Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Has Anarchism been Disproved by History?: A Debate between Rettoper and Lilburne

This post has 113 Replies | 5 Followers

Not Ranked
Male
Posts 326
Points 5,135

@original post

I anything is disproven by history it is the notion of a decent State.

Escaping Leviathan - regardless of public opinion

"Democracy is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Tue, Jun 15 2010 2:13 PM

Do you agree with the following axioms I have heard ad nauseam from myriad ancaps on this site:

(1) statist systems always seek out more power,

Systems do not "seek".  Seeking is an action.  Only individuals act.

(2) once established, statist elements never surrender power.

No.  There is no praxeological law that dictates that.

(3) statist systems are utterly incapable of providing any benefit its subjects, everything that it does is damaging to society.

Everything that it does results in consequences that are less favorable than what a free society would have brought about.

(4) statist systems are always despotic, violent, and inhumane

Despotism refers to absolute power.  Not all statist systems hold absolute power.  All states are violent by definition, as the "social apparatus of coercion and compulsion".  What exactly do you mean by "inhumane"?

 

I agree with you on several points, namely that statist systems do not automatically seek power and expand unchecked until they collapse.  So presumably, you agree that statist power can remain constant?

I tried to argue a similar point and was labeled a "statist" by more than a few anarchists.  

Also, I agree that actions taken by statist systems result in less favorable outcomes when compared with free societies. 

However, virtually all anarchists that I have encountered on this site disagree with this assessment and consider both statism and minarchism equally  evil. for example, they claim a moral equivalence between the two.  THis rigid world view is considered appalling to the majority of potential converts who see no moral equivalence between the murder of tens of millions of innocents in fascist and communist societies as a matter of policy and isolated "atrocities" committed in wartime by the USA in protecting and preserving prosperity, stability, and freedom.

Despotism refers to absolute power.  Not all statist systems hold absolute power.  All states are violent by definition, as the "social apparatus of coercion and compulsion".  What exactly do you mean by "inhumane"?

All viable states are violent, otherwise they become extinct.   If anarchic socities are not violent, than they are not going to gain power or hold it for long.   Of course, I am not advocating internal violence or even government control, however a centralized defense establishment is necessary to focus resources to insure the optimum defense against foreign threats.

One last point, economy of scale is a fact of economics.   If an anarchic society develops, eventually the many competing enterprises in different industries would likely result in the establishment of a monopoly or cartel that gains control through economy of scale and other factors.  This is not a problem when considering big box retailers, operating systems, hamburger outlets, et al because a dynamic and nimble free market society  can shift resources to less expensive alternatives in a relatively short time with little threat to societal health and well being.   However, when a security agency becomes dominate at the expense of all others, what happens?

For example, you are a razor edge of an overnight return to statism depending on the whim of a CEO.   The temtpation to seize power might be iresistable.  

No anarchist would question the adage --  "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" -- how can they deny that a dominant security agency wont take power?

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

"for example, if anarchism rejects the use of force in order to secure power, then this alone would be justification for my assertion that anarchism is a pipe dream."

Anarchism does not inherently reject the use of force in order to establish an anarcho-capitalist order.  However, I personally do not believe in militant, explosively violent revolutions.  I believe in the gradual establishment of anarcho-capitalist ideals in the minds of the populace.  I don't want some anarcho-capitalist clique to seize power; I believe that would prove ephemeral if the preponderance of the people were not convinced of our ideas.  A revolution of ideas must pave the way for any political revolution.

" it is noteworthy to consider that free speech is not protected anywhere in an anarchic society."

Eh?  Anarcho-capitalists insist on free speech.

You dont think that classic liberals or minarchist have incentives to defend itself from nuclear weaponry?

It's not a matter of their political philosophy.  It's a matter of their economic function.  They don't have as effectively-lined-up incentives as private defense entrepreneurs would have; and they don't have recourse to economic calculation as does the private defense entrepreneur.

Indeed, an anarchic world would be a cauldron of continuous, low level, destabilizing, and violent confrontations of competing private security firms.

If private security entrepreneurs themselves, and more importantly their customers, are convinced of the efficacy of maximal capitalism, they will have no incentive to go beyond the enforcement of property rights.

For example, iran, venezuala, cuba, russia, china, et al must know that from the standpoint of wealth accumulation the less government, the more prosperity.

They still believe that more of certain kinds of intervention will mean more prosperity.

For example, who would lead this union?    Would a proud anarchist commander surrender his soveriegnty over his own forces to a competitor?

The possibility of private defense leaders becoming overweening is indeed something private defense entrepreneurs will take measures against in order to best serve private defense consumers, just as shareholders now take measures against "empire building" among executives and other principal-agent problems.

Obviously, if mankind is determined to have a genetic propensity to heirarchical arrangements then anarchism is debunked.

Man has an overwhelming genetic propensity to choose the best means for his most important ends.  His most important ends overwhelmingly involve material security, comfort, and prosperity.  The best means for that is maximal capitalism.  Once men are convinced of that by economic science, they will choose it.

 It is highly unlikely that anarchists, who have contributed nothing to these goals, can convince me -- or the rest of the citizenry that their system can defend against despotism (statism) as effectively as classical liberalism

What made classic liberals effective, what set them apart, was their embrace of capitalism.  In this regard, anarcho-capitalists are more "classic liberals" than the classic liberals, since they embrace capitalism to a fuller extent.

Using your line of reasoning, you could say to the 19th century free-trader, "you haven't yet contributed anything to our goals, yet the mercantalist-hampered 18th century-style approach has made England very prosperous, so I shall not take you seriously, sir".  You claim to accept the limits of historicism, yet do you not see how vitiated your dismissal of anarcho-capitalism still is by the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?

The "bountiful" approach is not the one chosen by the islamists, the monk, the christian, the social-anarchist, the egalitarian, et al.   YOu presume too much when you presume that the "be all and end all" of human existence is a free and functioning market.   Nothing could be further from the truth.  Even among rational  people, the perception of security and stability is more likely to be chosen then the chance of actual prosperity in a dynamic and free society, albeit with  no government protections or safety net.

The "be all and end all" is not the market itself.  It's the prosperity that, unbeknownst to many, the market can provide.  Suicide bombers and other isolated fanatics aside, metaphysical pronouncements are merely an ornament.  Again, from Human Action...

It is proved by the fact that all antiliberal doctrines--the theocratic tenets of the various religious, statist, nationalist, and socialist parties--adopt the same attitude with regard to these issues. They all promise their followers a life of plenty. They have never ventured to tell people that the realization of their program will impair their material well-being. They insist--on the contrary--that while the realization of the plans of their rival parties will result in indigence for the majority, they themselves want to provide their supporters with abundance.

Your average Arab isn't a suicide bomber.  He's a family man who's worried about his children, and thinks that adherence to his culture's norms will be the best means to provide for them.

Nonetheless, while they are bestowing the bounties of capitalism that you eloquently described above, they dont have time to sift through the bullshit. 

They are making time in ever greater numbers.  After the next crash, when they are forced to scramble for answers, they will make even more time.

The truth doesnt mean jack shit in politics and the acquistion of power.

Power is not an end in itself.  It's a means.  In matters of means the truth always matters, because someone operating with correct information will choose more effective means than someone operating with incorrect information.

For example, if anarchists cant put any teeth and political machinations behind their rhetoric

"Teeth" are premature until we've convinced a large enough portion of society.  Once convinced, society will grow its own "anarchist teeth".  Again any anarchist cabal that forces a new order upon a recalcitrant public will not last long.

Liberalism realizes that the rulers, who are always a minority, cannot lastingly remain in office if not supported by the consent of the majority of those ruled. Whatever the system of government may be, the foundation upon which it is built and rests is always the opinion of those ruled that to obey and to be loyal to this government better serves their own interests than insurrection and the establishment of another regime. The majority has the power to [p. 150] do away with an unpopular government and uses this power whenever it becomes convinced that its own welfare requires it. (Human Action)

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

True,  yet how can you explain why anarchism failed when not confronted with any statist competition?  For example, if anarchism was the first society, why was it overrun by government?

The state happened to be invented before economic science could reveal the superiority of capitalism.  Therefore, people in some societies thought erroneously that supporting a state apparatus was the most effective means to their ends.  Thus the first states formed.  And given the fact that at the time non-state societies had not YET developed economic calculation and the division of labor sufficiently to become supremely wealthy (keep in mind that anarchism is not synonymous with anarcho-capitalism, and a society can be slow to develop private property rights even without a state), state societies were able to produce the means of war to a superior degree, so the latter were able to over-run the former.

Moreover, this would debunk the assertion that anarchism can sustain itself when it reaches "critical mass" --- indeed it must have had critical mass at the dawn of civilization, yet it was sent to the ash heap of failed systems by statists.

Again, you must distinguish between anarchism and anarcho-capitalism.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

do you agree  with the assertion by anarchists that a small measure of government would lead to absolutism over time?

No.  It depends on the circumstances.  A small measure of government that in practice enforces property rights would be less likely to lead to absolutism than a completely anarchic society populated by people who don't believe in the efficacy of capitalism and property rights.  However a completely anarchic society populated by people who DID believe in the efficacy of capitalism and property rights would be far less likely to lead to absolutism than either of the other two systems.

or do you side with von mises and hayek that a small measure of government is necessary ?

I believe that in a society populated predominantly by people who believe in the efficacy of maximal capitalism, no state is necessary.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

More likely it is the special interest group that wields power most effectively, that attains it.

Again...

Liberalism realizes that the rulers, who are always a minority, cannot lastingly remain in office if not supported by the consent of the majority of those ruled. Whatever the system of government may be, the foundation upon which it is built and rests is always the opinion of those ruled that to obey and to be loyal to this government better serves their own interests than insurrection and the establishment of another regime. The majority has the power to [p. 150] do away with an unpopular government and uses this power whenever it becomes convinced that its own welfare requires it. (Human Action)

otherwise, why have some many people lived under tyrannical forms of government throughout history?

Many people have lived under monarchical forms of government because they thought it was the best means to serve their most urgent ends.  Tyrannical forms of government, on the other hand, rarely last long...

 

"A king's might rests upon the recognition of the monarchical ideology on the part of his subjects.

He who uses his might to run the state, i.e., the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, rules. Rule is the exercise of might in [p. 189] the political body. Rule is always based upon might, i.e., the power to direct other people's actions.

Of course, it is possible to establish a government upon the violent oppression of reluctant people. It is the characteristic mark of state and government that they apply violent coercion or the threat of it against those not prepared to yield voluntarily. Yet such violent oppression is no less founded upon ideological might. He who wants to apply violence needs the voluntary cooperation of some people. An individual entirely dependent on himself can never rule by means of physical violence only. He needs the ideological support of a group in order to subdue other groups. The tyrant must have a retinue of partisans who obey his orders of their own accord. Their spontaneous obedience provides him with the apparatus he needs for the conquest of other people. Whether or not he succeeds in making his sway last depends on the numerical relation of the two groups, those who support him voluntarily and those whom he beats into submission. Though a tyrant may temporarily rule through a minority if this minority is armed and the majority is not, in the long run a minority cannot keep the majority in subservience. The oppressed will rise in rebellion and cast off the yoke of tyranny." (Human Action)

Moreover, if allowed to choose, most people choose or vote in their own petty self-interest.

Only when the superiority of the more beneficial alternatives are not evident to them...

The advantages derived from peaceful cooperation and division of labor are universal. They immediately benefit every generation, and not only later descendants. For what the individual must sacrifice for the sake of society he is amply compensated by greater advantages. His sacrifice is only apparent and temporary; he foregoes a smaller gain in order to reap a greater one later. No reasonable being can fail to see this obvious fact. When social cooperation is intensified by enlarging the field in which there is division of labor or when legal protection and the safeguarding of peace are strengthened, the incentive is the desire of all those concerned to improve their own conditions. In striving after his own--rightly understood--interests the individual works toward an intensification of social cooperation and peaceful intercourse. (Human Action)

By its very nature, anarchists will never take power since to do so requires them to betray one of their most cherished tenets, non-violence against their fellow man. 

Again, you misconstrue anarchism when you portray it as pacifist.

For example, I stated in an earlier post that our leaders have always sought to exploit this human foible to gain power.  They use class warfare to pit one side against their other through the use of envy and jeolousy.  

That is true, but it is only effective because people believe they can benefit more from class warfare than they do from capitalism.  Envy is a "human foible" that is indulged in because it spurs men to achieve their ends to a greater degree.  If people realize that it is factually counter-productive to indulge in it to the point of disrupting the social process of production, then they will reign it in.

Paradoxically, it seems that the more affluent a society becomes the more likely it will lurch back toward statism.

It seems you're trying to erect praxeological laws without the praxeological method.

 

 

A king's might rests upon the recognition of the monarchical ideology on the part of his subjects.
 
He who uses his might to run the state, i.e., the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, rules. Rule is the exercise of might in [p. 189] the political body. Rule is always based upon might, i.e., the power to direct other people's actions.
 
Of course, it is possible to establish a government upon the violent oppression of reluctant people. It is the characteristic mark of state and government that they apply violent coercion or the threat of it against those not prepared to yield voluntarily. Yet such violent oppression is no less founded upon ideological might. He who wants to apply violence needs the voluntary cooperation of some people. An individual entirely dependent on himself can never rule by means of physical violence only.[4] He needs the ideological support of a group in order to subdue other groups. The tyrant must have a retinue of partisans who obey his orders of their own accord. Their spontaneous obedience provides him with the apparatus he needs for the conquest of other people. Whether or not he succeeds in making his sway last depends on the numerical relation of the two groups, those who support him voluntarily and those whom he beats into submission. Though a tyrant may temporarily rule through a minority if this minority is armed and the majority is not, in the long run a minority cannot keep the majority in subservience. The oppressed will rise in rebellion and cast off the yoke of tyranny.
"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

However, virtually all anarchists that I have encountered on this site disagree with this assessment and consider both statism and minarchism equally  evil. for example, they claim a moral equivalence between the two.  THis rigid world view is considered appalling to the majority of potential converts who see no moral equivalence between the murder of tens of millions of innocents in fascist and communist societies as a matter of policy and isolated "atrocities" committed in wartime by the USA in protecting and preserving prosperity, stability, and freedom.

How evil one thing is relative to another is a matter of subjective judgment, and can neither be affirmed nor denied through discursive reasoning.  Whether we are to live in Fascist Italy, Stalinist Russia, or Imperialist America is not a choice before us, and therefore such comparisons do not interest me.  Whether we live in Imperialist America or a non-Imperialist America is a choice before us.  It would serve my ends better to live in non-Imperialist America.  I strongly suspect it would serve your ends better too.

Of course, I am not advocating internal violence or even government control, however a centralized defense establishment is necessary to focus resources to insure the optimum defense against foreign threats.

What usefulness is there in simply repeating an assertion you've already made?  Given that I countered this assertion already with an analysis of the superiority of a private defense industry steered by entrepreneurs, wouldn't it be more enlightening to grapple with that instead?

One last point, economy of scale is a fact of economics.   If an anarchic society develops, eventually the many competing enterprises in different industries would likely result in the establishment of a monopoly or cartel that gains control through economy of scale and other factors.

Economy of scale is ONE fact of economics.  And it is only one of many factors in determining the size of a firm.  Economies of scale, as well as market transaction costs do contribute to a larger firm size.  But that is met by powerful factors that limit firm sizes: most importantly the impossibility of using economic calculation to allocate resources within a firm.  For more on this read my summary of chapter 1 of The Capitalist and the Entrepreneur by Peter Klein.

For example, you are a razor edge of an overnight return to statism depending on the whim of a CEO.

In a capitalist economy the CEO is glorified laborer, who serves at the pleasure of the owner-entrepreneur, who in turn serves at the pleasure of the consumer.  In a society in which the populace believes in maximal capitalism the pleasure of the consumer would be rigid adherence to property rights.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 50
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Tue, Jun 15 2010 8:14 PM

What usefulness is there in simply repeating an assertion you've already made?  Given that I countered this assertion already with an analysis of the superiority of a private defense industry steered by entrepreneurs, wouldn't it be more enlightening to grapple with that instead?

Superior in what way?

profit, efficiency. 

I repeat the assertion because you have not addressed my previous arguments:

1) the anarchic defense enterprise would be motivated by profit. And like 99% of free market entities, if is likely to fail.  IN contrast, the statist defense establishment is motivated to win wars at all costs.    For example, inefficient statist enterprises can still dominate selective industries (armaments, training, et al) by incurring  long term losses to capture market share (win wars) and undermine free market companies.  

2) the statist force would have the benefit of better intelligence since anarchic societies would presumably be free, moreover statist armies could mobilize anywhere to take advantage of strategically vital terrain.  For example, in an anarchic society would these disparate private armies would see their economic advantage negated by having to pay private citizens exorbidant fees, royalties, and rents to occupy strategically vital terrain.

3) pre-emptive attacks are decisive in modern warfare, yet the anarchic society would be unable to utilize this important tool of national defense.

4) anarchic societies would be vulnerable to pre-emptive strikes because by their very nature they are peaceful and would be loath to use provocative, warlike, and risky methods of intelligence gathering that are absolutely necessary in an anarchic geopolitik.  IN contrast, the statist would have an advantage scouting the defenses of a free society.

5) private armies have a long history of failure, ,read Machevelli. Why? they are for profit.  Where is the praxelogical logic in dying for the bottom line?   For example, to win wars, sacrifice is necessary including implicit suicide missions to accomplish strategic objectives.  These kind of suicide missions are more likely to be successful among a force of patriots versus a force of low-level employees.  In summary, no matter how well trained and cohesive, private armies have always cut and run with facing nationalist elan

6) neighboring anarchic enclaves are far less likely to come to the aid of a neighbor under attack since they dont share a common bond of heritage, culture, and norms established over centuries of living under the same government that is present in statist and liberal democracies. 

7) anarchic people are likely to hesitate or refrain from using whatever means necessary, including WMD, to win wars.   IN contrast, statist regimes will employ whatever means available to win wars no matter how heinous.  for example, when confronted with a likely WMD attack on a major metropolitan center in the anarchic society, they have two choices (1) capitulation or (2) respond in kind.   It is a lose-lose situation that will lead to the ultimate discrediting of the anarchic society. For example, if they attack a civilian population center in the statist regime that is where the WMD launch systems are located, they may win the war but they will be discredited for the barbarity of their methods, hence they lose all credibility as a peaceful society in the eyes of many pacifists.

8) anarchic defense agencies are decentralized, this alone is proof that anarchic socities are a pipe dream since they could never be nimble enough to coordinate forces after a decisive blitzkreig attack on a vital strategic center of gravity.   for example, no matter how well trained, equiped, and profitable -- failure to mobilize decisive numbers of resources at a strategic point leads to defeat.   Anarchic societies by their very nature are ill equipped to do this.    Free market enterprises, while far more efficient than statist enterprises are not infallible, they make fatal mistakes.  Indeed, 99% ultimately fail -- and in wartime we know the consequences of a single failure.  Depending on the efficacy of profit driven entities to preserve liberty against a statist regime that will expend everything to achieve victory is proof of anarchism fragility.

9) the CEO of a hamburger chain, big box retailer, and clothing chain are a far different breed than that of a likely defense agency.  The "CEO" of the defense firm would be more like Patton, then dave thomas of wendy's.   For example, it is folly that the anarchist would put his trust in the machinations of men like ceasar, napoleon, alexander, gengis khan, et al if they think that "property rights" and "the pleasure of the consumer" would supercede power and renown.  for example, the first "wal mart" of defense enterprises would be hard pressed not to dominate society in a untoward manner.  it would start with nepotism and degenerate into outright despotism with a charismatic leader "crossing the rubicon" .    The temptation and narcotic of  glory and power associated with absolutism would be to great.

"power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" 

if you believe this adage (and all anarchist do, that is the foundation of their system) --- then anarchism can never suceed since power can still be accumulated within anarchic systems ulitmately leading to a "critical mass" in which one entity gains power to control all others.

 

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Tue, Jun 15 2010 8:52 PM

You continually cite education of the masses as the impetus to see anarchism realized, yet anarchist doctrine was rejected by von mises and hayek among others.

for example, they were educated, and they rejected market anarchism as opposed to minarchism.

importantly, how are anarchists going to coopt the masses if they cant coopt von mises?

moreover, can you name a single business, cultural, or political leader of note that supports anarchism?

for example, there are millions of  politicians, economists, CEO's, academics, entreprenuers, bureaucrats, entertainers, artisans, et al who are familiar with the tenets of market anarchism, yet they obviously do not support it.  INdeed, most of them are promoting classical liberalism, some marxism.

yet you claim the ignorant masses will be converted once they "see the light" yet  you cant even convince a bare minority of society's informed political, cultural, and business leaders that anarchism is viable ?!

when are anarchists going to reconcile the fact that there is no groundswell for anarchism (minarchism, yes!), but when 10 rational, thoughtful, and intelligent people are educated on the merits of  minarchism, anarchism, and statism.

it will roughly produce 6 minarchists, 3 statists, and 1 anarchist.

how can I make this bold prediction ?

provide me a list of the most influential leaders in all human endeavors and we can guess their ideological bent by reading some of their writing and quotes and I guarantee the anarchists will be considerably outnumbered.

IN summary, this exercise was done to show you that even those world leaders familiar with the tenets of anarchism reject it.  so your argument that ignorance is the only reason anarchism hasnt been realized doesnt hold water.

 

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Tue, Jun 15 2010 9:32 PM

 But that is met by powerful factors that limit firm sizes: most importantly the impossibility of using economic calculation to allocate resources within a firm.  For more on this read my summary of chapter 1 of The Capitalist and the Entrepreneur by Peter Klein.--grayson

 

"Surely, this state (vertical monopoly) would not please many consumers, and the BNL monopoly would be short lived at most.”  (emphasis added)-- Klein

 

You missed this survival level point:

 a defense firm run by an ambitious and charismatic meglomaniac hell bent on power doesn't need an extended period of dominance to eliminate all potential competitors in one fell swoop or coup d'etat once his power reaches "critical mass"

and it is grand naivete  to think this will not occur in a society where the checks and balances on power are the good will of the "glorified laborer CEO" fawning over the consumer, shareholders, owner-entrepreneur. 

market capitalism is rife with examples of corrupt business leaders who have placed self-interest ahead of the shareholders, consumers, and markets. 

"power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" 

IN contrast,  the most effective system to prevent the focus of power while still providing for a vigorous national defense is not anarchism -- it is a Constitutional Federal Republic.

of course, a greatly attenuated version of the republic that now exists in the USA.wink

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Tue, Jun 15 2010 9:43 PM

importantly, anarchism is a pipe dream for this reason only.

minarchism offers virtually all of the economic benefits of anarchism while representing a far less radical step into the unknown that many will reject.

for example, a minarchist global society will already be prosperous, peaceful (no modern democracies have ever waged war against each other), stable, and free

indeed, most if not all human needs and wants could be met within this framework that von mises and hayek described.

 

 


 

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

Superior in what way?

Superior in providing for the most urgent ends of consumers.

1) the anarchic defense enterprise would be motivated by profit. And like 99% of free market entities, if is likely to fail.

A large proportion of individual enterprises fail, not whole industries.

2) the statist force would have the benefit of better intelligence since anarchic societies would presumably be free, moreover statist armies could mobilize anywhere to take advantage of strategically vital terrain.  For example, in an anarchic society would these disparate private armies would see their economic advantage negated by having to pay private citizens exorbidant fees, royalties, and rents to occupy strategically vital terrain.

How do you know the fees, royalties, rents, etc would be exorbitant?  In general you're making ad hoc assertions based on hunches.  Now I don't mean to say this to be insulting, but it's the only word that I can think of that really distills your approach: crackpottery.  Economic science and political philosophy require humility that stems from a recognition of the complexity of human affairs, and the ease with which one can make up ad hoc, arguments that confirms one's own biases.  

The social scientist makes careful inferences from clear principles and leaves the realm of hunches to the entrepreneur who rises and falls based on the efficacy of his hunches.  

The crackpot, on the other hand, revels in hunches, flying with wanton abandon from one ambitious assertion to another, seeing in every patch of data a pattern that confirms his own biases.  He is not checked by the demands of formal logic placed upon discursive reasoning, nor the demands of the controlled experiment placed upon the natural sciences, nor by the tests of success and failure (profit and loss) placed upon the entrepreneur.

Mises believed political orders were instruments of man, and that as acting beings, men choose all their instruments based on perceived suitability in providing for their ends.  He based this notion, not on ad hoc glances at human history, but upon the rigorous insights of praxeology.  Acting men will, by definition, choose the means which are perceived to best serve their ends.  So the question for us as acting men is, "What do the sciences of man tell us is the system which would best serve our ends"?  We frankly ask that question, reason it out, and then look upon the answer without prejudice, without flinching just because what we see may be unfamiliar to us.  If science tells us that anarcho-capitalism would be the best means to our ends, then we say so.  We don't gaze into our crystal ball of hunches and blithely assert that people will never realize it, and so it's not even worth talking about.

It is true, for all we know it might never happen that humans realize it is the best means for their ends.  But that possibility should not keep us, as praxeologists, from explaining that it is so.  There may be a simple, elegant cure for cancer out there.  And maybe society will never realize that it is the best means to the end of curing cancer.  That doesn't mean we deride the medical researcher for trying to demonstrate that it is in fact the best means to the end of curing cancer.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,055
Points 41,895

History proves that nothing is sustainable.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Wed, Jun 16 2010 4:18 PM

Superior in providing for the most urgent ends of consumers.

what about the free rider?   Moreover, I have repeatedly challenged you on how the anarchic society would deal with the ambitious, charismatic, and skilled meglomaniac who eventually will control a critical mass of the defense industry.   This hard charger and his adoring minions are not going to give a rat's ass about "the consumer" "shareholders" or anyone else when intoxicated by the allure of absolutism. 

Again, please answer if you agree with the following adage "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"  not that this principle doesnt disappear simply because of the framework of society.  It is always foremost in the machinations of powerful men.   Brilliant and honorable me  fought a revolution and formed a more perfect union in response to this truth.

Do you discount it?  Moreover, show some humility and accept that your utopia cannot alter the frailities  that are inherent  in men to the detriment of society.

For example, what motivation would a citizen in a anarchic society have to pay for national defense?  Specifically, who is going to force him or his company to pay for protection if he is in the interior of an anarchic enclave far removed from danger.  Moreover, if he is struggling with competition he will be loath to reduce his profit margins to dangerous levels.  Indeed, cost cutting across the entire defense industry in search of profits would lead to shortcomings in men, material, and training.  In contrast, the statist could engage in profligate spending on defense that would negate the efficiency a anarchic enclave would have. 

How do you know the fees, royalties, rents, etc would be exorbitant? 

 in the event of increasing friction or impending hostilities between a statist regime and an anarchic regime, land speculators would undoubtedly bid up the price of strategically vital land near the border.  for example, a private defense agency would pay dearly for a stretch of "high ground" or easily defended terrain that would likely be in the path of a statist blitzkrieg.  a profit driven speculator would have every right in an anarchic society to charge exorbidant rents, royalties, taxes for this ground.  Hence the costs of simply stationing forces in desired positions would seriously dilute the resources available for defense. In contrast, the statist and minarchic regime would take the land with minimal if any compensation to the owner.

 Now I don't mean to say this to be insulting, but it's the only word that I can think of that really distills your approach: crackpottery.  

I produced my response above.  Please refrain from the mud slinging and respond to substance of my post. Namely that an anarchic defense agency would have no recourse but to pay market rates for prized defensive positions along the border of a hostile statist regime.  Moreover, they would be forced to pay exorbidant rates for any other militarily prized land or water positions.

Economic science and political philosophy require humility that stems from a recognition of the complexity of human affairs, and the ease with which one can make up ad hoc, arguments that confirms one's own biases.

 it is highly contradictory and preumptuous of you to --- on one hand correctly acknowledge the complexity of  human beings than --- on the other hand cavalierly  assert that an unproven system rejected by the overwhelming majority of informed business, political, and cultural elites  including von mises is  both unquestionably  viable and effective above all others.  

Where is the humility in that?

Mises believed political orders were instruments of man, and that as acting beings, men choose all their instruments based on perceived suitability in providing for their ends.

Who are you to decide what "ends" men desire?  Do you speak for all men?  If so then why do so many successful and independent citizens reject your assertions?  

He based this notion, not on ad hoc glances at human history, but upon the rigorous insights of praxeology.

zero anarchic successes based  on tens of thousands of years of human history is not "ad hoc"  ---- it is significant.    The marxists have a better historical track record.

"What do the sciences of man tell us is the system which would best serve our ends"?

Again, by what authority do you claim to speak for all of mankind on deciding what are our desired "ends" ?  this is the arrogance of the marxists and other despots.  It is not up to utopians to decide what "end" mankind ought to strive.   More importantly, anarchists can never hope to gain power if their "ends" dont jive with those of the majority of the citizenry.   For example, you have never addressed how the anarchic society will deal with egalitarianism.  For better or worse, irrespective of the prosperity of a given society --- dramatic differences in standards of living lead to social unrest. For example, throughout history many ideologies and revolutions have been founded on the principles of prosperity, with equality.

It is true, for all we know it might never happen that humans realize it is the best means for their ends.

There may be a simple, elegant cure for cancer out there.  And maybe society will never realize that it is the best means to the end of curing cancer.  That doesn't mean we deride the medical researcher for trying to demonstrate that it is in fact the best means to the end of curing cancer.

that is scary, anarchists asserting without a shred of doubt that they are the guardians of both the means and the ends for all of mankind.   yet we are all too stupid, lazy, or ignorant to "see the light" 

for example, the key to everlasting societal health and well being is before us, yet we are too unworthy to realize it.

alas, even the minarchists hayek and von mises were statist retards compared to the "enlightened" anarchists

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Wed, Jun 16 2010 4:30 PM

not true caley,

according to market anarchists history doesn't apply to them since they have never existed.

by using that logic, unicorns cannot be judged inferior to any other life forms since they have never existed.

moreover, the obvious reason this perfect species hasn't emerged is that darwin, God, or mother nature are just slow on the uptake.

And I am called a crackpot.

 

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

Moreover, I have repeatedly challenged you on how the anarchic society would deal with the ambitious, charismatic, and skilled meglomaniac who eventually will control a critical mass of the defense industry.   This hard charger and his adoring minions are not going to give a rat's ass about "the consumer" "shareholders" or anyone else when intoxicated by the allure of absolutism. 

In a fully capitalist economy, your megolomaniacs would be deselected by the market.  If he "doesn't give a rat's ass about "the consumer"", the owner-entrepreneurs would, at the behest of the consumers expressing their will through the price system, fire him.

Human Action:

 

XV. THE MARKET


4. The Sovereignty of the Consumers


The direction of all economic affairs is in the market society a task of the entrepreneurs. Theirs is the control of production. They are at the helm and steer the ship. A superficial observer would believe that they are supreme. But they are not. They are bound to obey unconditionally the captain's orders. The captain is the consumer. [p. 270] Neither the entrepreneurs nor the farmers nor the capitalists determine what has to be produced. The consumers do that. If a businessman does not strictly obey the orders of the public as they are conveyed to him by the structure of market prices, he suffers losses, he goes bankrupt, and is thus removed from his eminent position at the helm. Other men who did better in satisfying the demand of the consumers replace him.

The consumers patronize those shops in which they can buy what they want at the cheapest price. Their buying and their abstention from buying decides who should own and run the plants and the farms. They make poor people rich and rich people poor. They determine precisely what should be produced, in what quality, and in what quantities. They are merciless bosses, full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable. For them nothing counts other than their own satisfaction. They do not care a whit for past merit and vested interests. If something is offered to them that they like better or that is cheaper, they desert their old purveyors. In their capacity as buyers and consumers they are hard-hearted and callous, without consideration for other people.

Only the sellers of goods and services of the first order are in direct contact with the consumers and directly depend on their orders. But they transmit the orders received from the public to all those producing goods and services of the higher orders. For the manufacturers of consumers' goods, the retailers, the service trades, and the professions are forced to acquire what they need for the conduct of their own business from those purveyors who offer them at the cheapest price. If they were not intent upon buying in the cheapest market and arranging their processing of the factors of production so as to fill the demands of the consumers in the best and cheapest way, they would be forced to go out of business. More efficient men who succeeded better in buying and processing the factors of production would supplant them. The consumer is in a position to give free rein to his caprices and fancies. The entrepreneurs, capitalists, and farmers have their hands tied; they are bound to comply in their operations with the orders of the buying public. Every deviation from the lines prescribed by the demand of the consumers debits their account. The slightest deviation, whether willfully brought about or caused by error, bad judgment, or inefficiency, restricts their profits or makes them disappear. A more serious deviation results in losses and thus impairs or entirely absorbs their wealth.Capitalists, entrepreneurs, and landowners can only preserve and increase their wealth by filling best the orders of the consumers. They are not free to spend money [p. 271] which the consumers are not prepared to refund to them in paying more for the products. In the conduct of their business affairs they must be unfeeling and stony-hearted because the consumers, their bosses, are themselves unfeeling and stony-hearted.

The consumers determine ultimately not only the prices of the consumers' goods, but no less the prices of all factors of production. They determine the income of every member of the market economy. The consumers, not the entrepreneurs, pay ultimately the wages earned by every worker, the glamorous movie star as well as the charwoman. With every penny spent the consumers determine the direction of all production processes and the details of the organization of all business activities. This state of affairs has been described by calling the market a democracy in which every penny gives a right to cast a ballot[12]. It would be more correct to say that a democratic constitution is a scheme to assign to the citizens in the conduct of government the same supremacy the market economy gives them in their capacity as consumers. However, the comparison is imperfect. In the political democracy only the votes cast for the majority candidate or the majority plan are effective in shaping the course of affairs. The votes polled by the minority do not directly influence policies. But on the market no vote is cast in vain. Every penny spent has the power to work upon the production processes. The publishers cater not only to the majority by publishing detective stories, but also to the minority reading lyrical poetry and philosophical tracts. The bakeries bake bread not only for healthy people, but also for the sick on special diets. The decision of a consumer is carried into effect with the full momentum he gives it through his readiness to spend a definite amount of money.

It is true, in the market the various consumers have not the same voting right. The rich cast more votes than the poorer citizens. But this inequality is itself the outcome of a previous voting process. To be rich, in a pure market economy, is the outcome of success in filling best the demands of the consumers. A wealthy man can preserve his wealth only by continuing to serve the consumers in the most efficient way.

Thus the owners of the material factors of production and the entrepreneurs are virtually mandataries or trustees of the consumers, revocably appointed by an election daily repeated.

Again, please answer if you agree with the following adage "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

The term "power" in Lord Acton's phrase refers to state power, not market power.

(later in that same section of HA...)

 

The Metaphorical Employment of the Terminology

of Political Rule

The orders given by businessmen in the conduct of their affairs can be heard and seen. Nobody can fail to become aware of them. Even messenger boys know that the boss runs things around the shop. But it requires a little more brains to notice the entrepreneur's dependence on the market. The orders given by the consumers are not tangible, they cannot be perceived by the senses. Many people lack the discernment to take cognizance of them. They fall victim to the delusion that entrepreneurs and capitalists are irresponsible autocrats whom nobody calls to account for their actions[13].

The outgrowth of this mentality is the practice of applying to business the terminology of political rule and military action. Successful businessmen are called kings or dukes, their enterprise an empire, a kingdom, or a dukedom. It this idiom were only a harmless metaphor, there would be no need to criticize it. But it is the source of serious errors which play a sinister role in contemporary doctrines.

Government is an apparatus of compulsion and coercion. It has the power to obtain obedience by force. The political sovereign, be it an autocrat or the people as represented by its mandataries, has power to crush rebellions as long as his ideological might subsists.

The position which entrepreneurs and capitalists occupy in the market economy is of a different character. A "chocolate king" has no power over the consumers, his patrons. He provides them with chocolate of the best possible quality and at the cheapest price. He does not rule the consumers, he serves them. The consumers are not tied to him. They are free to stop patronizing his shops. He loses his "kingdom" if the consumers prefer to spend their pennies elsewhere. Nor does he "rule" his workers. He hires their services by paying them precisely that amount which the consumers are ready to restore to him in buying the product. Still less do the capitalists and entrepreneurs exercise political control.

 

Please refrain from the mud slinging and respond to substance of my post.

It's not mudslinging.  Again, it is the best noun I can think of for your ad hoc approach.  If it offends you I can call it "hunch-ism".  But I'm really making an important point.  At one point, you voiced a recognition of the superiority of the praxeological method, yet you keep meeting my praxeological arguments with arguments based on post hoc ergo propter hoc and hunches.

I don't think we'll ever gain any ground on particulars before we gain ground on methodology.

So tell me, given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Thu, Jun 17 2010 11:49 AM

Many people lack the discernment to take cognizance of them. They fall victim to the delusion that entrepreneurs and capitalists are irresponsible autocrats whom nobody calls to account for their actions[13].

The outgrowth of this mentality is the practice of applying to business the terminology of political rule and military action.-- taken from "The Metaphorical Employment of the Terminology of Political Rule"

Indeed, I agree with all of the arguments outlined in this essay. Of course, the entrepreneur is the obedient servant of the consumer.  None can argue with that.   However, the anarchic notion that (1) a defense contractor cannot achieve "wal-mart" “Microsoft” like dominance in its industry is contrary to what happens frequently in the free market and (2) this defense contractor will never turn on its free market benefactor by the lure of absolutism is unrealistic, naive, and dangerous.  Note that it only has to happen once to insure the extinction of the anarchic state.

In a fully capitalist economy, your megolomaniacs would be deselected by the market.  If he "doesn't give a rat's ass about "the consumer"", the owner-entrepreneurs would, at the behest of the consumers expressing their will through the price system, fire him.

again you error by making the assumption that the rogue leader didn't respond expertly to market forces while in the process of attaining power (market share), however, once the goal of critical mass was reached -- only then is the rubicon crossed.  For example, if ceasar had not supremely served the interest of his masters, he would never have been in a position to usurp their power. 

you committed a similar error by positing that a cartel or monopoly in the defense establishment would not last long due to "market forces"  --- but you carelessly disregarded the obvious fact that this dominance would be exploited the very moment it was achieved.  IN summary, in both cases the markets acted correctly in rewarding these individuals and enterprises with predominance, but they would be too slow to react once these malevolent characters reached critical mass and turned against society.

Moreover, capitalism is rife with examples of skilled and faithful entrepreneurs who once wealthy and powerful became corrupted and “gamed” the system for a considerable time before the market finally punished their excesses. 

A large proportion of individual enterprises fail, not whole industries.

This statement is manifestly wrong.

For example, if it was true then we would still be purchasing wares from the smithy, tanner, miller, potter, et al.   Of course, whole industries have failed throughout history, it is called creative destruction.   Indeed, the top 10 jobs today  didnt exist 50 years ago.  Moreover, they were created in industries that didnt exist 50 years ago, and they replaced industries and sectors of the economy that became obsolete.

For example, the pony express, telegraph, landline telephone, fiber optics, satellite communications, ........

Moreover, you misunderstand the context of my original statement, namely that the markets while always expert at the allocation of scarce resources in the long term, nonetheless are not infallible in the short term. 

Geopolitics is not a zero-sum game.  The people who run states, assuming states exist, benefit more from peace and free trade, than they would from military and trade wars.  Google "comparative advantage" and "law of association".

If preserving the benefits of trade were the only consideration driving geopolitics than we would have had no wars.  Again this is another example of the tunnel vision of the anarchists who discount all other aspects of human interaction.

moreover, anarchists presume too much when they naively believe that statist leaders will always take actions that result in the maximum benefit to themselves and their states. for example, you dangerously disregard the obvious --- that statist leaders oft times miscalculate.

This fact is obvious, yet anarchists are oblivious to it.  crack open a history book, it is rife with wars started by miscalculating statists whom anarchists apparently  forgot to educate regarding the benefits of comparative advantage, laws of association, et al.

Of course, we just need to "educate" them to the mutual benefits of free trade  -- then wars will be a thing of the past and we can unite in a group hug and sing kumbaya around the campfire. 

 I have a motto for movements like this  --- "hope and change"     how do you like it?

Systems do not "seek".  Seeking is an action.  Only individuals act.--- grayson

The term "power" in Lord Acton's phrase refers to state power, not market power.--grayson

Is  your assertion that badmen, bloodletters, and rouges in a maximal capitalist system will always act in the best interest of society ???

So tell me, given that throughout history innumerable  huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?

because you are a fringe minority.  check any free market pollster on myriad issues. 

moreover, among educated elitists  in business, arts, and science (including hayek and von mises)  who are familiar with the tenets of maximal capitalism -- the overwhelming majority reject its alien and fragile precepts.

 moreover, minarchism is far more palatable to the masses, as a result it is far more likely to be realized, it can still deliver virtually all of the benefits attained under maximal capitalism, and it’s favor among the masses is spreading like a wildfire across the body politic.

Lastly, anarchist's rigid adherence to their ideology, and their abject hostility to proponents of competing but similar systems like minarchism, classical liberalism, et al.  tend to alienate potential converts.  Moreover, the anarchist movement seems beset by contradictory precepts from intolerant and close-minded extremists that hurt its credibility.

for example, a frequent anarchist contributor continually rebuts your accurate claim that no maximal capitalist societies have ever existed.  Moreover, another routinely cites links to a website that claims the holocaust is a fabrication, and another wishes for the death of US troops fighting abroad.   By any objective measure these individuals are damaging to the cause, and these views are not isolated. 

Nonetheless, I support 95% of what you propose, it is only the last 5% I find unsustainable, unrealistic, and quite frankly damaging to the overall goal of reducing tyranny. Note that while I am amendable to 95% of anarchic doctrine, ask an typical anarchist what percentage of minarchist doctrine he supports and he will tell you ZERO.

for example, you are arguing for maximal capitalism and railing against classical liberalism in a world run asunder by statist --  all while the classical liberals have been doing the heavy lifting against absolutism --- at great cost in blood and treasure. 

 Isnt it time we united in a common cause to remove statists from power first?  Then we can fight over the spoils, and let the best ideology win.

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

However, the anarchic notion that (1) a defense contractor cannot achieve "wal-mart" “Microsoft” like dominance in its industry is contrary to what happens frequently in the free market

What free market?  And monopolies are not inherently unaccountable to the consumer.  The vast majority of monopolies that emerge by virtue of market conditions serve the consumer as scrupulously as any non-monopoly.  It is with monopoly PRICES that consumer sovereignty breaks down, and they are virtually always the result of state intervention...

Mises, HA: "As a rule the state of affairs that makes the emergence of monopoly prices possible is brought about by government policies"

and...

"What those who blame the economies of big-scale production for the spread of monopoly prices are trying to say is that the higher efficiency of big-scale production makes it difficult or even impossible for small-scale plants to compete successfully. A big-scale plant could, they believe, resort to monopoly prices with impunity because small business is not in a position to challenge its monopoly. Now, it is certainly true that in many branches of the processing industries it would be foolish to enter the market with the high-cost products of small, inadequate plants. A modern cotton mill does not need to fear the [p. 371] competition of old-fashioned distaffs; its rivals are other more or less adequately equipped mills. But this does not mean that it enjoys the opportunity of selling at monopoly prices. There is competition between beg businesses too. If monopoly prices prevail in the sale of the products of big-size business, the reasons are either patents or monopoly in the ownership of mines or other sources of raw material or cartels based on tariffs.

One must not confuse the notions of monopoly and of monopoly prices. Mere monopoly as such is catallactically of no importance if it does not result in monopoly prices. Monopoly prices are consequential only because they are the outcome of a conduct of business defying the supremacy of the consumers and substituting the private interests of the monopolist for those of the public."

And again, we're not going to gain ground on particulars, until we get methodological issues sorted out.  So, again, "given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Thu, Jun 17 2010 4:06 PM

 

What free market?  And monopolies are not inherently unaccountable to the consumer.  The vast majority of monopolies that emerge by virtue of market conditions serve the consumer as scrupulously as any non-monopoly.  It is with monopoly PRICES that consumer sovereignty breaks down, and they are virtually always the result of state intervention...

You acknowledge that it is possible for a defense firm to gain monopoly status.

and yet,

you discount utterly the chance that its leadership would use this power to establish statist rule by coercion ?!

And again, we're not going to gain ground on particulars, until we get methodological issues sorted out.  So, again, "given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"

In response, this is the short list:

(1) Pie-in-the-sky “praexological” rhetoric notwithstanding, maximal capitalists are and have always been a fringe minority among both elitists and the masses.

 For example, irrespective of whatever methodology is used to sell its precepts, leaders in business, arts, science, politics, and the free market  (including von Mises and Hayek) overwhelmingly reject it.  

Moreover, anarchism has a “genetic defect” that renders it prostrate in the face of competing systems:

 “anarchists are loath to use force to gain power, yet they cant gain power in the absence of force”

In summary, if you cant sell your product to entrepreneurs, how in the hell do you convince the masses?

(2) anarcho-capitalism cannot defend itself from external threats.

   Defense assets too decentralized and absent a unified command

 Easily infiltrated and destroyed from within by sappers, spys, and saboteurs.

  No common bond among people, hence disparate enclaves could be isolated and destroyed in detail since neighboring anarchic enclaves without shared values, experiences, and culture would be less likely to intervene on behalf of the beleaguered enclave.

    Defense expenditures would be restricted by market principles, while statist regimes have no restrictions on defense spending.

   Anarchists adhere to unrealistic, naïve, and utopian views regarding warmaking, while statist regimes have no such restrictions.   For example, statist regimes would use whatever means were available to reduce anarchic enemies including WMD.

  Anarchic regimes would loath to use pre-emptive and preventative attacks to defend themselves despite the demonstrated utility of these strategies.

  In turn, anarchic regimes would be vulnerable to pre-emptive strikes, since their society could be easily infiltrated and sabotaged.

 Due to the lack of common culture, government, and heritage -- anarcho enclaves in the interior would be loath to support enclaves on the periphery in the event of an attack.

 anachro-capitalism discounts the necessity of  force to gain power.  Moreover, anarchism discounts the necessity of force to preserve power.   Naïve and dangerous utopian  precepts in a anarchic geopolitic dominated by aggressive statist regimes would lead to its ultimate downfall.

(3) anarcho-capitalism cannot defend itself from internal threats.

No substantive checks or balances exist to prevent defense establishment monopolies or cartels from establishing statist rule through coercion.

  An society which condoned the practice of infanticide and considered children a “commodity” would be universally vilified abroad, easily infiltrated by religious zealots, and subject to constant isolation, siege, and subversion.

 Mankind has an inherent propensity to establish hierarchical social structures that is anathema to anarchic society.

 The egalitarian model, no matter how flawed, has inspired and dominated contemporary human social evolution.  Moreover, the richer society becomes, the more likely the  shift toward greater egalitarian structures and policies.  Anarchic society would be unable to address this disturbing yet undeniable paradigm.

(4) minarchism bestows virtually all of the benefits of anarchism without the uncertainty and risk associated with anarchism.  Moreover, minarchism provides established checks, balances,  decentralization of power, and negative rights on government while not undermining the ability of society to defend itself from external threats that have existed since time immemorial.  

Various forms of minarchism, which has been in ascendancy since 1776, have been the preferred system of governance among both elitist and the masses. Moreover, one of its strengths is the  peace and stability  it provides --- for example, it is utterly peaceful to like minded societies while still providing the most prosperous, stable, and free societies – never in history have higher order representative governments waged war against each other.

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Thu, Jun 17 2010 4:35 PM

 

More crockpottery from Rettoper, or

A lesson in the law of unintended consequences for utopian anarchists:

1)      statist operative buys land on the cheap on the anarchic side of the border with his statist nation

2)      operative informs his co-conspirators in the statist military high command when the real estate deal closes.

3)      Statist military forces stage monthly military exercises directly opposite the recently purchased land

4)      “efficient” anarchic private defense forces rush to meet potential threat

5)      undercover statist landowner refuses to grant anarchic forces access to his land unless he is paid an exorbidant fees, rents, and royalties.

6)      In the name of national defense, the rich anarchic forces grudgingly accede to the landowner’s demand for payment.

7)      Anarchic forces expertly deploy forces in an impenetrable defense

8)      Undercover statist land owner cashes checks, dispenses cut to military co-conspirators, we in turn use a small fraction of the proceeds for a beer and steak cookout on the border.

9)      After cookout, hung-over statist troops “Moon” anarchic forces and withdraw

10)  Anarchic forces withdraw

11)  Undercover statist landowner sells land, tripling his original investment by touting the value of “strategically vital” terrain contemplated as a staging ground for a possible statist attack.

12)  Repeat steps 1-11 until:

a.      Anarchist society collapses and institutes a Federal republic to provide for defense against external threats

b.      Anarchist society collapses by forming statist bureaucracy  to oversee border with statist provocateur.

c.      Anarchists society calls statist’s “bluff” by refusing to deploy forces for an attack that never materializes – and statist take opportunity to mount a devastating blitzkrieg penetration deep into anarchic land supported by hundreds of sapper sleeper cells resulting in a quick and decisive victory.

 Repeat steps 1-12 on the nearest adjacent surviving anarchic society and continue until they are all destroyed or until the surviving anarchic societies dissolve and establish more formidable minarchic states.

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

 

And again, we're not going to gain ground on particulars, until we get methodological issues sorted out.  So, again, "given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"

"In response, this is the short list:

(1) Pie-in-the-sky “praexological” rhetoric notwithstanding, maximal capitalists are and have always been a fringe minority among both elitists and the masses.

 For example, irrespective of whatever methodology is used to sell its precepts, leaders in business, arts, science, politics, and the free market  (including von Mises and Hayek) overwhelmingly reject it. "

First of all it is curious that at the beginning of the debate you voiced an acceptance of the excellence of the methodology of von Mises and the Austrians.  Remember this?

 

"I was incorrect to label anything related to the austrian school as based on examination of the past.

from what little I have learned about von mises in the short time I have been peruse this site is that he was not focused on past history --- quite the opposite, I believe he formed his ideas for logic.

at least that explains why you are adopting that framework to defend your position. 

I accept that, and I stand corrected on this point.

for example, if logic was good enough for the austrians, then it is good enough for me since I agree with virtually all of the tenets I have read so far within this site."

And yet now you refer to praxeology, THE method of von Mises and the Austrians, with scare quotes!

Well which is it?  Do you accept the methodology of von Mises and the Austrians or not?

Secondly, you try to evade my questioning your inductive methodology by making the proposition, "People won't accept your ideas, no matter what methodology underlies them".  Yet the very BASIS of that proposition itself IS the inductive methodology that is at issue!

In essence it's like this:

Retopper: Anarchism is a pipe dream

Lilburne: How do you know that?

Retopper: Because it hasn't happened yet.

Lilburne: But, that doesn't prove anything.  You're using a methodology that is invalid for human affairs.

Retopper: It doesn't matter what methodology you use, because it will never happen that society's leaders will accept your ideas.

Lilburne: How do you know that?

Retopper: Because it hasn't happened yet.

You see the problem here?

My friend, you have very evidently experienced a lot of experiences and thought a lot of thoughts in your years, and that is admirable, but you are in acute need of some methodological clarity.  (Which isn't a terrible thing, since most other people are too.)  The best place to start is Theory and History by Ludwig von Mises.

Yet, even before you read that, it would still be fruitful to reflect upon and answer this question, which is so important, I'll ask it a third time: "given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"

 

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Thu, Jun 17 2010 6:16 PM

First of all it is curious that at the beginning of the debate you voiced an acceptance of the excellence of the methodology of von Mises and the Austrians.

 

Irrespective of what methodology you use, if you put garbage in, you get garbage out.

I applaud the methology  of von mises, indeed I accept his conclusions.   Namely the necessity of some measure of government to avoid the trappings of societal threats that I have continually outlined above  that remains unchallenged by you, save the  mantra --- "just because anarchism has never existed, doesnt mean that it isnt viable" and baseless attacks on my "methodology")

Moreover, I have presented by the arguments, the causal factors to support the arguments, and the causal mechanism and indicators to prove the arguments.

while you have refused to challenge all but a cherry-picked fraction of these arguments in detail  --- for example, I responded to your rebut of that rising property values on and near strategically vital terrain could be exploited by land speculators to reap enormous profits at the expense of defense firms seeking to maximize their defensive posture, yet when your arguments are rejected as illogical, unsustainable -- you move to the next cherry picked point or continue asking the same question that I have answered succinctly numerous times unchallenged.

 

Importantly,  if your methodology  proves anarchism is viable, why did von mises and hayek reject your assertion using the same methodology? 

for example,  "garbage in, garbage out"  it doesnt matter how elegant the system or methodology. 

moreover, if my "methodology" is flawed, it should be easy to deconstruct it. However, you have continued to fillibuster, while I have posted substantive and lengthy responses that remain unchallenged.

On a broader societal scale, anarchic societies are subject to the same devious and destructive machinations that have afflicted all governing systems since the dawn of civilization, namely "envy, jealousy, ambition, greed, et al into the system ---  envy, jealousy, ambition, greed, et al output from the system.   

in the absence of checks, balances, decentralization, and negative freedoms on government, indeed anarchism is probably more vulnerable to these afflications they a Constitutional Federal REpublic, albeit one considerably less powerful then the one now in the USA.

However, I believe we have the dynamism and the mechanisms intuit to correct these shortcomings without violent destabilizing disruptions.

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Thu, Jun 17 2010 6:41 PM

In essence it's like this:

Retopper: Anarchism is a pipe dream

Lilburne: How do you know that?

Retopper: Because it hasn't happened yet.

Lilburne: But, that doesn't prove anything.  You're using a methodology that is invalid for human affairs.

Retopper: It doesn't matter what methodology you use, because it will never happen that society's leaders will accept your ideas.

Lilburne: How do you know that?

Retopper: Because it hasn't happened yet.

You see the problem here?

 

The following is my "short" response to why anarchism is a pipe dream.  Note that I have offered more than just "because it hasnt happened yet" and "because it will never happen that society's leaders accept your ideas"

Indeed, these important considerations are not the bulk of the response.   The primary argument for anarchism fragility is that it is fatally vulnerable to external threats from statist regimes.

MOreover, your cavialer rejection of ten thousand years of historical precedent is more an indictment of YOUR faulty adherence and  dependence on a single methodology in the absence of other scientific tools, historical analysis.   In addition, since anarchism is a societal system, my argument thoughtfully considering  the opinions of societies citizenry who happen to abhor anarchism as a system of choice is both valid and reliable.

observe the following response, and note that I have not confined my arguments to simply "because it hasnt happened yet" and "because it will never happen that society's leaders accept your ideas". However, feel free to challenge the balance of the argument.

enjoy:

 

(1) Pie-in-the-sky “praexological” rhetoric notwithstanding, maximal capitalists are and have always been a fringe minority among both elitists and the masses.

 For example, irrespective of whatever methodology is used to sell its precepts, leaders in business, arts, science, politics, and the free market  (including von Mises and Hayek) overwhelmingly reject it.  

Moreover, anarchism has a “genetic defect” that renders it prostrate in the face of competing systems:

 “anarchists are loath to use force to gain power, yet they cant gain power in the absence of force”

In summary, if you cant sell your product to entrepreneurs, how in the hell do you convince the masses?

(2) anarcho-capitalism cannot defend itself from external threats.

   Defense assets too decentralized and absent a unified command

 Easily infiltrated and destroyed from within by sappers, spys, and saboteurs.

  No common bond among people, hence disparate enclaves could be isolated and destroyed in detail since neighboring anarchic enclaves without shared values, experiences, and culture would be less likely to intervene on behalf of the beleaguered enclave.

    Defense expenditures would be restricted by market principles, while statist regimes have no restrictions on defense spending.

   Anarchists adhere to unrealistic, naïve, and utopian views regarding warmaking, while statist regimes have no such restrictions.   For example, statist regimes would use whatever means were available to reduce anarchic enemies including WMD.

  Anarchic regimes would loath to use pre-emptive and preventative attacks to defend themselves despite the demonstrated utility of these strategies.

  In turn, anarchic regimes would be vulnerable to pre-emptive strikes, since their society could be easily infiltrated and sabotaged.

 Due to the lack of common culture, government, and heritage -- anarcho enclaves in the interior would be loath to support enclaves on the periphery in the event of an attack.

 anachro-capitalism discounts the necessity of  force to gain power.  Moreover, anarchism discounts the necessity of force to preserve power.   Naïve and dangerous utopian  precepts in a anarchic geopolitic dominated by aggressive statist regimes would lead to its ultimate downfall.

(3) anarcho-capitalism cannot defend itself from internal threats.

No substantive checks or balances exist to prevent defense establishment monopolies or cartels from establishing statist rule through coercion.

  An society which condoned the practice of infanticide and considered children a “commodity” would be universally vilified abroad, easily infiltrated by religious zealots, and subject to constant isolation, siege, and subversion.

 Mankind has an inherent propensity to establish hierarchical social structures that is anathema to anarchic society.

 The egalitarian model, no matter how flawed, has inspired and dominated contemporary human social evolution.  Moreover, the richer society becomes, the more likely the  shift toward greater egalitarian structures and policies.  Anarchic society would be unable to address this disturbing yet undeniable paradigm.

(4) minarchism bestows virtually all of the benefits of anarchism without the uncertainty and risk associated with anarchism.  Moreover, minarchism provides established checks, balances,  decentralization of power, and negative rights on government while not undermining the ability of society to defend itself from external threats that have existed since time immemorial.  

Various forms of minarchism, which has been in ascendancy since 1776, have been the preferred system of governance among both elitist and the masses. Moreover, one of its strengths is the  peace and stability  it provides --- for example, it is utterly peaceful to like minded societies while still providing the most prosperous, stable, and free societies – never in history have higher order representative governments waged war against each other.

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

"I applaud the methology  of von mises, indeed I accept his conclusions."

Yes, Mises thought it was optimal to have a night-watchman state, but not because anarchism was unprecedented.  He also thought it was optimal to have an otherwise completely unhampered market.  And that too was unprecedented.  Yet that didn't stop him from calling it optimal.  You demonstrate that you do NOT highly regard the methodology of von Mises, if you're general agreement with certain of his conclusions is based on a methodology he rejects.

attacks on my "methodology"

The very notion of questioning methodology elicits scare quotes from you!  Not promising.  This is a place for advancing scholarship.  Scholars are careful about method.

moreover, if my "methodology" is flawed, it should be easy to deconstruct it

It is indeed easy to deconstruct, and I implicitly have already when I asked you the question, which I shall ask a fourth time, and continue asking until you answer it: "given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"

Furthermore...

 

"The experience with which the sciences of human action have to deal is always an experience of complex phenomena. No laboratory experiments can be performed with regard to human action. We are never in a position to observe the change in one element only, all other conditions of the event remaining unchanged. Historical experience as an experience of complex phenomena does not provide us with facts in the sense in which the natural sciences employ this term to signify isolated events tested in experiments. The information conveyed by historical experience cannot be used as building material for the construction of theories and the prediction of future events. Every historical experience is open to various interpretations, and is in fact interpreted in different ways.

The postulates of positivism and kindred schools of metaphysics are therefore illusory. It is impossible to reform the sciences of human action according to the pattern of physics and the other natural sciences. There is no means to establish an a posteriori theory of human conduct and social events. History can neither prove nor disprove any general statement in the manner in which the natural sciences accept or reject a hypothesis on the ground of laboratory experiments. Neither experimental verification nor experimental falsification of a general proposition is possible in its field.

Complex phenomena in the production of which various causal chains are interlaced cannot test any theory. Such phenomena, on the contrary, become intelligible only through an interpretation in terms of theories previously developed from other sources. In the case of natural phenomena the interpretation of an event must not be at variance with the theories satisfactorily verified by experiments. In the case of historical events there is no such restriction. Commentators would be free to resort to quite arbitrary explanations. Where there is something to explain, the human mind has never been at a loss to [p. 32] invent ad hoc some imaginary theories, lacking any logical justification.

In the field of human history a limitation similar to that which the experimentally tested theories enjoin upon the attempts to interpret and elucidate individual physical, chemical, and physiological events is provided by praxeology. Praxeology is a theoretical and systematic, not a historical, science. Its scope is human action as such, irrespective of all environmental, accidental, and individual circumstances of the concrete acts. Its cognition is purely formal and general without reference to the material content and the particular features of the actual case. It aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions and inferences. Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts. They are a necessary requirement of any intellectual grasp of historical events. Without them we should not be able to see in the course of events anything else than kaleidoscopic change and chaotic muddle." (Mises, Human Action)

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Fri, Jun 18 2010 8:40 AM

are you here to defend a methodology (praxeology), a system (anarchism), or an ego (yours)  ??

For example, I will acknowledge that examination of the human condition from a theroretical framework is desirable, while not discounting the natural laws and precepts of physics, math, biology, et al.   In addition, I do not discount historical analysis.   Indeed, a large segment of the commentary and analysis on mises.org involves historical analysis, yet you cavialery discount my use of it to support a few of my arguments.

when are you going to get around to correct this use of a faulty methodology?

Moreover, would praxeologists burn all of the history books or place them in the fiction section since the analysis of history has no practical benefit or ability to predict whether untried systems will succeed or fail?

why does the mises institute provide a derth of history lessons when human action is not subject to  historical, environmental, accidental, and individual circumstances?

AGAIN, how can you reconcile the difference between your position that anarchism is preferable to minarchism and von mises which is the opposite since he advocates a small measure of government?

for example, if a methodology produces valid and reliable results, the results must be always be the same irrespective of who uses the methodology. 

a.)   mises use of the praxeological model was flawed

b.)   your use of praxeology was flawed

c.)  praxeology is a vague methodology that doesnt produce reliable and verifiable conclusions of any practical significance in the real world.

Or is this debate simply a cheerleading exercise of  the praxeological method.  for example, you really dont believe in the efficacy of anarchism, indeed you favor the minarchical system, but you are challenging my use of historical analysis to support a position.

Indeed, you could defend a society using "human sacrifice", cannibalism, or chattel slavery  in the same manner.

   

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Fri, Jun 18 2010 9:17 PM

I'll ask it a third time: "given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"--grayson

 

Anarchism has no natural right to exist.  

Indeed as a parasite it has no rights whatsoever.   It was created in the womb of statism and it exists through the benevolence of statism.

For example, it was statism that conceived anarchism, and statism can do with it as it pleases.  The notion proposed by petulant anarchists that they have a "right" to exist in the absence of any will or means to do so is absurd.

Anarchism has no legitimate claim to any property save that in which it is leased by the statist landlord.  For example, by what natural law is the statist entitled to surrender hard earned land to the parasite simply because the parasite exists and squats on the land ?

In summary, anarchism is a parasite whose survival is dependent on the good graces of the statist, it has no natural rights or even the right to exist because it was conceived from the statist, it is a parasite dependent on the statist, and it can be aborted by the statist.

 

 

 

 

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Fri, Jun 18 2010 9:59 PM

I'll ask it a third time: "given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"--grayson

 

Because statism exists and has natural rights does not give anarchism the same rights. 

Indeed, anarchism is an offspring of statism.  Moreover, it is utterly dependent on statism.

Anarchism has no natural rights.

To lay claim to anything that statism has spawned, including the right to exist, is a form of societal "copyright violation" since anarchism has had no contribution of any kind without the consent of the master.

For example, by what logic or natural right can the fetus (anarcho-capitalism) lay claim to all of the property of the parent (statism) including the right to exist? 

Or by what logic or natural law  is the statist "parent" required to serve the parastic "fetus" against his will?  Or accept his right to exist and surrender his private property.

for example, a natural right is not a right that can only  be attained by the benevolence of a statist master, then it is not a natural right.

 because the "anarchic embryo"  exists only by the statist mother exercising her natural right, and  because the statist mother has allowed some  "embryo" to reach term (marxism, fascism, et al) does not give the anarcho-capitalist embryo a right to exist --- that is determined by the mother (statism)

Indeed, if the anarchic child reaches term and the statist mother decides that she no longer wants to care for the child, the anarchic child can be allowed to die since it has become a parasite and the mother is under no obligation to surrender her freedoms to care for it.

in summary, something that has no natural rights cannot claim to have the right to exist simply because its master has those rights.

 

 

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

are you here to defend a methodology (praxeology), a system (anarchism), or an ego (yours)  ??

I'm here to debate your contention that anarcho-capitalism is a pipe dream.

Indeed, a large segment of the commentary and analysis on mises.org involves historical analysis, yet you cavialery discount my use of it to support a few of my arguments.

Austrian historical analysis tries to decide which praxeological laws best describe what has happened in the past.  It does not use historical episodes to derive praxeological laws.

AGAIN, how can you reconcile the difference between your position that anarchism is preferable to minarchism and von mises which is the opposite since he advocates a small measure of government?

There is no need to "reconcile" our positions, being that I disagree with his, on this matter.

for example, if a methodology produces valid and reliable results, the results must be always be the same irrespective of who uses the methodology.

A methodology is necessary, but not sufficient, in preventing errors in reasoning.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

 

 

I'll ask it a third time: "given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"--grayson

 

"Anarchism has no natural right to exist.  

Indeed as a parasite it has no rights whatsoever.   It was created in the womb of statism and it exists through the benevolence of statism.

For example, it was statism that conceived anarchism, and statism can do with it as it pleases.  The notion proposed by petulant anarchists that they have a "right" to exist in the absence of any will or means to do so is absurd.

Anarchism has no legitimate claim to any property save that in which it is leased by the statist landlord.  For example, by what natural law is the statist entitled to surrender hard earned land to the parasite simply because the parasite exists and squats on the land ?

In summary, anarchism is a parasite whose survival is dependent on the good graces of the statist, it has no natural rights or even the right to exist because it was conceived from the statist, it is a parasite dependent on the statist, and it can be aborted by the statist."

*****

How did the response above have anything to do with the question at the top?  Please answer the question.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

"Because statism exists and has natural rights does not give anarchism the same rights. "

How does statism have "natural rights"?

for example, a natural right is not a right that can only  be attained by the benevolence of a statist master, then it is not a natural right.

I do not argue that anarcho-capitalism has "natural rights"; to do so would be nonsense.  I argue that it is the best means to nearly everyone's ends.

You still have not answered the question:

 

"given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Sun, Jun 20 2010 9:27 PM

"given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"--grayson

 

Yuur question is a fillibuster and irrelevent to the debate and my original thread  that  "anarchism is a pipe dream" and with the original premise of this debate "has anarchism been disproved by history"

 

for example, history has indeed disproven maximal capitalism since none have existed since the dawn of man.  Moreover, I have provided the causal factors for Why maximal capitalism cannot exist.

 

Lastly, your thinly veiled attempt to restrict the manner of my argument doesn't hold water since It is absurd that I cant site historical fact to support my position on the original premise of the debate, which is "has history disproven anarchism" 

 

IN summary, of course history has debunked anarchism, your fillibustering notewithstanding. 

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Sun, Jun 20 2010 9:52 PM

"given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"--grayson

Because "huge events" have occurred throughout history doesnt  legimitize failed ideological constructs.  For example, no rational, independent thinking, and objective analyst would seriously argue that a society of child molesters  or cannibals would  be sustainable simply because none have existed.

By your logic, a society of flying elephants cant be disproven.  INdeed, based on the logic of your question anything is possible, and cant be challenged. 

Indeed, it is this theoretical "why is there air?" pondering that distinguishes anarchists from viable practical systems.

anarchist are no practioners, they are simply pseudo-intellectual academics who may be incapable of "putting rubber to asphalt" unlike their classical liberal counterparts who now dominate the globe.

anarchists reject force, yet they cannot achieve power in its absence.

anarchists reject statism, yet they lick it's boot daily.

anarchists reject despotism and bureaucracy, yet their system is rife with both.

For example, within anarchic society are millions of despotic enclaves in which free speech and free markets are subject to the whim of these despots or landlords.   Moreover, the immensity of bureaucracy required to adjudicate the machinations of trillions of interactions confirm that these societies are unsustainable, a pipe dream.

For example, a myriad contracts would be required for every citizen to simply walk to the corner store.  MOre threatening to this utopian society is the vulnerability of sapper sleeper cells that could populate its ranks by the millions.

anarchic society would see thousands of babies starved to death by disinterested parents without any consequences.  This would ignite the ire of tens millions of christians, moslems, et al world wide.  They would descend covertly on your utopia like a tsumani, leither committing endless terrorist attacks, or laying in weight for a single thrust supported by conventional means from an adjacent statist regime.

Moreover, the society would stagnate due to no copyright laws.   No innovation or technological advancements would be forthcoming in these utopians since there would be no protections or just rewards for the edison's, bell's, wright's, ford's, watson's, gates' et al.

In summary,

 

of course "huge events" have occurred throughout history, and of course flying elephants havent existed and probably wont exist.  Indeed, neither will an anachro-capitalist society.

however, feel free to fillibuster either flying elephants and anarchism.

I will join in:

"given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on flying elephants and unicorns being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"-- anarchist's "logic"

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

Yuur question is a fillibuster and irrelevent to the debate and my original thread  that  "anarchism is a pipe dream" and with the original premise of this debate "has anarchism been disproved by history"

Filibusters are lengthy disquisitions.  My question is not lengthy; you should be able to answer it.  Moreover, it is entirely relevant, because your inability to answer it shows the inherent invalidity of your argument.

for example, history has indeed disproven maximal capitalism since none have existed since the dawn of man.

Ah I see.  And I suppose 20,000 years ago, anyone who came up with the notion of widespread agricultural civilization ought to have thought of the notion as disproved, since none, at that point, had existed since the dawn of man.

The ridiculous implications of your propositions stem from your unwillingness to grapple with this essential question:

 

"given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"

Moreover, I have provided the causal factors for Why maximal capitalism cannot exist.

Your insistence that certain causal factors will be the causal factors, and not any of innumerable other causal factors, that will predominate in the course of human affairs, is based on nothing more than hunches.

It is absurd that I cant site historical fact to support my position on the original premise of the debate, which is "has history disproven anarchism" 

There is nothing absurd in simply answering that question: "No, history cannot disprove any general principle."

Human Action: The history of the natural sciences is a record of theories and hypotheses discarded because they were disproved by experience. Remember for instance the fallacies of older mechanics disproved by Galileo or the fate of the phlogiston theory. No such case is recorded by the history of economics. The champions of logically incompatible theories claim the same events as the proof that their point of view has been tested by experience. The truth is that the experience of a complex phenomenon--and there is no other experience in the realm of human action--can always be interpreted on the ground of various antithetic theories. Whether the interpretation is considered satisfactory or unsatisfactory depends on the appreciation of the theories in question established beforehand on the ground of aprioristic reasoning [13].

 

History cannot teach us any general rule, principle, or law. There is no means to abstract from a historical experience a posteriori any theories or theorems concerning human conduct and policies. The data of history would be nothing but a clumsy accumulation of disconnected occurrences, a heap of confusion, if they could not be clarified, arranged, and interpreted by systematic praxeological knowledge.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

Because "huge events" have occurred throughout history doesnt  legimitize failed ideological constructs.  For example, no rational, independent thinking, and objective analyst would seriously argue that a society of child molesters  or cannibals would  be sustainable simply because none have existed.

I'm not saying it positively legitimates anarcho-capitalism.  I'm saying it delegitimates your argument against the possibility of anarcho-capitalism.

By your logic, a society of flying elephants cant be disproven.

Whether elephants can fly is a question for the natural sciences, for which empirical methods of deriving general principles are entirely valid.

anarchist are no practioners, they are simply pseudo-intellectual academics who may be incapable of "putting rubber to asphalt" unlike their classical liberal counterparts who now dominate the globe.

This whole line of argument which you've resorted to throughout the debate is entirely specious, as I've already pointed out.  Using your line of reasoning, you could say to the 19th century free-trader, "you haven't put rubber to the road, yet the mercantalist-hampered 18th century-style liberals have actually gained widespread influence.  Therefore you are impractical".  Yet the 19th century free-traders eventually came to dominate.

anarchists reject force, yet they cannot achieve power in its absence.

Anarchists reject aggression; not force.

anarchists reject statism, yet they lick it's boot daily.

Anarcho-capitalists submit to force.  They do not pretend to like it, or praise those who apply the force, as "bootlicking" implies.

anarchists reject despotism and bureaucracy, yet their system is rife with both.

If they reject despotism and bureaucracy, that means they exclude it from their system.  Your sentence contradicts itself.

For example, within anarchic society are millions of despotic enclaves in which free speech and free markets are subject to the whim of these despots or landlords.

That is only true if you define despotism to include the owning of property.

Moreover, the immensity of bureaucracy required to adjudicate the machinations of trillions of interactions confirm that these societies are unsustainable, a pipe dream.

If there were such a bureaucracy, then it wouldn't be anarcho-capitalism.  The market adjudicates the machinations of trillions of interactions.

For example, a myriad contracts would be required for every citizen to simply walk to the corner store.

Hunchism.

MOre threatening to this utopian society is the vulnerability of sapper sleeper cells that could populate its ranks by the millions.

More hunchism.

anarchic society would see thousands of babies starved to death by disinterested parents without any consequences.  This would ignite the ire of tens millions of christians, moslems, et al world wide.  They would descend covertly on your utopia like a tsumani, leither committing endless terrorist attacks, or laying in weight for a single thrust supported by conventional means from an adjacent statist regime.

Hunchism-run-riot.  What else do you see in your crystal ball?

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Sun, Jun 20 2010 10:51 PM

Filibusters are lengthy disquisitions.  My question is not lengthy; you should be able to answer it.  Moreover, it is entirely relevant, because your inability to answer it shows the inherent invalidity of your argument.--grayson

it is a fillbuster if you continually site it in the absence of a single substantive rebut on any of my valid assertions regarding the unsustainablity of anarchism.  And it is about as relevent as this question:

"given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on unicorns being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"

morever, your inability to answer the preceding question shows the inherent invalidity of your argument that unicorns are unsustainable.

Or do you believe in unicorns grayson ???

Otherwise, I challenge you to rebut the preceding question, or be done with this ridiculous fillibustering and return 20 posts hence and answer my myriad logical, historical, and empirical challenges to anarchism that have remained unchallenged saved by your repeated diversion.

Your insistence that certain causal factors will be the causal factors, and not any of innumerable other causal factors, that will predominate in the course of human affairs, is based on nothing more than hunches.--grayson

that anarcho-capitalism has never existed is not a hunch.

that ancap rejects the use of force is not a hunch

that force is required to obtain and preserve power is not a hunch

that decentralized force is easily defeated in detail is not a hunch

that anarchism has no defended borders that are easily exploited by hostile elements is not a hunch

that sapper sleeper cells could infiltrate anarchic society by the millions laying in wait to commit survival level attacks is not a hunch,

that individual private property owners holding strategically vital terrian could be bought off by statist military forces is not a hunch,

that anarchism rejects copyright protections that would lead to an exodus of innovation and technological advancement is not a hunch

that anarchism is rejected by virtually every leader in business, politics, arts, academia, et al is not a hunch,

that anarchism's "daddy" is statism and statism can do with it what it pleases is not a hunch,

that anarchism has no natural right to a square inch of statist property is not a hunch,

that the masses utterly reject anarchism of any kind is not a hunch,

that anarchism would allow a parent to starve his child without penalty is not a hunch,

the list goes on and on..... and all of these shortcomings are substantive survival level threats to anarchism.

There is nothing absurd in simply answering that question: "No, history cannot disprove any general principle."--grayson

your statement proves my earlier assertion that anarchism and its adherents are not practioners.  They cant put "rubber to the road" .  FOr example, this "why is there air?" pondering is counter-productive to any substantive real-world objectives.

History cannot teach us any general rule, principle, or law. There is no means to abstract from a historical experience a posteriori any theories or theorems concerning human conduct and policies. The data of history would be nothing but a clumsy accumulation of disconnected occurrences, a heap of confusion, if they could not be clarified, arranged, and interpreted by systematic praxeological knowledge.

 

you  are manifestly wrong. 

do you discount electricity ?     or better yet, I am challenging you to use your precious praxeological methodology to prove that electricity exists or doesnt exist !!!

good luck with that grayson.

 

Indeed, the machinations of something as practical and definitive as electricity is incomprehensible to man, yet it's utility is unquestioned.

like history, electricity is NOT  "a clumsy accumulation of disconnected occurances, a heap of confusion", it provides practical and beneficial advantages to those who understand it and use it, anarchists notwithstanding.

Indeed, that is why it is so prominently studied on the mises.org --- your rejection of it notwithstanding.

 

nonetheless, you have still not answered my question:

"given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on pink unicorns being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"

 

 

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Sun, Jun 20 2010 11:11 PM

I'm not saying it positively legitimates anarcho-capitalism.  I'm saying it delegitimates your argument against the possibility of anarcho-capitalism.--grayson

 

Lets get down to brass tacks, 

In your opinion, which is more sustainable Minarchism or anarchism ??

Note that the point of my original thread was that anarchism is a pipe dream, indeed if it was the only system available to mankind, it would be viable. but my original intent was to promote minarchism as the more desirable and sustainable system.

Do you agree?

Whether elephants can fly is a question for the natural sciences, for which empirical methods of deriving general principles are entirely valid.

doesnt man operate within the limits of natural science?    and if so, isnt political machinations guided by these tenets ?    so why do you reject all science, history, et al when discussing social issues?

 

That is only true if you define despotism to include the owning of property.--grayson

by its very nature, the private property owner would be the despot of his land.  Nothing save his absolutism could intervene in his domain.  Indeed, a sapper from a statist enemy could purchase property, fabricate a biological terror weapon of mass destruction and end your utopian in short order.  and his neighbor wouldnt have a clue even as he choked out his last breath.   Indeed, thousands  of chemical biological engineering sappers could infiltrate the anarchist enclave with impunity and destroy it from within.

If there were such a bureaucracy, then it wouldn't be anarcho-capitalism.  The market adjudicates the machinations of trillions of interactions.-- grayson

you are telling me that in an anarchic society I could trespass ??    for example, every path an anarchist traveled would be private property, that would require a contract to pass.   Indeed, I could buy the property around your house and charge you $1000 everytime you passed over my land.    or conspire with your neighbors to do the same.  The law of unintended consequences, namely that your anarcho-capitalism was no doubt contemplated before and easily debunked as untenable without some measure of common law that has benefitted mankind since the magna carta.

Here is a hunchism, I challenged you to debunk it earlier and that challenge remains unanswered:

Note that hunchism is another name for "real life scenario"  or "the law of unintended consequences" that anarchists cant even in turn debunk with a bad hunchism of their own.

1)      statist operative buys land on the cheap on the anarchic side of the border with his statist nation

2)      operative informs his co-conspirators in the statist military high command when the real estate deal closes.

3)      Statist military forces stage monthly military exercises directly opposite the recently purchased land

4)      “efficient” anarchic private defense forces rush to meet potential threat

5)      undercover statist landowner refuses to grant anarchic forces access to his land unless he is paid an exorbidant fees, rents, and royalties.

6)      In the name of national defense, the rich anarchic forces grudgingly accede to the landowner’s demand for payment.

7)      Anarchic forces expertly deploy forces in an impenetrable defense

8)      Undercover statist land owner cashes checks, dispenses cut to military co-conspirators, we in turn use a small fraction of the proceeds for a beer and steak cookout on the border.

9)      After cookout, hung-over statist troops “Moon” anarchic forces and withdraw

10)  Anarchic forces withdraw

11)  Undercover statist landowner sells land, tripling his original investment by touting the value of “strategically vital” terrain contemplated as a staging ground for a possible statist attack.

12)  Repeat steps 1-11 until:

a.      Anarchist society collapses and institutes a Federal republic to provide for defense against external threats

b.      Anarchist society collapses by forming statist bureaucracy  to oversee border with statist provocateur.

c.      Anarchists society calls statist’s “bluff” by refusing to deploy forces for an attack that never materializes – and statist take opportunity to mount a devastating blitzkrieg penetration deep into anarchic land supported by hundreds of sapper sleeper cells resulting in a quick and decisive victory.

 Repeat steps 1-12 on the nearest adjacent surviving anarchic society and continue until they are all destroyed or until the surviving anarchic societies dissolve and establish more formidable minarchic states.

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

it is a fillbuster if you continually site it in the absence of a single substantive rebut on any of my valid assertions regarding the unsustainablity of anarchism.

I'll continue to cite it until you answer it, because it gets at THE reason why history CANNOT show that anarchism has been disproved or is a pipe dream.

 

And it is about as relevent as this question:

"given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on unicorns being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"

 

Again, the existence of unicorns is a question for the natural sciences, for which empirical methods are entirely valid.

 answer my myriad logical, historical, and empirical challenges to anarchism that have remained unchallenged saved by your repeated diversion.

You have no logical challenges.  And your historical/empirical challenges are invalid.

that anarcho-capitalism has never existed is not a hunch.

Nor does it prove anything about its future.

that ancap rejects the use of force is not a hunch

that force is required to obtain and preserve power is not a hunch

Again, ancap does not reject the use of force.

Just about every thing else you wrote in that list is a hunch.

your statement proves my earlier assertion that anarchism and its adherents are not practioners.  They cant put "rubber to the road" .  FOr example, this "why is there air?" pondering is counter-productive to any substantive real-world objectives.

How so?

 

History cannot teach us any general rule, principle, or law. There is no means to abstract from a historical experience a posteriori any theories or theorems concerning human conduct and policies. The data of history would be nothing but a clumsy accumulation of disconnected occurrences, a heap of confusion, if they could not be clarified, arranged, and interpreted by systematic praxeological knowledge.

 

you  are manifestly wrong. 

 

I didn't write that.  Ludwig von Mises did.

do you discount electricity ?     or better yet, I am challenging you to use your precious praxeological methodology to prove that electricity exists or doesnt exist !!!

Praxeology is the science of human action.  Electricity does not act, therefore praxeology has nothing to do with it.

 

like history, electricity is NOT  "a clumsy accumulation of disconnected occurances, a heap of confusion", it provides practical and beneficial advantages to those who understand it and use it, anarchists notwithstanding.

Indeed, that is why it is so prominently studied on the mises.org --- your rejection of it notwithstanding.

 

Again, I did not write what you quote there; MIses did.  And Mises.org, as you might imagine, uses the methodology of Mises.  So the fact that you see an incongruence between that quote and what you perceive as the method of most of the writers on Mises.org betrays a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.

 

"given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on pink unicorns being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"

Again, the existence of pink unicorns is a matter for the natural sciences, for which empirical methods are entirely valid.
"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Sun, Jun 20 2010 11:19 PM

it has been fun, good night.

 

 

 

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 706
Points 14,310
Rettoper replied on Sun, Jun 20 2010 11:46 PM

i missed your last post, i will extend you the courtesy of responding to it before checking out.  primarily, your praexology has no utility for either debunking anything I posted, or predicting any future events.   Like anyother social science methodology it is a patchwork of hunches.

1) you cherry picked responses to only selective points I made, for example --

why are you afraid to answer a simple question, namely in your opinion which system do you subscribe to:  anarchism or minarchism --- or are you hamstrung by praexology from answering that question?

2) I challenged you to explain how you can reject natural science in an argument on a social science issue  when mankind is beholden by its laws?  for example, you cannot invoke natural law or history to predict human actions.

3) I challenged you to explain why mises.org has myriad historical commentaries, yet you reject it.   For example, are these folks ignorant of praexology (sic).  Moreover, if mises rejected history, why did he cite it so often?  

4)I challenge you to prove that praexology is nothing more than a theoretical "hunchism",  for example, if it is equivilent to math, then it is exact.   I challenge you  to provide some substantive practical example of its efficacy.

5) electricity does indeed act, and its action leads to practical benefits to man.

predict something that will happen in economics or  geopolitics that bests the predictions of those that employ historical, technical, or empirical analysis

in summary, it is just another methodology of guessworks or hunches.  For example, garbage in, garbage out.

Indeed, the methodology cannot debunk a simple case study that I provided above,  save repeating the mantra "hunch"

 

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

In your opinion, which is more sustainable Minarchism or anarchism ??

I don't know which system, given the current state of human affairs, will be more persistent.  I just know that the latter is better, and that if enough of society is convinced of that fact, it will be chosen.

doesnt man operate within the limits of natural science?    and if so, isnt political machinations guided by these tenets ?    so why do you reject all science, history, et al when discussing social issues?

 

Mises, Human Action: "Materialist monism contends that human thoughts and volitions are the product of the operation of bodily organs, the cells of the brain and the nerves. Human thought, will, and action are solely brought about by material processes which one day will be completely explained by the methods of physical and chemical inquiry. This too is a metaphysical hypothesis, although it supporters consider it as an unshakable and undeniable scientific truth.

Various doctrines have been advanced to explain the relation between [p. 18] mind and body. They are mere surmises without any reference to observed facts. All that can be said with certainty is that there are relations between mental and physiological processes. With regard to the nature and operation of this connection we know little if anything.

Concrete value judgments and definite human actions are not open to further analysis. We may fairly assume or believe that they are absolutely dependent upon and conditioned by their causes. But as long as we do not know how external facts--physical and physiological--produce in a human mind definite thoughts and volitions resulting in concrete acts, we have to face an insurmountablemethodological dualism. In the present state of our knowledge the fundamental statements of positivism, monism and panphysicalism are mere metaphysical postulates devoid of any scientific foundation and both meaningless and useless for scientific research. Reason and experience show us two separate realms: the external world of physical, chemical, and physiological phenomena and the internal world of thought, feeling, valuation, and purposeful action."

 

Mises, Theory and History: "Methodological dualism refrains from any proposition concerning essences and metaphysical constructs. It merely takes into account the fact that we do not know how external events -- physical, chemical, and physiological -- affect human thoughts, ideas, and judgments of value. This ignorance splits the realm of knowledge into two separate fields, the realm of external events, commonly called nature, and the realm of human thought and action. (...)

 

3. Regularity and Prediction

Epistemologically the distinctive mark of what we call nature is to be seen in the ascertainable and inevitable regularity in the concatenation and sequence of phenomena. On the other hand the distinctive mark of what we call the human sphere or history or, better, the realm of human action is the absence of such a universally prevailing regularity. Under identical conditions stones always react to the same stimuli in the same way; we can learn something about these regular patterns of reacting, and we can make use of this knowledge in directing our actions toward definite goals. Our classification of natural objects and our assigning names to these classes is an outcome of this cognition. A stone is a thing that reacts in a definite way. Men react to the same stimuli in different ways, and the same man at different instants of time may react in ways different from his previous or later conduct. It is impossible to group men into classes whose members always react in the same way.

This is not to say that future human actions are totally unpredictable. They can, in a certain way, be anticipated to some extent. But the methods applied in such anticipations, and their scope, are logically and epistemologically entirely different from those applied in anticipating natural events, and from their scope.

by its very nature, the private property owner would be the despot of his land. 

Again, that depends entirely on your expansive definition of the term "despot".

"Indeed, a sapper from a statist enemy could purchase property, fabricate a biological terror weapon of mass destruction and end your utopian in short order.  and his neighbor wouldnt have a clue even as he choked out his last breath.   Indeed, thousands  of chemical biological engineering sappers could infiltrate the anarchist enclave with impunity and destroy it from within". (...) "Repeat steps 1-12" etc

You should apply your crystal ball to writing Michael Crichton-esque novels; it is of no use to social science.

you are telling me that in an anarchic society I could trespass ?? 

No, I'm saying trespassing need not be dealt with by any bureaucracy.

Note that hunchism is another name for "real life scenario"  or "the law of unintended consequences"

No, "hunchism" is relying on hunches to establish general laws and principles.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 3 (114 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS