Congratulations liberty student, you managed to completely derail the conversation yet again. I need to learn some self control and just ignore your posts.
For those of you that didn't follow the whole chain, I have included it here:
Micah71381: liberty student: Micah71381: Anarchists believe that we could be living better, but we have no way to empirically prove that without first trying out our theories (which is all we really want to do). This is not entirely correct. Anarchists KNOW they can be living better. Without testing anarchy it is still only a theory and something that can only be believed to be true (unproven). Because human action is unpredictable we can not say for certain what exactly would happen in anarchy. I believe very strongly that the world would be a much better place with a much higher standard of living but I can not say for certainty like I can with the laws of physics. I do believe that there is a lot of evidence we can use to make certain deductions about how an anarchist society would play out and I believe those deductions have a pretty small probability of error. None the less, an unforseen consequence of anarchy may arise that shows anarchy as being more problematic than the state. This seems very unlikely given what we do know, but it's still probable enough that I don't feel comfortable stating with absolute certainty that anarchy will work. If it weren't for the human component this would be far easier but, as I said above, humans are largely unpredictable.
liberty student: Micah71381: Anarchists believe that we could be living better, but we have no way to empirically prove that without first trying out our theories (which is all we really want to do). This is not entirely correct. Anarchists KNOW they can be living better.
Micah71381: Anarchists believe that we could be living better, but we have no way to empirically prove that without first trying out our theories (which is all we really want to do).
Anarchists believe that we could be living better, but we have no way to empirically prove that without first trying out our theories (which is all we really want to do).
This is not entirely correct. Anarchists KNOW they can be living better.
Without testing anarchy it is still only a theory and something that can only be believed to be true (unproven). Because human action is unpredictable we can not say for certain what exactly would happen in anarchy. I believe very strongly that the world would be a much better place with a much higher standard of living but I can not say for certainty like I can with the laws of physics.
I do believe that there is a lot of evidence we can use to make certain deductions about how an anarchist society would play out and I believe those deductions have a pretty small probability of error. None the less, an unforseen consequence of anarchy may arise that shows anarchy as being more problematic than the state. This seems very unlikely given what we do know, but it's still probable enough that I don't feel comfortable stating with absolute certainty that anarchy will work. If it weren't for the human component this would be far easier but, as I said above, humans are largely unpredictable.
This is the same as gravity logically being reasonable before it is tested or mathematically proven. As stated above, I believe we can deduce the success of anarchy with a reasonable probability of correctness, I am simply refuting liberty student's assertion that it is an absolute certainty (or even close to absolute).
If you are trying to claim that anarchy can be mathematically/logically proven, that can only be true if you can predict human action with a high degree of certainty. We can predict gravitational force with a very high degree of certainty therefore we can logically prove other theories based on that. Any theories based on gravity though have at least as high of an uncertainty as gravity does. However, we can not predict human action with a high degree of success therefore claiming a logical proof that relies on human action only has as much certainty as predicting human action does, which I do not believe to be very high.
A direct argument against liberty student is that anarchists can only KNOW they can be living better if they can equally KNOW how humans will behave in any given situation. So if liberty student is claiming to KNOW how humans will behave in a given situation and you agree with him, then you can logically prove the success of anarchy. Are any of you interested in claming to KNOW how humans will behave in a given situation?
TL;DR: A proof is can not be more reasonable than the axioms it is based on.
Micah71381:Because human action is unpredictable we can not say for certain what exactly would happen in anarchy.
You missed his point. Empirical studies are not necessary to prove on paper that a stateless society is more productive. We don't need to perform an empirical study to prove that when 3 is subtracted from 5 all your left with is 2.
The logical understanding of how wealth is created as explained by Austrian's doesn't need empirical merit or study. This is why LS is asking you if you understand Austrian Economics.
This may somewhat contridict what I said before but allow me to amend the statement. There is a time and a place for aprioristic reasoning, and a time and a place for empirical study. The degree to which each one is used depends on the situation. In some cases empiricsm isn't needed at all.
The action axiom consequently shows us that mutual exchange creates wealth. We don't need a scientific study to prove it.
Micah71381:If you are trying to claim that anarchy can be mathematically/logically proven,
It cannot be proven any other way. If we isolated our study of economics to empirical studies alone then we would have to conclude that:
Nationalism works, Socialism works, Capitalism works, and even in some cases mixed, ect....
The conclusions would contridict each other given the time and situation. Most studies of this nature are meaningless.
Micah:A proof is can not be more reasonable than the axioms it is based on.
How do you scientifically test the existence of human action?
EvilSocialistFellow:(d) in a kind of similar way to the panphysicalists you are trying to explain the root cause (the environmental influences, if you will) on human behaviour in a social darwinist fashion. I'm saying that this might be true but it is irrelevant to the concept of praxeology (the science of human action) which is the root of Austrian Economic thought. What follows on (what can be deduced) from human action is the concepts of scarce factors of production, scarce means to achieve ends, the actors ranking of values, diminishing law of marginal utility theory, etc., etc. - this is the deductive logic of the Austrian school of economics. Thus, the concept of human action explains why we even have an economy.
I followed you in a, b and c, it seems that d is where you are losing me.
I think I am uncertain how this pertains to the original discussion, or have we veered away from that (which is fine by me, I just want to be on the same page as you)?
My argument for a Darwinistic society is just that my personal goals are directly linked to the technological advancement of the species, therefore in order to achieve my goals I am willing to sacrifice other humans along the way. It seems to me that your goals are not directly linked to the technological advancement of the species but rather linked to a reduction in suffering of the current set of humans in existence. These goals are contrary to each other so I don't see how I can convince you that anarchy is better or you convince me that statism is better. We are better off trying to convince each other to change our goals.
filc:You missed his point. Empirical studies are not necessary to prove on paper that a stateless society is more productive. We don't need to perform an empirical study to prove that when 3 is subtracted from 5 all your left with is 2.
filc:The logical understanding of how wealth is created as explained by Austrian's doesn't need empirical merit or study.
filc:This is why LS is asking you if you understand Austrian Economics.
filc:This may somewhat contridict what I said before but allow me to amend the statement. There is a time and a place for aprioristic reasoning, and a time and a place for empirical study. The degree to which each one is used depends on the situation. In some cases empiricsm isn't needed at all.
filc:The action axiom consequently shows us that mutual exchange creates wealth. We don't need a scientific study to prove it.
filc: Micah:A proof can not be more reasonable than the axioms it is based on.How do you scientifically test the existence of human action?
Micah:A proof can not be more reasonable than the axioms it is based on.
Exactly my point. You are trying to claim that anarchy will succeed without being able to prove the assumptions necessary to logically deduce such a thing. The probability of success of anarchy is equal to or less than the probability of successfully predicting human action.
Please note that I am not arguing against your previous statements that anarchy would result in more wealth if it were successful. What I am arguing is whether or not anarchy can provably be successful (indefinitely). There are other factors besides just which system generates more wealth such as whether people continue to believe that the system will generate more wealth. Let's say, for example, that you convince the entire world that anarchy is better and there is a peaceful conversion to anarchy from statism. This still does not guarantee the success of anarchy because we can not predict exactly how humans will behave in such an environment. Perhaps they will see suffering and their mirror neurons will cause them to decide that while anarchy is good, if there was just one law it would be better....
TL;DR:
You are assuming that you know how humans will behave in anarchy and that assumption is where I see a problem with the argument that anarchy is guaranteed to succeed.
Micah71381:You are trying to claim that anarchy will succeed without being able to prove the assumptions necessary to logically deduce such a thing.
I don't follow. Also I don't know what you mean by "Succeed". What is the definition of "Succeed" in this case?
Anarchy isn't something that's adopted. Anarchy is the natural state of affairs when people are left alone to tend to thier own ends. You can only negate it, you can't put it in place. It's already in place(by default). It is the default state of affairs, you can only augment it and alter away from it.
Micah:You are assuming that you know how humans will behave in anarchy and that assumption is where I see a problem with the argument that anarchy is guaranteed to succeed.
Economics is value free. We don't pass judgements on people's ends. It's not relevant to know how people would behave since that is just a manifestation of thier preferences.
When you try to make an argument that you want people to behave in X manner what your doing in actuality is passing a value judgement. Your making an opinion on how best other people should behave. If anything is unscientific it's that. Anarchy is a state of affairs where people decide for themselves how best they should behave and society is constructed organicailly to best meet the needs of those individuals
So let me remind you again. We are not presuming to know how humans will behave. In fact we know beyond a shadow of a doubt humans would behave differently, since as it currently stands they are being forced against thier will to behave a certain way.
These are fairly critical fundamental Austrian tenants that you seem to be fumbling over. This is why LS is asking how much Austrian Economic understanding you have. (No Offense)
Consider this point, as it's synonymous to what you said above.
You are assuming that you know how humans will behave in when milk is left to be delivered in anarchy(On the market)
We aren't assuming to know how people would behave, we're just stating that milk will be more effeciently delevired in this state of affairs, if that is what consumer so choose.
Micah:What I am arguing is whether or not anarchy can provably be successful (indefinitely).
There is no empirical way of testing whether or not society is "Succesfull" since such a conclusion is detirmined subjectively. Is there an objective way of detirming the succesfull life of man? Some say by measuring his quantity of money, others say by looking at his children. Is there an objective standard? No. As such there is no such thing as a "Succesfull Society".
After reading over everything again it does seem that I jumped from "Anarchists believe that we could be living better" to using the word "success" which is far more vague. So on that front I stand corrected for making a jump to the vague and apologize for the error.
I am guessing you will agree that "living better" is a value judgment? So when liberty student claimed that "Anarchists KNOW they can be living better." he is trying to claim that a future value judgment is somehow predictable in a logical/provable way. A future value judgment of a human is only predictable so far as human action is predictable. Since human action is largely unpredictable (according to Austrian economics), so is a future value judgment of a human.
If my attempt at stating the above failed previously (as it seems to have done) then I apologize for that as well.
Micah71381:So when liberty student claimed that "Anarchists KNOW they can be living better." he is trying to claim that a future value judgment is somehow predictable in a logical/provable way.
I see what you mean. I guess LS will have to clarify. I interpret things in this way. The creation of goods and services have thier highest potential to satisfy consumers when they are capable of being delivered in an unhampered way. To the degree of state involvement in any economic good, security, defense, food, healthcare, is the same degree at which there is a deterrent for the best possible market solutions to emerge.
I'm trying to figure out how to say this in a less complicated way. As far as increasing productivy and quality the conditions are best absent institutionalized violence. And conditions are degrated to the extent that institution of violence intervene's in the market process. In this way we can predict that absent institutionalized violence goods and services have thier highest potential to satisfy the individual consumer.
Does that make more sense?
Here is another example. Given a community where 30% of it's members are practicing thieves we can assume that this community would be wealthier absent those thieves.
Given that, I could make the argument that I know I would be better off if all of the thieves were shipped out of town. It's not that I am making a value judgement but that I am stating facts based on the state of affairs.
Micah71381:I need to learn some self control and just ignore your posts.
There is a third option. You could know what you're talking about.
Micah71381: filc:This is why LS is asking you if you understand Austrian Economics.I disagree. I think that liberty student is yet again trying to bait me off topic with a red herring. :P
When I ask if anyone understands AE, I am implying that the methods being used (and the arguments for those methods) are not compatible with AE.
It is NOT my fault that you will not acknowledge the use of deduction in the social sciences or that what you call logical fallacies frequently ARE NOT logical fallacies.
What is so hard to understand about the statement that "anarchists would know they would be living better without the state"?
That's why they are anarchists. Do you know what the state is? Institutionalized theft and violence. Nothing more. Any peace, property and prosperity loving person is better off without the state. That's evident, because institutionalized theft and violence are not compatible with peace, property and prosperity.
Honestly, I try somewhat to be tolerant, even when people insist upon avoiding reasoned arguments, jumping into discussions without doing research, and accusing me of things they cannot substantiate or are outright lies. But there comes to be a point where I get a little pissed off.
filc:Here is another example. Given a community where 30% of it's members are practicing thieves we can assume that this community would be wealthier absent those thieves.
Again, this assumption relies on prediction of human action. You are assuming that if you take away the thieves the remaining population will perform in a way that will result in an increase of community wealth. Perhaps those thieves played a crucial role (psychologically) in causing wealth increasing behavior in the other 70% of the population. Since we cannot predict human action we cannot safely assume that removal of the thieves will result in a certain set of human actions by the other 70% of the population.
I personally believe very strongly that the removal of those thieves will result in a wealthier community. However, I do not feel that I can make a claim to logical proof of the matter beyond my ability to predict human action.
I just want to make sure we are clear that I am not arguing against the advantages to market economics vs planned economics or anarchy vs statism or free will vs coercion. I am simply arguing against the logic of predicting actions by humans or predicting the state of a system that involves human action.
Liberty Student:Do you know what the state is? Institutionalized theft and violence. Nothing more. Any peace, property and prosperity loving person is better off without the state. That's evident, because institutionalized theft and violence are not compatible with peace, property and prosperity.
Humans act. Human parasites are human. They act, too.
By definition, human parasites are those humans which hamper voluntary exchanges between humans for their own benefit. The "state" can only be eliminated to the extent that human parasites can be eliminated from the human population. AE does prove that humanity without human parasites, i.e. humanity in which voluntary exchanges are unhampered, is one which creates most peace, wealth, and prosperity, but AE can not prove the non-existence of human parasites. Empirically and historically, they've always been among us.
So the question is not whether one prefers a world with human parasites to a world without them. The question is rather how does the non-parasitic (productive) portion of humanity best deal with its parasitic counterpart. I don't know the answer to that question. Perhaps, the humanity is still experimenting toward finding this answer in the laboratory of history.
Z.
Micah:Again, this assumption relies on prediction of human action. You are assuming that if you take away the thieves the remaining population will perform in a way that will result in an increase of community wealth.
Incorrect.
A) We are assuming ceteris paribus. In other words the remaining 70% continue to act in the exact same way as they have been.
B) I said the potential for is greatest(several times). I did not guarantee. If society wants to build itself off of thievery no amount of statism will stop it. If society would prefer to murder and pillage, Statism will not stop it. So it's not an argument against anarchy. We are not making judgements here. However in this case, the greatest amount of ends are stil met in anarchy not in statism. So we can still make a quantitative judgement. We aren't passing a value judgement, we are merely stating the facts.
C) If society wants to be less productive or more productive, it's meaningless. The point is that the highest degree of ends are capable of being met in anarchy. We do not even need to pretend to know how humans will behave to know this as a truism.
z1235:The question is rather how does the non-parasitic (productive) portion of humanity best deal with its parasitic counterpart. I don't know the answer to that question. Perhaps, the humanity is still experimenting toward finding this answer in the laboratory of history.
This is the very reasoning and purpose for the entrepreneur.
Micah71381:I followed you in a, b and c, it seems that d is where you are losing me.
As long as you understand why the impact of science on human action as little relevance to the study of human action itself, we are good :)
To be honest, I hadn't really thought about it like this but it could be kind of true. I suppose I'd prefer it if there were 100 people in the world with 'decent' living standards (1st option) than if there were 99 people in the world who became supermen but just 1 person who became incredibly ill and weak and suffered terribly, especially if these 99 supermen completely refused to help this 1 person (2nd option). I think this is where my old socialist ways come creeping back in...
But there is a third option (and this is where things start to get complicated and the lines get blurred) and that is that 1 person only suffers moderately but the other 99 people all become very well adapt (but not supermen). The third option is my preferred one but then there is the risk that these 99 people become supermen themselves and no longer see a reason to help that one person (who in turn suffers terribly) - (3rd option - somewhere 'inbetween' 1st and 2nd option).
Swap 99 people for 90% of the population and swap the 1 person for 10% of the population and you can see why this kind of reasoning becomes a problem in terms of real life (and the lines subsequently become blurred). This is a massive moral dilemna that is not easy and evidently, we have to decide which outcome is preferable. For me, enhancing overall living standards should not merely be a game of survival of the fittest; there should also be a moral stance..
My own thoughts are that a minarchist government would be able to provide the third option but that an anarchy would result in the second option (super human progress but some people are not just in relatively poverty - they are in absolute poverty). The first option is utopia that can never happen and reduces everyone to the lowest common denominator. The first option inevitably means socialism in which everyone becomes poor (absolute poverty). The third option arguably means far greater human progress but some people get left behind (absolute poverty).
Relative poverty is fine; absolute poverty is not.
The same logic can and must be applied to child abuse.
Z, thank you for your post, but I suspect it is one massive non sequitur to my argument.
filc:...
I am suggesting that because we can not predict human action it is possible but improbable that statism actually is preferable to anarchy due to factors we can't account for. I think the chances of that are unlikely in the modern era but low probability does not equate certainty, which is all I was trying to point out to liberty student originally.
It sounds to me like you are suggesting that it is logically impossible for statism to be competitively advantageous? Given two otherwise equivalent societies, the one that chooses anarchy is guaranteed to have a competitive advantage over the one that has chosen statism when it comes to a competition for resources? All variables that I can account for point to that conclusion but I also acknowledge that there are variables I am unable to account for (e.g.: human action).
It's like saying: 10 * a > 2 * a
Without knowing enough about a (such as whether or not it's positive) that statement is not always true.
EvilSocialistFellow:To be honest, I hadn't really thought about it like this but it could be kind of true. I suppose I'd prefer it if there were 100 people in the world with 'decent' living standards (1st option) than if there were 99 people in the world who became supermen but just 1 person who became incredibly ill and weak and suffered terribly, especially if these 99 supermen completely refused to help this 1 person (2nd option). I think this is where my old socialist ways come creeping back in... But there is a third option (and this is where things start to get complicated and the lines get blurred) and that is that 1 person only suffers moderately but the other 99 people all become very well adapt (but not supermen). The third option is my preferred one but then there is the risk that these 99 people become supermen themselves and no longer see a reason to help that one person (who in turn suffers terribly) - (3rd option - somewhere 'inbetween' 1st and 2nd option).
It seems like we have reached a common understanding (always a nice point in a debate). :) Unfortunately, both of us can't have the world the way we want it which means we'll have to fight over it. :P Unless you are willing to allow me to run some part of the world my way (which includes some absolute poverty) and you run your world your way someone is going to lose.
Before anyone tries to argue "the poverty from my society can go to his society", this doesn't work in the case of child abuse. In my society there may be some child abuse and while it is unfortunate, it would be an act of war to try and take memers of my society away from me without the consent of that member (which includes 3 year old children).
EvilSocialistFellow:Swap 99 people for 90% of the population and swap the 1 person for 10% of the population and you can see why this kind of reasoning becomes a problem in terms of real life (and the lines subsequently become blurred). This is a massive moral dilemna that is not easy and evidently, we have to decide which outcome is preferable. For me, enhancing overall living standards should not merely be a game of survival of the fittest; there should also be a moral stance..
The problem I have with your third option is that it does not best prepare humanity for future problems. Right now humanity is mostly fighting known opponents and problems and they are all reasonably solvable for us. However, what happens at some point in the future when we have to compete against a yet unforseen opponent? Simple sci-fi examples are aliens or robots. Perhaps more 'realistic' examples are asteroids colliding with the planet or a nearby star going supernova and ejecting some large chunk of matter at us.
If we do your 3rd option humanity as a whole will not be as advanced as in option 2. When the time comes that we have to deal with an as of yet unknown opponent in our quest for survival our chances of surviving will be higher with option 2 than with option 3. So in option 3 the chances of all of humanity being wiped out are higher than in option 2, which is why I have such a big problem with option 3 (and 1). I want humanity to have the highest chance of survival (as a species), regardless of the cost.
Micah71381:The problem I have with your third option is that it does not best prepare humanity for future problems. Right now humanity is mostly fighting known opponents and problems and they are all reasonably solvable for us. However, what happens at some point in the future when we have to compete against a yet unforseen opponent? Simple sci-fi examples are aliens or robots. Perhaps more 'realistic' examples are asteroids colliding with the planet or a nearby star going supernova and ejecting some large chunk of matter at us. If we do your 3rd option humanity as a whole will not be as advanced as in option 2. When the time comes that we have to deal with an as of yet unknown opponent in our quest for survival our chances of surviving will be higher with option 2 than with option 3. So in option 3 the chances of all of humanity being wiped out are higher than in option 2, which is why I have such a big problem with option 3 (and 1). I want humanity to have the highest chance of survival (as a species), regardless of the cost.
Wow, this thread has derailed (partly my fault, sorry guys). I'm going to wrap it up here for this particular reason.
filc:This is the very reasoning and purpose for the entrepreneur.
Who is (has been) stopping the entrepreneur? (This is both a rhetorical and an actual question.)
Liberty Student:Z, thank you for your post, but I suspect it is one massive non sequitur to my argument.
Sorry you think this is the case. I was hoping to create a more beneficial exchange.
Micah71381:I am suggesting that because we can not predict human action
We're not predicting human action. We're predicting the consequences of human action. What do you think economics is?
Micah71381:it is possible but improbable that statism actually is preferable to anarchy due to factors we can't account for.
Prove it. And don't say you don't know, because if you don't know, stop saying it is possible.
Micah71381:I think the chances of that are unlikely in the modern era but low probability does not equate certainty
What does this even mean? It's not a matter of random chance. Actions have consequences. To deny this is to deny rational, purposeful human action.
Micah71381:It sounds to me like you are suggesting that it is logically impossible for statism to be competitively advantageous?
Absolutely.
Micah71381:Given two otherwise equivalent societies, the one that chooses anarchy is guaranteed to have a competitive advantage over the one that has chosen statism when it comes to a competition for resources?
Absolutely. Although the competition for resources isn't how an anarchist measures the health of a society.
Micah71381:Without knowing enough about a (such as whether or not it's positive) that statement is not always true.
Try using deduction. Define your terms. Remove contradictions.