am not sure if you missed the point or not. The task of speculating how to best provide security on the market is an entrepreneurial one. The fact that you deny this can only be a healthy denial and disbelief that the worlds fruits are finite and must be rationed to a certain extent, and that you believe such rationing should not be done on the market.
Take the quote in context of my statement in its entirety and it is obvious you are attacking a strawman here. Entreprenuership has nothing to do with the topic I am speaking about because I am not speaking about a hypothetical world in which entrepreneurs provide security on the market, but rather what intellectuals can know about that hypothetical world. My point is not about entrepreneurship, but rather the stark limits of human knowledge and reason.
So, if you want to continue this discussion, feel free to reply to my statement rather than a strawman.
In a hypothetical world in which entrepreneurs provide security on the market I already know the following things:
there are entrepreneurs , there are markets, security is provided on the market, and its provided by entrepeneurs.
how am i doing so far?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
: In a hypothetical world in which entrepreneurs provide security on the market I already know the following things: there are entrepreneurs , there are markets, security is provided on the market, and its provided by entrepeneurs. how am i doing so far?
The true question that you should be asking: What social institution would have to be in place so that security would be provided by entrepreneurs working on a market.
laminustacitus: There are currently entrepreneurs, there are currently markets, but look security is not provided by entrepreneurs! The true question that you should be asking: What social institution would have to be in place so that security would be provided by entrepreneurs working on a market.
How very disingenuous and circular of you. Again the answer will be provided by the most successful entrepreneurs. Sorry this is so difficult for you. It's akin to asking who will provide apples to us once the state lets go of their apple monopoly. It's a frivolous comment at best.
laminustacitus:You have no respect for reason and its limits.
Oh how ironic of a statement.
In response to your earlier comment at me, all I have to say is that your repeating yourself, and that you still have not provided an argument.
FYI appeals to authority will not grant your argument any more merit. We can spend all day naming names of historical figures who state opposite things. All you have at your disposal is reason and logic.
>>You have no respect for reason and its limits.
hyperbole.
>>There are currently entrepreneurs, there are currently markets, but look security is not provided by entrepreneurs!
bodyguards...the lock on my door...etc. etc. says different.
Anyhow, I thought you were pushing the humble angle? not so humble that you see fit to tell me what questions I should ask....
: >>You have no respect for reason and its limits. hyperbole.
: >>There are currently entrepreneurs, there are currently markets, but look security is not provided by entrepreneurs! bodyguards...the lock on my door...etc. etc. says different.
:Anyhow, I thought you were pushing the humble angle? not so humble that you see fit to tell me what questions I should ask....
You have no respect for reason and its limits. There are currently entrepreneurs, there are currently markets, but look security is not provided by entrepreneurs!
That's funny.
Hangmen's scaffolds, with politicians' names on it.
And yet the fact that the police and military are provided as public goods speak even louder.
Appeal to tradition.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Your thesis that I have no respect for reason and its limits is nothing to be proud of, and is not supported by evidence.
Your thesis that supposing a hypothetical world in which entrepreneurs provide security one might not know that it was entrepreneurs providing the security, is also not something you have provided evidence for that i can see.
: :The true question that you should be asking: What social institution would have to be in place so that security would be provided by entrepreneurs working on a market. Hangmen's scaffolds, with politicians' names on it.
:The true question that you should be asking: What social institution would have to be in place so that security would be provided by entrepreneurs working on a market.
: : And yet the fact that the police and military are provided as public goods speak even louder. Appeal to tradition.
: And yet the fact that the police and military are provided as public goods speak even louder.
lam:And yet the fact that the police apples and military oranges are provided as public goods speak even louder.
Round and round the merry-go-round we go. Circular!
Better add cars as a list of things the market is incapable of providing as well.
www.withurwe.com
You can download a free copy!
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
You mean an appeal to reality?
No, I mean an appeal to tradition, the logical fallacy you seem to be committing here. You're either saying that because things have and are generally a certain way that an alternative is impossible, or you are trying to pointlessly tell me the state of and history of the world.
: lam:And yet the fact that the police apples and military oranges are provided as public goods speak even louder. Round and round the merry-go-round we go. Circular! Better add cars as a list of things the market is incapable of providing as well.
Reading my posts carefully will result in greater comprehension. Notice I said: "served as public goods" and not "are public goods". So, I now must ask: where is the circularity in my statement?
money is provided as a public good.... so i can't know that in a hypothetical world where entrepreneurs provide the money supply it will be entrepreneurs that provide the money supply?
perhaps you should consider that we have not deigned to reflect upon what entrepreneurs do or do not do in all possible worlds, but we restrict our domain to those worlds wherein entrepeneurs will be doing certain sorts of things ...
Lam: There are currently entrepreneurs, there are currently markets, but look security is not provided by entrepreneurs! Nir:bodyguards...the lock on my door...etc. etc. says different. Lam:And yet the fact that the police and military are provided as public goods speak even louder. Filc:Circular Lam: Notice I said: "served as public goods" and not "are public goods". So, I now must ask: where is the circularity in my statement?
Nir:bodyguards...the lock on my door...etc. etc. says different.
Lam:And yet the fact that the police and military are provided as public goods speak even louder.
Filc:Circular
Lam: Notice I said: "served as public goods" and not "are public goods". So, I now must ask: where is the circularity in my statement?
Yea I went back and read it. Still seems like your making some assumptions to me considering the context. You have yet to prove logically that the market cannot provide the service called security, you have only proven that it currently does not. There is a reason for that however and it does not side with the assumption I think you are making(Though that may be presumptuous of me). Unless I have not read something I don’t feel that you have presented any sort of an argument, all you’ve provided are a plethoral of various logical fallacies, appealing to various things, no offense.
I’m assuming you think that society has voluntarily chosen security as a public good(which is logically incoherent). You would have an argument if it wasn’t forced upon them. An inconvenient fact you will never be able to get around. If I am wrong feel free to clarify yourself,(At which case I apologize).
At any rate this is a side rant, do you offer an argument of substance for us? Or is it more verbose rhetoric for us to chew on? As I said above, appeals to authority will get us nowhere, likewise appeals to traditionalism will also get us know where. You yourself said that logic and reason must be employed here. We await.
:money is provided as a public good.... so i can't know that in a hypothetical world where entrepreneurs provide the money supply it will be entrepreneurs that provide the money supply?
what knowledge are you going to gain constructing hypothetical worlds in which you assume: entrepreneurs do x and then just continue saying entrepreneurs do x. What sound knowledge is gained from this?
:Lam: There are currently entrepreneurs, there are currently markets, but look security is not provided by entrepreneurs! Nir:bodyguards...the lock on my door...etc. etc. says different. Lam:And yet the fact that the police and military are provided as public goods speak even louder. Filc:Circular Lam: Notice I said: "served as public goods" and not "are public goods". So, I now must ask: where is the circularity in my statement? Yea I went back and read it. Still seems like your making some assumptions to me considering the context. You have yet to prove logically that the market cannot provide the service called security, you have only proven that it currently does not.
Yea I went back and read it. Still seems like your making some assumptions to me considering the context. You have yet to prove logically that the market cannot provide the service called security, you have only proven that it currently does not.
:I’m assuming you think that society has voluntarily chosen security as a public good(which is logically incoherent). You would have an argument if it wasn’t forced upon them. An inconvenient fact you will never be able to get around. If I am wrong feel free to clarify yourself,(At which case I apologize).
:At any rate this is a side rant, do you offer an argument of substance for us? Or is it more verbose rhetoric for us to chew on? As I said above, appeals to authority will get us nowhere, likewise appeals to traditionalism will also get us know where. You yourself said that logic and reason must be employed here. We await.
By the way, tradition must have both the first and last words because tradition is what have emerged from the past through trial and error in the pursuit to find that which best serves human needs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an appeal to tradition.
Lam:What one cannot know is the institutions and organizations that would form when entrepreneurs provide money in this hypothetical world, or even whether those institutions would be successful .
They don't need to. You have a fixation on what is irrelevant. Steve Jobs didn't know how apple would operate years before he introduced the iphone, he didn't need to.
Lam:what knowledge are you going to gain constructing hypothetical worlds in which you assume: entrepreneurs do x and then just continue saying entrepreneurs do x. What sound knowledge is gained from this?
We are not constructing grandiose "hypothetical worlds". We are discussing scenarios in which there would be a change in the way services of security are provided to consumers. We do not live in a static world, things change and are dynamic. This knowledge gained by speculating could be the knowledge that allows someone to offer a valuable service to the community around them, then again it may not the consumers will decide.
You sound as if you are attacking all forms of forcasting, predicting, and speculating. That alone is sheer folly.
Lam:Am I trying to prove that the market cannot prove security, or is it just the fact that because I am not an anarcho-capitalist, every conversation I have about it must be me refuting it?
I am not quiet sure what your trying to prove TBH, like most of your posts your points are hidden behind a cloud of un-necessary verbosity. It seems to me your poking fun at people who enjoy speculating, an entirely harmless pass time. My point is this behavior, and the creative nature of man, is one of the most important tenants we have and we should not be in such haste to discredit it, as you do. Now if their speculation is wrong the market can answer for it.
You on the other hand believe in a type of whig-theory, where things must be better now than before as destined simply because it has arrived to be so. The same argument could have been said about other various forms of serfdom established throughout human history.
It is because of this I maintain that you have no real argument here. I have nothing really to argue against with you, as you have yet to present a logical case worth discussing.
Lam:Alas, you seemed to have been deaf to my entire point, which is primarily epistemological regarding the limits of human reason;s ability to comprehend the extended order that is society, and yet you have not addressed that once in this entire time.
I understand you quite simply. You have repeated yourself to me 3 times now. So I maintain again that it is you who has missed the point. Entrepreneurial speculation does not mandate that one have the omniscient ability of knowing how society will be organized in the future.
Steve Jobs did not need to know how his organization would be managed 10 years in advance, for him to know that an iphone, with an app store may be an attractive feature for end users. Society instead molded itself around an attractive model created by his, and others, business's creativity. They did not need see into the future and know the structure of society. The structure of society molds itself around past action which have been deemed desireable. It's a fundamental premise of human action, we make predictions and forcasts in everything we do.
It is true that those entrepreneurs who best forcast social trends of the future will reap rewards, however this is still a function of the market that is all. It simply makes future progression that much better off.
So in short, these people are not envisioning a society framework necessarily in all cases. They would be silly to claim to know how it would work. What most are saying is, here is a possible of providing XYZ service to people. Whether that system actually would work out would have to be tested on an un-coerced market, since thats the only way of detirmining whether a service is shown to be valuable or not. In that case economic calculation does it's job, again assuming no coercion.
lam:There is absolutely nothing wrong with an appeal to tradition.
If you don't mind your argument resting on a logical fallacy, I guess.
Traditionally, people believed that the sun revolved around the Earth. To suggest otherwise was then as scandalous as it is now to question the 21st century's god, Democracy.
filc:You sound as if you are attacking all forms of forcasting, predicting, and speculating. That alone is sheer folly.
He's done this before, and I agree totally.
Mises:Understanding does not deal with the praxeological side of human action. It refers to value judgments and the choice of ends and of means on the part of our fellow men. It refers not to the field of praxeology and economics, but to the field of history. It is a thymological category. The concept of a human character is a thymological concept. Its concrete content in each instance is derived from historical experience. No action can be planned and executed without understanding of the future. Even an action of an isolated individual is guided by definite assumptions about the actor's future value judgments and is so far determined by the actor's image of his own character. The term "speculate" was originally employed to signify any kind of meditation and forming of an opinion. Today it is employed with an opprobrious connotation to disparage those men who, in the capitalistic market economy, excel in better anticipating the future reactions of their fellow men than the average man does. The rationale of this semantic usage is to be seen in the inability of shortsighted people to notice the uncertainty of the future. These people fail to realize that all production activities aim at satisfying the most urgent future wants and that today no certainty about future conditions is available. They are not aware of the fact that there is a qualitative problem in providing for the future. In all the writings of the socialist authors there is not the slightest allusion to be found to the fact that one of the main problems of the conduct of production activities is to anticipate the future demands of the consumers.
No action can be planned and executed without understanding of the future. Even an action of an isolated individual is guided by definite assumptions about the actor's future value judgments and is so far determined by the actor's image of his own character.
The term "speculate" was originally employed to signify any kind of meditation and forming of an opinion. Today it is employed with an opprobrious connotation to disparage those men who, in the capitalistic market economy, excel in better anticipating the future reactions of their fellow men than the average man does. The rationale of this semantic usage is to be seen in the inability of shortsighted people to notice the uncertainty of the future. These people fail to realize that all production activities aim at satisfying the most urgent future wants and that today no certainty about future conditions is available. They are not aware of the fact that there is a qualitative problem in providing for the future. In all the writings of the socialist authors there is not the slightest allusion to be found to the fact that one of the main problems of the conduct of production activities is to anticipate the future demands of the consumers.
From here.
I guess Steve jobs was a charlatan when he thought people would buy his ipad, silly conspiring fool.
Thing is, your average entrepreneur isn't Steve Jobs, or even close. Your average entrepreneur is now working for somebody else after his business was forced to shut down, his idea just wasn't as desirable as he had thought it to be. And that's the point, we see plenty of extremely successful entrepreneurs out there, because the unsuccessful ones are being weeded out. But largely it's not due to any rationality of their own that entrepreneurs succeed, it's because the institutional context forces them to use resources rationally if they want to stay in business. In other institutional contexts their entrepreneurship would have had extremely different results, which is why, politics ends up often creating perverse results.
Which is exactly the problem with this sort of idle speculation, you guys have no idea about how things will turn out if you ever successful manage to "implement" anarchy, because in the chance that it turns out successful the results will be highly culturally dependant and will depend on all the different circumstances that are at play. See Leeson's work, he shows that pirates developed very intricate ways of doing things, but their institutions might not make any sense in the context of modern day America.
So if you guys want to stay relevant the utopian crap isn't going to help. Abolishing the state (once again, whatever that actually means) isn't an option, and doing so would lead to chaos. Currently millions of people coordinate around any given state, abolishing said states would disrupt countless plans and lead to significantly worse outcomes.
So if you guys want to stay relevant
..
Abolishing the state (once again, whatever that actually means) isn't an option, and doing so would lead to chaos.
Nice outdated conception of anarchy. Thanks so much for your opinion.
: "I guess Steve jobs was a charlatan when he thought people would buy his ipad, silly conspiring fool." Thing is, your average entrepreneur isn't Steve Jobs, or even close. Your average entrepreneur is now working for somebody else after his business was forced to shut down, his idea just wasn't as desirable as he had thought it to be. And that's the point, we see plenty of extremely successful entrepreneurs out there, because the unsuccessful ones are being weeded out. But largely it's not due to any rationality of their own that entrepreneurs succeed, it's because the institutional context forces them to use resources rationally if they want to stay in business. In other institutional contexts their entrepreneurship would have had extremely different results, which is why, politics ends up often creating perverse results. Which is exactly the problem with this sort of idle speculation, you guys have no idea about how things will turn out if you ever successful manage to "implement" anarchy, because in the chance that it turns out successful the results will be highly culturally dependant and will depend on all the different circumstances that are at play. See Leeson's work, he shows that pirates developed very intricate ways of doing things, but their institutions might not make any sense in the context of modern day America. So if you guys want to stay relevant the utopian crap isn't going to help. Abolishing the state (once again, whatever that actually means) isn't an option, and doing so would lead to chaos. Currently millions of people coordinate around any given state, abolishing said states would disrupt countless plans and lead to significantly worse outcomes.
: Abolishing the state (once again, whatever that actually means) isn't an option, and doing so would lead to chaos. Nice outdated conception of anarchy. Thanks so much for your opinion.
Anarchy = lack of rulers
Anarchy != lack of the rule of law
GGUL
: Anarchy = lack of rulers Anarchy != lack of the rule of law GGUL
You seem to be having some reading comprehension problems. It isn't my fault that your whole argument is based on the logical fallacy of an appeal to tradition.
Anarchy = lack of rulers Anarchy != lack of the rule of law GGUL
Non of this is relevant to the fact that the collapse of the state will lead to social breakdown never seen before in Amerika.
:It isn't my fault that your whole argument is based on the logical fallacy of an appeal to tradition.
hayekianxyz: And that's the point, we see plenty of extremely successful entrepreneurs out there, because the unsuccessful ones are being weeded out. But largely it's not due to any rationality of their own that entrepreneurs succeed, it's because the institutional context market forces them to use resources rationally if they want to stay in business. In other institutional contexts market environments(Where consumer desiribility and cultural values may change)their entrepreneurship would have had extremely different results, which is why, politics ends up often creating perverse results.
And that's the point, we see plenty of extremely successful entrepreneurs out there, because the unsuccessful ones are being weeded out. But largely it's not due to any rationality of their own that entrepreneurs succeed, it's because the institutional context market forces them to use resources rationally if they want to stay in business. In other institutional contexts market environments(Where consumer desiribility and cultural values may change)their entrepreneurship would have had extremely different results, which is why, politics ends up often creating perverse results.
Lam:Amen.
This is really too much, it sound like hayekianxyz just created a rhetorical parallel to my pro-market argument, replacing the word markets with "institutional context forces". Amazing. The "Institutional context" is nothing more then the current playing field of the market. It's just another way of looking at "Markets" as a whole.
I never dreamed that in such a short period of time you gents would take my side and defend me with such great rhetoric!! Thanks guys!
Jokes aside, ultimately you two are trying to describe the process of X(X being problems at the level of society) without first explaining the process of A to W. Your trying to come at things from the top down, making broad sweeping generalizations about everyone and everything when you do so. I come at it from the ground up(Praxeologicaly you see), looking at A through W before I consider X. Coming at it from a high cultural level is naive at best, society and cultures are nothing beyond the collective summation of individual subjective valuation. Long story short, AKA consumer sovereignty. It is true that the valuation of individuals can influence the products of society, however it is equally true that the products of society influence the subjective valuations of the individuals. 20 years ago many people did not think twice about saving their money to buy a Tablet PC, now they do. 20 years that demand or desire did not exist, now it does.
Markets are just as responsible for creating societal trends as anything else. I am sorry if you find that truth so inconvenient.
hayekianxyz:Which is exactly the problem with this sort of idle speculation, you guys have no idea about how things will turn out if you ever successful manage to "implement" anarchy, because in the chance that it turns out successful the results will be highly culturally dependant and will depend on all the different circumstances that are at play.
So your also arguing against speculating just as Lam is? I simply maintain that this argument alone need not be given attention, it stands alone as sheer folly. But let just kindly remind you....
Speaking for myself, I am not interested in attempting to "Plan Anarchy and or Society". What I do is simply speculating how best to provide a specific service, just as a shoe salesmen speculates how best to move his products, or what new line of shoes to carry. Nothing beyond that.
The fact that your argument rests on the premise that you think "Anarchists" are trying to plan the society of the future is quiet remarkable considering the context.
Hayekianxyz:So if you guys want to stay relevant the utopian crap isn't going to help. Abolishing the state (once again, whatever that actually means) isn't an option, and doing so would lead to chaos. Currently millions of people coordinate around any given state, abolishing said states would disrupt countless plans and lead to significantly worse outcomes.
You are ofcoarse entitled to your opinion and your concerns have been noted. . [:)]