Non of this is relevant to the fact that the collapse of the state will lead to social breakdown never seen before in Amerika.
Yes, bringing a thief to justice makes us all less safe. Stockholm syndrome FTW.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Lam: If you destroy tradition, you destroy society.
If you destroy tradition, you destroy society.
Wow, just wow. What a remarkable quote. I mean holy cow, I am really dumbfounded, stupefied even!
I don't even know if it's worth any more effort. If your entire premise for progression(Or in this case regression) is based on a logical fallacy. I mean does one even consider all the terrible things we've succesfully moved away from throughout history? Things that were once "tradition"?!
Scineram:Non of this is relevant to the fact that the collapse of the state will lead to social breakdown never seen before in Amerika.
Fact eh? How can you prove this? Can you somehow see into the future? Are your responses always found in such desperation? Best to leave these mistakes unposted. :)
"Non of this is relevant to the fact that the collapse of the state will lead to social breakdown never seen before in Amerika."
So let me get this straight. The State collapses due to its own makings, and the resulting impoverishment and disorder will be blamed on the anarchy that follows.
Are you also going to blame Capitalism for the poverty that it inherited?
Anyone know if this book is any good? I think Doug Casey recommended it.
The Market for Liberty by Morris and Linda Tannehill
: Lam: If you destroy tradition, you destroy society. Wow, just wow. What a remarkable quote. I mean holy cow, I am really dumbfounded, stupefied even!
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Lam:If you destroy tradition, you destroy society.
Filc:Wow, just wow. What a remarkable quote. I mean holy cow, I am really dumbfounded, stupefied even!
Lam:I dare you to disprove it.
lol lolol rofflecopter!
You have millions of years of human history showing progression culturally, not cultural stagnation or regression. Why embarass yourself by asking for such a trivial task.
Not too mention traditions were once new, and they replaced older traditions. All of which were fabricated by individual MEN based on their subjective inputs, it all comes from praxeology.Besides, there is a reason why your comment is a blatant logical fallacy. The statement itself is lunacy, it is a clear visual representation of a nonsensical statement.
Not everything traditional is good, and neither is everything modern, methinks.
"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
Anyone know if this book is any good? I think Doug Casey recommended it. The Market for Liberty by Morris and Linda Tannehill
Yes it is excellent, an absolute must read. The copyright owner made mises.org take the PDF down, but it is still around if you ask the right people.
: Lam:If you destroy tradition, you destroy society. Filc:Wow, just wow. What a remarkable quote. I mean holy cow, I am really dumbfounded, stupefied even! Lam:I dare you to disprove it. lol lolol rofflecopter!
:You have millions of years of human history showing progression culturally, not cultural stagnation or regression. Why embarass yourself by asking for such a trivial task.
: Not too mention traditions were once new, and they replaced older traditions. All of which were fabricated by individual MEN based on their subjective inputs, it all comes from praxeology.
Furthermore, as I have repeatedly emphasized, tradition is a process of trial and error, the knowledge that they contain have been the result of a process of falsification. The traditions that are present are the traditions that have emerged from the actions of individuals in the environment that has led up to the present conditions. The singular human mind simply does not have access to such knowledge, it cannot centralized all of the knowledge that has led up to the present. As a result, rationalist philosophers who think that they can just forget about the contemporary traditions, and replace them with their own moral designs are fooling themselves because they do not have the knowledge necessary to make such judgments at their disposal.
Anarchy = lack of rulers Anarchy != lack of the rule of law
Anarchy = lack of rulers
Anarchy != lack of the rule of law
As has been pointed out, none of this is relevant because anarchy simply wouldn't be sustainable. Like it or not, anarchy isn't a feasible option right now, if you want to make the case that we should make various choices at the margin to cut the state back, I'm with you there. But to simply "abolish" (whatever is meant by the that) state would cause chaos, people are simply too reliant on the state and there aren't the necessary social institutions. Look, Russia didn't become a free market paradise when the communism collapsed, their attempt to implement capitalism was an extraordinary failure. One anecdote that Russ Roberts is fond of is that an economist had been planning a conference in Russia shortly after the collapse of the communist regime, he booked a number of rooms in a hotel and all was going well. Shortly before the conference he got a call from the manager of the hotel informing him that the contract was being breached because he had got a better offer. Without the institutions of private property, rule or law and the like, capitalism doesn't work. But as Doug North has argued, we can't create those institutions over night.
See,this is a problem with all "plans" for anarchy that are bounced around here. They usually follow one of two forms.
Either they simply say, "push the button" to "abolish the state" and a priori everything will work out. Or they plan it down to the minute detail on the assumptions that their plan will meet no resistance and their actions will have no unintended consequences. Well, neither of these are possible. Unfortunately you need to make marginal changes to scale back government, looking for examples of such changes throughout history, consulting theory and if possible doing laboratory tests to determine the likely result.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
So thieves should keep on thieving until they find a 9-5 job?
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."
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.
First, where are the market forces here? When I say institutional structure I mean, prices and their informational property, profit and loss accounting, private property and the like. The whole point I was trying to make was that this situation isn't entrepreneurship, it's central planning. You're not responding to market signals and basing your choices on profit and loss, you're planning the social institutions you wish to impose on society. When I talked about actors with limited cognitive skills, what I was trying to get at was that these defects are mitigated by the institutional structure they're in. Well, you guys don't have that luxury, and whereas the market will weed out inefficient entrepreneurs and group selection will weed out inefficient norms, there is no analog here.
Second, if anarchy does come around and when entrepreneurs are competing against one another for customers and trying to cut costs in order to maximise profit , I can assure you of one thing. It won't play out in accordance with the whims of a dead philosopher,meaning, the private producers of defence won't adhere to proportionality, to the NAP (whatever that means) and they won't give a damn about your human flourishing or my performative contradictions. They'll care about lining their pockets, whether this be achieved by collusion, peaceful cooperation or open warfare.
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 tha
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 tha
Billions of people speculate everyday. But as I've already pointed out, the difference is that they speculate based on their particular knowledge of time and place, and where there is information missing they usually know where to look or don't need to know in the first place because they have access to market prices. You're in quite a different position, you're planning society to fit a preconceived ideal detached from any market prices.Like I said, rationality is context dependant, there's no way you could get this right, even if you might well be able to do a fantastic job of it anarchy really was here.
The fact of the matter is that the task you've set yourself is a fool's errand. Trying to figure out the production of a particular good without reference to technology, geography, culture or institutional settings (and this include a whole lot) is absolutely absurd.
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.
See, you're advocating what people have already called a naive, atomistic conception of individualism. There is constant interaction between formal and informal institutions and members of society. Institutional entrepreneurs seeks for rearrange and change the institutional structure, but they're constrained by their culture in ways they don't fully understand, as well as ways they're more than aware of. In time, through historical accident, the institutional structure and the actions of individuals, this culture will change. But our future is largely determined by our past, path dependency is an unfortunate fact, but it's one we must live with.
Apparently it's not only scineram making one line posts. He just happens to fall in the unfortunate intersect of the sets "does not ramble" and "disagrees with the orthodoxy".
Not too mention traditions were once new, and they replaced older traditions. All of which were fabricated by individual MEN based on their subjective inputs, it all comes from praxeology.Besides, there is a reason why your comment is a blatant logical fallacy. The statement itself is lunacy, it is a clear visual representation of a nonsensical statement
You guys are all relying on the same strawmen, nobody has argued that because something is tradition it is "right". Lam is arguing that traditions generally do a very good job of passing information from one generation to another and adapt through trial and error. This isn't to say that traditions will always be above criticism, just that there should be prima facie assumption that traditions are correct, even if upon further investigation they turn out to be inefficient.
As two good examples of traditions that, contrary to appearance, had a certain logic about them, see here and here
I read Leeson's book on Pirates. But these two articles, unlike that, are superficially thought out.
For instance, suppose in a trial by ordeal, the defendent and the prosecution were of different religions.
(I suspect the "heretic" relative the regional majority was the one "caught"! Historically, this worked against technological innovators and most of all merchants.)
Lam: Traditions are not set in stone, those that are found to be unadvantageous to human prosperity are eventually abandoned. However, proper evolutions happens through a process of trial and error rather than simply restructuring it through rationalistic pursuits.
This statement is the opposite of your previous, where your defending tradition and any alteration there-in.
laminustacitus:Furthermore, as I have repeatedly emphasized, tradition is a process of trial and error, the knowledge that they contain have been the result of a process of falsification.
Yes but they still had to forcast, guess, and speculate a method before it was falsified.
laminustacitus:The traditions that are present are the traditions that have emerged from the actions of individuals in the environment that has led up to the present conditions. The singular human mind simply does not have access to such knowledge, it cannot centralized all of the knowledge that has led up to the present. As a result, rationalist philosophers who think that they can just forget about the contemporary traditions, and replace them with their own moral designs are fooling themselves because they do not have the knowledge necessary to make such judgments at their disposal.
None of this, loosely speaking, is at all incompatible with markets. The exchange of traditions, their creations, maintenance, and death occur praxeologicaly speaking on the market. Traditions are just a form of consumer good, they are a human activity that people desire to do, nothing beyond that. Yes things come and go, and there is a trial and error process, this is called profit and loss. These are market activities you are describing to a tee.
The difference here is that it is my goal to foster an environment where traditions, and the people who adopt them, may do so freely at their desire. No tradition is forced against their will. I don't expect Christianity forced onto a Muslim, and vice versa for example. The difference between you and me is that you seek to maintain a coercive monopoly to uphold what your views of tradition ought to be, onto everyone else. You then trick yourself into thinking that this tradition must be the most enlightened one, since it has lasted the longest or is most prominent currently and you conveniently ignore the fact that it lasts specifically because of the violent monopoly which holds it in place.
The difference between you and me is, you want to force tradition onto others against their will, making them adopt what you personally think is correct, and have them forget their own sentiments and methods. I seek to foster an environment of collaboration, allowing people to adopt the traditions which best suits their needs as determined by the subjective ability to satisfy each individual.
As a result we have no idea of knowing whether your methods of tradition are most desired or least desired. This in effect is equivalent to the economic calculation problem. A police station for example does not know whether it is performing well, or poorly, in the eyes of the citizen's they aim to protect. They are, and their traditions, are entirely disconnected and immune to the subjective appraisal of the individual. A typical police station can only use basic metrics like, have there been more homicides or less. This tells us nothing of the citizen's(consumers) approval of that firm. So despite the fact you deeply desire to keep tradition, your systems are still broken at an economic level. They are entirely disconnected from the scrutiny of consumers, individuals, citizens or whatever. They have no methods by which to measure their performance in the eyes of consumers. They, by default, have a static number of subscribers, that being all citizen's in their geographical region where they hold a monopoly.
Incidentally it's worth noting that "Tradition" is nothing more than a consumer good, and what you are referring to is a form of consumer demand. If your traditional ways were so highly favored you wouldn't need that monopoly to maintain it, people would assume it's existence voluntarily. Furthermore your traditions are not exempt from the natural laws of reality and economics. DD5 brought up an amazing point that everyone seemed to skip over.
DD5:So let me get this straight. The State collapses due to its own makings, and the resulting impoverishment and disorder will be blamed on the anarchy that follows. Are you also going to blame Capitalism for the poverty that it inherited?
This is very important, especially relating to traditionalism, as you favor it. There may be a long widely held tradition that mandates all humans grow wings and fly, but such a tradition would be laughing in the face of reality. To illustrate in modern times, the traditional methods of the state are becoming defunct, they are at odds with reality and consistently teeter society on the edge of resource bankrupcy. Simply because we desire things to continue as they are does not mean they simply can. We may desire oil and steel to be infinite, but they are not. In reality, on earth, we live in a praxeological nature and forcing society to move against the grain of the wood will only last so long. Consistently forcing society to be structured as you see fit doesn't magically change the fact that man's genetic makeup makes him behave in these praxeological ways. And when I say Fact, I mean FACT, not the loosely used abused term that Scineram likes to toss around to keep his post count high.
laminustacitus: as I have repeatedly emphasized,
And again you are repeating yourself, I hear you loud and clear. So we maintain that man is not aware of the future (Correct) and that his process is one of trial and error (Correct). So the first point brings speculation, and the second brings profit and loss. This I agree with and always have. Those that speculate (Guess) correctly win and those that don't fail. This is the market. I think you’re making progress.
What your missing perhaps is we are advocating for a system of freely moving methods, where methods are freely preferred to others. The individuals who those methods serve are the immediate and perpetual arbiters . To argue that any system is superior or preferred simply because it is being forced onto them, meanwhile while complaining that outside idea's are crowding out your own coercively provided methods, is entirely hypocritical.
In short, your adherence to traditionalism would be best served on the market. Not forced onto people who disagree with you.
hayekianxyz:You guys are all relying on the same strawmen, nobody has argued that because something is tradition it is "right". Lam is arguing that traditions generally do a very good job of passing information from one generation to another and adapt through trial and error. This isn't to say that traditions will always be above criticism, just that there should be prima facie assumption that traditions are correct, even if upon further investigation they turn out to be inefficient.
Great! Why do feel that this in any way is incompatible with markets? Markets and tradition go hand and hand, as traditions are nothing more than goods. They are actions man seeks for certain satisfaction.
: hayekianxyz:You guys are all relying on the same strawmen, nobody has argued that because something is tradition it is "right". Lam is arguing that traditions generally do a very good job of passing information from one generation to another and adapt through trial and error. This isn't to say that traditions will always be above criticism, just that there should be prima facie assumption that traditions are correct, even if upon further investigation they turn out to be inefficient. Great! Why do feel that this in any way is incompatible with markets? Markets and tradition go hand and hand, as traditions are nothing more than goods. They are actions man seeks for certain satisfaction.
As hayekianxyz has pointed out, if anarcho-capitalism were to be enacted in a sudden period of time, all of the tacit knowledge regarding the rules of society and social relationships would have to once again emerge in a completely new society - it is impossible to know exactly what would happen, but I'd put my money on chaos. In fact, any ideology that advocates for sudden reform of critical social institutions is diametric to any that emphasizes the importance of tradition, which requires a gradual and piecemeal approach to reform.
Lam: "In fact, any ideology that advocates for sudden reform of critical social institutions is diametric to any that emphasizes the importance of tradition, which requires a gradual and piecemeal approach to reform."
How soon is sudden? Is it a week, 1 year, decades, or something else?
Laminustacitus:As hayekianxyz has pointed out, if anarcho-capitalism were to be enacted in a sudden period of time, all of the tacit knowledge regarding the rules of society and social relationships would have to once again emerge in a completely new society
Thats your assumption, people seem to have an awful habit of remembering things however. Which is awfully inconvenient for your argument. Other then that there is no structure to society. No great man got up and said "We need super markets to provide milk! And Discount tire stores to fix cars!" Oh wait they did..., and they were entrepreneurs on the market.
You act as if a great deal of society isn't already operating on the market. Perhaps you forgot. What I mean is, you act as if there is some formal social structure and that it would radically change over night in the absence of the state. You act as if people would stop going to the tire store to buy tires, and stop going to the supermarket to buy milk. Need I remind you that the only successful, resource friendly, wealth generating, poverty reducing, quality of living raising section of our society is the market itself. In the absence of the state the non-bankrupt part would have to pickup the pieces and go from there yes(your saying this not me), but the only reason why there would be pieces to pickup is specifically because there was a big part that went bankrupt in the first place, the state.
Other then that your fear that things would radically change might be a little shortsided. If you took a look at our GDP, and look at Government spending in GDP, you will see somewhere around %30-40. So when it all collapses all you ahve to worry about repairing is that 30-40% that cannot sustain itself. The market isn't going anywhere. People won't magically stop needing their hair cut, or shoes puchased.
The only other downside to this would be the dismantling of the monetary unit, that again sadly is the fault of your way of doing things, not the markets.
laminustacitus: It is impossible to know exactly what would happen
Ofcoarse it's impossible. You keep acting like we're predicting the future. We are not, there is a reason why it's called "Speculation, forcasting, and guessing.
laminustacitus: but I'd put my money on chaos. In fact, any ideology that advocates for sudden reform of critical social institutions is diametric to any that emphasizes the importance of tradition, which requires a gradual and piecemeal approach to reform.
You forget two things. It will be the state that dismantles itself, not angry mobs of ancaps. You need to go back and re-read my previous post, especially the part about DD5's quote.
Secondly, you act as if when the state crashes people will suddenly forget how to go to the store to buy milk. As if they will some how click and become enraged with confusion and walk down their street killing all their neighbors, instead of simply going to the store and buying milk. It's akin to Zombie's coming out of the ground because government doesn't exist. It really is a boogy man tall tale.
What happens will be unknown and what level of unrest is also unknown, but assuming money can rebound in some other form the market won't go anywhere.
Now, once the state crashes will there be termoil? Ofcoarse, for the reasons DD5 stated above. Please go back and re-read my previous post as it addresses all of this.
Daniel Muffinburg:Lam: "In fact, any ideology that advocates for sudden reform of critical social institutions is diametric to any that emphasizes the importance of tradition, which requires a gradual and piecemeal approach to reform." How soon is sudden? Is it a week, 1 year, decades, or something else?
I still want to know why he thinks his way is the correct way, and why his way should be forced on to those who disagree. First his argument was an appeal to tradition, now he's defending tradition saying it's trial & error(Market like). Why won't he let it trial & error on the market? What fear does he have if it's so elite?
You just assume the only measure of the worthiness of a custom is the market test. We don't.
Any of those, depending on the nature and scope of the change you advocate.
What other type of test are you suggesting? Statism is a huge market success. People never conceived of any alternative to government and now that democracy is failing, they are investigating alternatives. It's kind of like how people just used to read paper books because the iPad, Kindle, etc. wasn't out yet.
Anyhow, this topic is an-cap books and I was asked in private to suggest some more. I think that reading Mises' Human Action is most important, even though he wasn't an anarchist and reading Rothbard is not all that important. It really depends on what your aims are though and a lot of important works are shorter. One specifically related to what the statists are moaning about in this thread would be Hasnas' The Obviousness of Anarchy.
I would ask how well it serves in the long run the interests of the people of the society or community in question.
Scineram:You just assume the only measure of the worthiness of a custom is the market test.
Not an assumption but rather is shown to be apodictically true. I can show on paper, via praxeology for these reasons. You cannot and instead your only defense of democracy is a tiresome appeal to tradition. You and others like you advocate a test where systems and methods, whether good or bad, become extremely difficult if not impossible to remove, both in the short and in the long run. In short there is no test process in democracy. States carry on perpetuated errors for generations and make little attempt of even fixing the existing problems they have. They have no economic reason to improve. If anyone is in a position to defend themselves it's the advocates of democracy, not the other way around.
But in short, your right, I believe the market is the most responsive and attentive method at delivering satisfaction to consumers, both in the short and in the long run. You believe in a system where methods come into existence but are not subject to the scrutiny of the ones they serve.
Scineram:We don't.
Thanks captain obvious.
Scineram:I would ask how well it serves in the long run the interests of the people of the society or community in question.
You pretend as if someone out there has such amazing forsight to be able to answer this. If the democracy was capable of accomplishing this than the last 100 years of repeated errors would likely have not occured. Amazing that one of your reasons for supporting democracy is that you believe it will better support the interests of society in the future. But who is the judge of what the interests of society are? You? And why has the state perpetually screwed things up since it's existence if it's goal is allegedly to keep the interest of society in mind. How does it know what the interests of society are? How does it know when it's not serving the interest of society?
How is this any different than the "market test"? Oh right, you are incapable of having an honest discussion or admitting that you are wrong.
filc makes a great point:
States carry on perpetuated errors for generations and make little attempt of even fixing the existing problems they have. They have no economic reason to improve.
I know that you guys like to lie about Hoppe's comparison of monarchy and democracy, saying that we advocate feudalism and ignoring the actual argument for an anarchic natural order, but his analysis is spot on.
From here:
One of the deductions that Hans-Herman Hoppe is known for is his conclusion that democracy differs from monarchy in the area of responsibility-continuity. As he elaborates in Democracy: The God That Failed, democracies are run by temporary custodians, who must maximize their advantage in a short-term manner because their position is only temporary. There is no incentive, beyond an "idealism" that is much easier to bully-pulpit than to seriously implement, to make permanent improvements to the nation’s economy. Such incentives that are subject to the influence of promoting a legacy (favorable mention in the history books) do not dovetail with economic improvements. They do dovetail with winning the respect, or awe, of the writers of the history books, which itself is subject to the credibilities of the general public. Thus, there is no logical connection between democracy and economic growth, even if there seems to be in the short term. Such short-term incentives, though, are confined to gaining credit for any growth trend, or assigning blame for any contraction trend, in whatever way is most expedient for gaining, or keeping, elected office. Interestingly enough, democracy can coexist with a somewhat free and growing market, although not to the extent that the old democrats assumed. The trusteeship nature of democracy does apply to war, as Joseph Schumpeter discussed in the chapter "Imperialism As a Catch Phrase" in Imperialism and Social Classes. Just as the democratic politician has no incentive to add permanent improvements to a nation’s economy, so it is that a democratic politician has no incentive to launch, intentionally, a long-term war, one where the victory will not come until he or she is either retired or dead. This is the root of the notion that democracy and war are mutually exclusive. Note, though, that it says nothing about short-term wars, ones that can be declared, prosecuted, and "won" within the timeframe of a single career as political head honcho. The typical war fought by the United States – and there have been many of them – is prosecuted according to this plan. In terms of time, the longest "hot" war ever fought by the U.S. military has been the Vietnam War, which lasted approximately ten years. Both Presidents that were Commanders-in-Chief during its full prosecution left office in disgrace, essentially for hypocrisy. This provides, for the United States specifically, a lesson for any future President: long, drawn-out wars, ones that get stuck in the "Big Muddy," entail political suicide. The incentive for, and consequent expectation of, quick victory is evidently self-reinforcing. So, a bias towards high time preference in politics does have its advantages, as the obvious tendency of national "statesmen" to treat the nation’s goods and people as a War Treasury is limited by the short-term orientation of democratic politics. Given the obvious disadvantages of a high-time-preference State, though, there does emerge a kind of tension, or clash, between economic maximization and maximization of political advantage. Economic growth under capitalism does rest upon capital accumulation, which requires general habituation to low time preferences. This habituation, though, is foreign to democracy. Thus, capitalists and democrats have a tendency to look askance upon each other. The grand compromise "democratic capitalism" tends to rest upon capitalists being amenable to politicians taking credit for the capitalists’ own accumulation, or to politicians ascribing credit for it to "the people" – the voters. When the latter course is taken, capitalist democracy enjoys a kind of stability, because the "people" being given credit do tend to be low-time-preference in habits. In this sense, the people’s flattery, although it paints with too broad a brush, is roughly accurate in a democracy with a low-time-preference culture. Unfortunately, this coexistence is not a stable one. One of the disturbing conditions of such an arrangement is the rise of a class that is more capitalistically inclined than the general populace. This development does occur from time to time when a generally unrecognized competitive advantage in cultivating a low time preference arises, because the advantages of doing so are subtle, and are not easily assimilated. They are generally scoffed at during times when the advantage is generally unperceived. An unintended consequence of that competitive advantage emerging, though, is that it makes "the people’s flattery" more and more unrealistic. The politicians, who credit "the people" for the extent of capitalistic development in a nation in those times, appear as if they were assigning the name of the "people" to a low-time-preference elite. This practice, although rooted in capitalist democracy, appears undemocratic, and may very well be so at the time it is seen through. Thus, "inequality of wealth" is not a threat to capitalist democracy per se, but sustained inequality of time preference is. It should therefore be of little surprise that the economics of Keynes, with its borrower-centric bias, took the democracies of the world by storm in his time. Keynesian politics does show a certain shrewdness in times when inequality of time preferences is jarring, as it ascribes credit for "economic growth" to the consumer, the borrower, and of course the government itself. (The only category that the low-time-preference sort can fit into is exporter.) Lord Keynes spoke very well to the biases of his time, even if, in so doing, he inclined democratic politicians to take credit for economic growth themselves, rather than discouraging them from doing so. It is in this way that a Keynesian democracy is inclined towards corporatism. Keynesian political economy takes hold during times when the high-time-preference class has an opportunity to wreak revenge (for being taken for granted) through democratic politics, at the long-term cost of hobbling the economy. As democratic politicians grow in influence, so does the high-time-preference lifestyle gain in prestige. Any child raised to be obedient to the State, in such a democracy, will conclude that high-time-preference behavior is good. Don’t the best statesmen act short term? Don’t they demand results quickly? Don’t the best of them get results quickly? Don’t they brag about the generosity of a deficit-running government, and merely pay lip service to the idea of surpluses? Aren’t they somewhat fast and loose with respect to mere promises? If the electorate doesn’t mind that, why shouldn’t Our Leaders be that way? They serve the people, don’t they? Thus, in a time of statolatry in a democracy, the high-time-preference example set by the political class results in high-time-preference behavior amongst the obedient young. They have indeed followed the example of their "betters" in this regard. There are equilibrating trends in politics as well as economics. One means by which the low-time-preference sort can limit the resultant hobbling of the economy, as well as recurrent depredations of it, is to promote the idea that anyone living the high-time-preference lifestyle is a "winner" in some way. This makes the resultant inequalities of wealth less aggravating to the electorate. Nevertheless, it tends to cleave incentives for social success apart from incentives for economic success. In addition, it fails to explain why low-time-preference people gain wealth and influence in everyday life. This latter clash tends to show up in the culture, as a supply of movies, etc., arises to satisfy the demand for explaining it. The typical plot line that fills this demand, in American culture, includes the wicked moneylenders, the wicked businessmen, or the wicked corporations that seem destined to enslave us all. This last American myth reconciles the clash between success in life and following behavioral cues from the political leadership, by encouraging the notion that the wicked corporation "forces" people to act in a low-time-preference manner. The end result, in a statolatized democracy, is a kind of elitism developing, one where "overnight successes" compose the new elite. Anyone who succeeds, or who appears to have succeeded, in a high-time-preference manner, becomes a folk hero. Such people reinforce the popular stereotype of "Instant Wealth," which reconciles the popular desire for worldly success with popular deference to politicians. These ostensibly favored few, mostly celebrities, serve an important function in a statolatized democracy, as they show that it is possible to "have it all" in a clash-ridden democratic polity. (No need to wonder why they end up with political influence.) This reassures the electorate, who would otherwise have qualms about an existent clash between political success and economic success in a democracy where government is looked up to. There’s only one way out of such a dilemma, for those who seek economic success in a democracy: rehabilitation of low time preference habits in the general populace. Since deference towards politicians inculcates the habits of high time preference, the restoration of general respect for the low-time-preference mode of life requires putting an end to the practice of revering politicians. They have to be seen as serviceable, and the ones who are good at it seen as rating a kind of cold esteem.
One of the deductions that Hans-Herman Hoppe is known for is his conclusion that democracy differs from monarchy in the area of responsibility-continuity. As he elaborates in Democracy: The God That Failed, democracies are run by temporary custodians, who must maximize their advantage in a short-term manner because their position is only temporary. There is no incentive, beyond an "idealism" that is much easier to bully-pulpit than to seriously implement, to make permanent improvements to the nation’s economy. Such incentives that are subject to the influence of promoting a legacy (favorable mention in the history books) do not dovetail with economic improvements. They do dovetail with winning the respect, or awe, of the writers of the history books, which itself is subject to the credibilities of the general public. Thus, there is no logical connection between democracy and economic growth, even if there seems to be in the short term. Such short-term incentives, though, are confined to gaining credit for any growth trend, or assigning blame for any contraction trend, in whatever way is most expedient for gaining, or keeping, elected office.
Interestingly enough, democracy can coexist with a somewhat free and growing market, although not to the extent that the old democrats assumed. The trusteeship nature of democracy does apply to war, as Joseph Schumpeter discussed in the chapter "Imperialism As a Catch Phrase" in Imperialism and Social Classes. Just as the democratic politician has no incentive to add permanent improvements to a nation’s economy, so it is that a democratic politician has no incentive to launch, intentionally, a long-term war, one where the victory will not come until he or she is either retired or dead. This is the root of the notion that democracy and war are mutually exclusive. Note, though, that it says nothing about short-term wars, ones that can be declared, prosecuted, and "won" within the timeframe of a single career as political head honcho. The typical war fought by the United States – and there have been many of them – is prosecuted according to this plan. In terms of time, the longest "hot" war ever fought by the U.S. military has been the Vietnam War, which lasted approximately ten years. Both Presidents that were Commanders-in-Chief during its full prosecution left office in disgrace, essentially for hypocrisy. This provides, for the United States specifically, a lesson for any future President: long, drawn-out wars, ones that get stuck in the "Big Muddy," entail political suicide. The incentive for, and consequent expectation of, quick victory is evidently self-reinforcing. So, a bias towards high time preference in politics does have its advantages, as the obvious tendency of national "statesmen" to treat the nation’s goods and people as a War Treasury is limited by the short-term orientation of democratic politics.
Given the obvious disadvantages of a high-time-preference State, though, there does emerge a kind of tension, or clash, between economic maximization and maximization of political advantage. Economic growth under capitalism does rest upon capital accumulation, which requires general habituation to low time preferences. This habituation, though, is foreign to democracy. Thus, capitalists and democrats have a tendency to look askance upon each other. The grand compromise "democratic capitalism" tends to rest upon capitalists being amenable to politicians taking credit for the capitalists’ own accumulation, or to politicians ascribing credit for it to "the people" – the voters. When the latter course is taken, capitalist democracy enjoys a kind of stability, because the "people" being given credit do tend to be low-time-preference in habits. In this sense, the people’s flattery, although it paints with too broad a brush, is roughly accurate in a democracy with a low-time-preference culture.
Unfortunately, this coexistence is not a stable one. One of the disturbing conditions of such an arrangement is the rise of a class that is more capitalistically inclined than the general populace. This development does occur from time to time when a generally unrecognized competitive advantage in cultivating a low time preference arises, because the advantages of doing so are subtle, and are not easily assimilated. They are generally scoffed at during times when the advantage is generally unperceived. An unintended consequence of that competitive advantage emerging, though, is that it makes "the people’s flattery" more and more unrealistic. The politicians, who credit "the people" for the extent of capitalistic development in a nation in those times, appear as if they were assigning the name of the "people" to a low-time-preference elite. This practice, although rooted in capitalist democracy, appears undemocratic, and may very well be so at the time it is seen through. Thus, "inequality of wealth" is not a threat to capitalist democracy per se, but sustained inequality of time preference is.
It should therefore be of little surprise that the economics of Keynes, with its borrower-centric bias, took the democracies of the world by storm in his time. Keynesian politics does show a certain shrewdness in times when inequality of time preferences is jarring, as it ascribes credit for "economic growth" to the consumer, the borrower, and of course the government itself. (The only category that the low-time-preference sort can fit into is exporter.) Lord Keynes spoke very well to the biases of his time, even if, in so doing, he inclined democratic politicians to take credit for economic growth themselves, rather than discouraging them from doing so. It is in this way that a Keynesian democracy is inclined towards corporatism. Keynesian political economy takes hold during times when the high-time-preference class has an opportunity to wreak revenge (for being taken for granted) through democratic politics, at the long-term cost of hobbling the economy.
As democratic politicians grow in influence, so does the high-time-preference lifestyle gain in prestige. Any child raised to be obedient to the State, in such a democracy, will conclude that high-time-preference behavior is good. Don’t the best statesmen act short term? Don’t they demand results quickly? Don’t the best of them get results quickly? Don’t they brag about the generosity of a deficit-running government, and merely pay lip service to the idea of surpluses? Aren’t they somewhat fast and loose with respect to mere promises? If the electorate doesn’t mind that, why shouldn’t Our Leaders be that way? They serve the people, don’t they?
Thus, in a time of statolatry in a democracy, the high-time-preference example set by the political class results in high-time-preference behavior amongst the obedient young. They have indeed followed the example of their "betters" in this regard.
There are equilibrating trends in politics as well as economics. One means by which the low-time-preference sort can limit the resultant hobbling of the economy, as well as recurrent depredations of it, is to promote the idea that anyone living the high-time-preference lifestyle is a "winner" in some way. This makes the resultant inequalities of wealth less aggravating to the electorate.
Nevertheless, it tends to cleave incentives for social success apart from incentives for economic success. In addition, it fails to explain why low-time-preference people gain wealth and influence in everyday life. This latter clash tends to show up in the culture, as a supply of movies, etc., arises to satisfy the demand for explaining it. The typical plot line that fills this demand, in American culture, includes the wicked moneylenders, the wicked businessmen, or the wicked corporations that seem destined to enslave us all. This last American myth reconciles the clash between success in life and following behavioral cues from the political leadership, by encouraging the notion that the wicked corporation "forces" people to act in a low-time-preference manner.
The end result, in a statolatized democracy, is a kind of elitism developing, one where "overnight successes" compose the new elite. Anyone who succeeds, or who appears to have succeeded, in a high-time-preference manner, becomes a folk hero. Such people reinforce the popular stereotype of "Instant Wealth," which reconciles the popular desire for worldly success with popular deference to politicians. These ostensibly favored few, mostly celebrities, serve an important function in a statolatized democracy, as they show that it is possible to "have it all" in a clash-ridden democratic polity. (No need to wonder why they end up with political influence.) This reassures the electorate, who would otherwise have qualms about an existent clash between political success and economic success in a democracy where government is looked up to.
There’s only one way out of such a dilemma, for those who seek economic success in a democracy: rehabilitation of low time preference habits in the general populace. Since deference towards politicians inculcates the habits of high time preference, the restoration of general respect for the low-time-preference mode of life requires putting an end to the practice of revering politicians. They have to be seen as serviceable, and the ones who are good at it seen as rating a kind of cold esteem.
It is truly amazing how in the course of argument, alleged freedom advocates, but also compromisers of total freedom, must always resort to practically Marxist type argumentation for the defense of their compromises.
So not believing in Rothbard or natural rights or certain economics = not believing in total freedom? I can't see anything inherently Marxist about that at all, honestly.
E. R. Olovetto:One specifically related to what the statists are moaning about in this thread would be Hasnas' The Obviousness of Anarchy.
Not an assumption but rather is shown to be apodictically true. I can show on paper, via praxeology for these reasons.
Go on then. Lay out your deduction.
scineram:Go on then. Lay out your deduction.
Human Action by Ludwig von Mises. You should spend more time reading this and less arguing from a point of ignorance scineram. I take it that you concede that there is no other form of a test and you were just twisting words. It is an a priori fact that when a voluntary transaction occurs both parties see the exchange as beneficial to themselves. That a plurality adopts a certain custom does not prove a custom "correct". Cooperation is not a zero-sum game. That we call a pattern of action a "custom", by definition, we can conclude that those participating see the custom as beneficial.
Snowflake:This is good. Non-libertarian, empirical/prudential.
I read this last night, If a Pure Market Economy is so Good, Why Doesn't It Exist? The Importance of Changing Preferences versus Incentives in Social Change by Stringham and Hummel. Its pretty good and again relevant to this debate. They seemed to just outline Cowen's objections without responding directly in section 2 or 3 (I forget). He really needed to be taken to task on those propositions. Maybe I will do a write up on it after my weekend vacation.
It is an a priori fact that when a voluntary transaction occurs both parties see the exchange as beneficial to themselves.
Ex ante, and they can be mistaken. And this only includes the two parties.
Laminustacitus:As hayekianxyz has pointed out, if anarcho-capitalism were to be enacted in a sudden period of time, all of the tacit knowledge regarding the rules of society and social relationships would have to once again emerge in a completely new society Thats your assumption, people seem to have an awful habit of remembering things however. Which is awfully inconvenient for your argument. Other then that there is no structure to society. No great man got up and said "We need super markets to provide milk! And Discount tire stores to fix cars!" Oh wait they did..., and they were entrepreneurs on the market.
In the absence of the state the non-bankrupt part would have to pickup the pieces and go from there yes(your saying this not me), but the only reason why there would be pieces to pickup is specifically because there was a big part that went bankrupt in the first place, the state.
laminustacitus: It is impossible to know exactly what would happen Ofcoarse it's impossible. You keep acting like we're predicting the future. We are not, there is a reason why it's called "Speculation, forcasting, and guessing.
At that same time, this speculation, forecasting, and guessing yields absolutely no knowledge that is epistemologically sound, so I am correct when I call the results mere fantasies.
laminustacitus: but I'd put my money on chaos. In fact, any ideology that advocates for sudden reform of critical social institutions is diametric to any that emphasizes the importance of tradition, which requires a gradual and piecemeal approach to reform. You forget two things. It will be the state that dismantles itself, not angry mobs of ancaps. You need to go back and re-read my previous post, especially the part about DD5's quote.
And why would not an anarcho-capitalist faction not try to dismantle the state? If they don't, anarcho-capitalism is no better than Marxism, proclaiming that it is a priori that the state will dismantle itself, and anarcho-capitalism will result.
What would be more congruent with what I have said, is that after a sudden dismantlement of the state, the financial industry, which has been based upon a institutional structure revolving around the government for generations, will simply cease operating. An economy without a functioning financial industry is a dead economy, period.
Luckilly for me, Rothbardians tend to never get my Hayekian analysis, and it is the same thing with DD5. His entire point revolves around the big evil state as boogeman of the world rather than an important institution around which individuals have coordinated their plans for not only the present, but the future (as hayekianxyz explicitly said above, yet DD5 preffered to ignore that).
States carry on perpetuated errors for generations and make little attempt of even fixing the existing problems they have. They have no economic reason to improve. I know that you guys like to lie about Hoppe's comparison of monarchy and democracy, saying that we advocate feudalism and ignoring the actual argument for an anarchic natural order, but his analysis is spot on.
So what? This is only part of the whole equation leading to any one state of affairs. Ex ante, we arrive at individual pricing data. Ex post evaluation on the part of individual actors leads to further judgment on the efficiacy of prior actions. This disequilibrium motivates entrepreneurs to find better ways of employing scarce means to satisfy given ends.
Laminustacitus:You are completely forgetting that the majority of knowledge in society is tacit, and built around a concrete environment in space and time. At that same time, you are assuming that individuals have rational access to most of the knowledge in society, and that they can easily access it once the environment changes, but, as we know, because the knowledge is tacit, it simply cannot be rationally altered to fit a new environment. Furthermore, you are providing a strawman against the tacit knowledge argument because you obviously don't realize what tacit knowledge is (otherwise you wouldn't have tried to draw a parallel between a supermarket providing milk and the tacit knowledge that an institutional structure provides), and its importance to the operation of humanity.
Nonesense(literally). Knowledge is created, exchanged, and maintained on the market. All knowledge was manifested by individuals or small groups of individuals originally. It was market forces that spread the new knowledge around the globe. EG, the division of labor for example.
Your assessment is just quite frankly disconnected from reality, thats all. Knowledge is not behind a close door, nor does the state hold the key to this "Secret knowledge of life". Knowledge is no more in-obtainable than the apple at the store. The state in actuality holds very little of the knowledge which allows the operation of daily life, indeed they themselves must take from the market to aquire the information they need to survive.
Now either you didn't communicate yourself really well or you've fooled yourself into thinking reality is something that its not. A modern mystic as it were, disconnected from the reality that is. Your argument is quite amazing, in that it's so overtly weak. Whats weird is that, even if your concept of knowledge were true, and we ignored markets, it still doesn't justify a state or government heh.
Laminustacitus:The only reason why speculation is beneficial is that it is done on a small scale, but the speculation you talk about is, by its very definition, an all-in gamble.
Nonesense you take risks in every action, including peacefully walking down to the cafe for tea. Speculation occurs before every individual action. To state otherwise is severe lunacy, and nonesense on it's face. Now, the state on the other hand is disconnected from the market process and cannot correctly speculate future conditions. They cannot correctly ascertain how much of what needs to be produced for whom. The state lacks economic calculation so while they also forcast, they just often do so in error.
Laminustacitus:At that same time, this speculation, forecasting, and guessing yields absolutely no knowledge that is epistemologically sound, so I am correct when I call the results mere fantasies.
Again your speaking nonesnse on its face, This tacit knowledge thing doesn't carry 2 cents of weight. If your argument were actually true we'd be walking around like idiots. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of knowledge, products, and human activity is currently moved through a market(In anarchy). You need to face the inconvenient truth that everytime you purchase from a supermarket your playing anarchy.
The Grocery store model is an amazing thing, it's a perfect example of how your whole fundamental understanding of reality is wrong. I don't expect you to understand without doing research, I just doubt you'll be bothered to do the actual research. What you and Scineram are really lacking is a solid understanding of what economic calculation is.
Laminustacitus:And why would not an anarcho-capitalist faction not try to dismantle the state? If they don't, anarcho-capitalism is no better than Marxism, proclaiming that it is a priori that the state will dismantle itself, and anarcho-capitalism will result.
I'm not claiming a priori that the state will dismantle itself. I'm watching it happen before my very eyes. Though I am claiming that a priori the state cannot economically calculate.
As such many of their programs are un-sustainable over longer periods of time, and are not products or services which consumers would have chosen to support had they not been forced to.
Laminustacitus:This is a strawman for the reasons that I have pointed out above, you are neglecting the tacit knowledge of society.
Indeed I am, because it's silly. I prefer to discuss things that are grounded here on planet earth.
Laminustacitus:An economy without a functioning financial industry is a dead economy, period.
Accounting was born on the market to serve market purposes. It will remain on the market with or without the state. Business's need to assertain their performance as displayed by the eyes of society. IE, economic calculation.
If anything the process of accounting would be vastly simpler in the absence of the state. The state mandates an unecessary complex accounting system, which is just wasting resources is all.
laminustacitus:Rothbardians tend to never get my Hayekian analysis, and it is the same thing with DD5. His entire point revolves around the big evil state as boogeman of the world rather than an important institution around which individuals have coordinated their plans for not only the present, but the future (as hayekianxyz explicitly said above, yet DD5 preffered to ignore that).
I guess lucky for me I am not Rothbardian. Not that I understand why it's relevant. At any rate I am not coming at you from a Rothbardian stance, and I do understand your points. I just think you misunderstand the way of things.
Scineram:Go on then. Lay out your deduction.
I have several times already in this thread, I won't be bothered to post an entire explanation of how prices are formed on the market to you. I have to agree with ERO here, you need to read Human Action. I assume you havn't read it, because your not even defending the actual holes in your argument. I just assume your not aware they are there. HA will point them out to you.
Scineram:Ex ante, and they can be mistaken. And this only includes the two parties.
Indeed so what? All you prove here is that humans make mistakes. The market is a profit & loss system. That solves that problem easily. If someone makes a mistake they don't have to do it again. You on the other hand must think that a huge social framework would better appraise, ascertain, and forecast the satisfaction of individuals better then the individuals themselves.
Such a task requires mystical abilities like reading everyone's mind at once for example. It's sheer folly. At any rate you missed ERO's point, and you need to go read HA. At the very minimum the first 1/3 of the book.
With such a long post count on this forum Scineram did you expect us to say something different? Did you think silly arguments about molasses knowledge was somehow going to refute a market?
Lam, if you feel very strongly about your "Tacit Knowledge" argument I'd be happy to agree to disagree with you. I just quite frankly don't think the argument has any legitimacy whatsoever and is not worth my time addressing.
Side note to MODS:
It seems myself and others have been discussing largely off topic for a while now. I hate to do this but I am wondering if someone can split us off into a seperate discussion.
The discussion was started by Lam, here:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/17002/335185.aspx#335185
Apparently the entire human existence is just buying and selling things on the market. At least ideally. Some human nature!
IMO it's unfair to accuse ancaps of trying to destroy traditional institutions when the entire ideology revolves around salvaging the traditional institution of private property (acquired through purchase, gift, or Lockean homesteading). They simply see the traditional institution of the force monopoly of the state as a threat to the supposedly more important traditional institution of private property, so are perfectly logical in their desire to eliminate the former to save the latter.