For one thing, I have a lot more appreciation of businesses. I remember reading Rich Dad, Poor Dad a few years back and getting worried thinking, "The more people that become entrepreneurs the less room there will be for me. Why does he keep writing these darn books?" Robert Kiyosaki never mentioned that successful free enterprises generally create wealth for all of society.
I used to balk at and get frustrated in dealing with companies, like my real estate agent, but now I appreciate the way they do things a lot more. When I see inefficiency or high prices I automatically think of how some government intervention might have caused it. I can also easily see economic factors at play in my work life and workplace "politics." Generally I have a much much better understanding of how the world works.
Why anarchy fails
When I'm dealing with people, my first thought is always "What does this person want?"
Because I know that if I know this, it will be possible for me to convince them to see what I want them to see simply by showing them that what they want is a part of what I'm telling them to see. Or show them that if they do what I want them to do they'll be rewarded with the thing they want. I never thought like this before I studied individualist economics.
It's only through the study of individualist economics like AE that I've been able to understand that all people are driven by their own particular selfish desires instead of seeing them as some aggregate that basically all want the exact same things.
Yes! I realise that in a Libertarian society, where people have full property rights - those who act the way Jacob Bloom says he acts would more than likely be ostracised & pushed to the fringes of society, scapegoated and boycotted; in addition to having to face Natural justice, thanks to PDA's and private courts.
Conza88: Yes! I realise that in a Libertarian society, where people have full property rights - those who act the way Jacob Bloom says he acts would more than likely be ostracised & pushed to the fringes of society, scapegoated and boycotted; in addition to having to face Natural justice, thanks to PDA's and private courts.
You are too nice Conza....
I think people like Jacob will more often never make it to court, they will roll up ready to murder, rape and steal...
Not thinking that without monopoly force there is a definitive chance the person he is about to violate is better prepared to deal with him...
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
I think you guys are really confused about who I am and what it is I do and what it is I believe is necessary and proper. This must be my fault. My objections to your anarchist system aren't just about me. They're about the weakness I see in humanity as a whole.
Part of the study of AE has led me to realize that in libertarian idealism there is a painfully obvious ignorance or just...avoidance of the human nature discussion. Because it's assumed that all human behavior is entirely rational, the discussion ends there. You imagine a society where everything works perfectly like it does in your books. This is unrealistic. I'm simply criticizing your unrealistic ideas.
So, while you've taken AE hook line and sinker I remain skeptical because I know better. I know that...for simply dissenting I've incurred hatred from you guys. If you had your druthers, you'd probably all beat me up or something. It's exactly that kind of desire for unity no matter what that made Nazism so prevalent and was such a big part of Nazism.
You have to see the parallels.
My one big criticism about AE so far is that it's too idealistic. I want realism. I want someone to imagine an anarchist region that gets absolutely run over by people who aren't afraid of ostracism and private courts. So far, I haven't seen that.
Harry Felker: Conza88: Yes! I realise that in a Libertarian society, where people have full property rights - those who act the way Jacob Bloom says he acts would more than likely be ostracised & pushed to the fringes of society, scapegoated and boycotted; in addition to having to face Natural justice, thanks to PDA's and private courts. You are too nice Conza.... I think people like Jacob will more often never make it to court, they will roll up ready to murder, rape and steal... Not thinking that without monopoly force there is a definitive chance the person he is about to violate is better prepared to deal with him...
Your fear of me in particular is unbelievable. I know this is your prison think talking, and it's obvious where you're coming from. But you have to realize that...whoever shows up ready to murder rape and steal will be prepared to deal with the defenses of the region. Or they'll lose. You're also again tragically forgetting that all the states in the world will not dissolve at once. Which means somewhere...there will be a state that can organize massive military offensives.
I want to add that my study of AE has led me to conclude that utopianism and idealism is SO appealing to people that all you really have to do to sell any idea is paint it in the most...hopeful blissful colors and sweep the possible undesirability under the carpet.
It's taught me that leftists aren't the only ones given to imagining the GREAT SOCIETY where everyone lives in harmony and all humans are happy.
It's taught me that on both sides of the spectrum you find an academic tendency to become removed from reality, drifting off into a dreamworld where perfect philosophy makes for perfect world.
It's taught me that all humans are...awash with this endless desire to...live in some kind of community where everyone is just like them.
It's taught me that the potential for manipulation and deception is ripe deep within leftist territory, deep within rightist territory and deep within libertarian territory.
Jacob Bloom:Your fear of me in particular is unbelievable.
Wow.... Put the crack down Jakob...
Like I have said before there is no quarter for you in my presence...
Jacob Bloom:I know this is your prison think talking, and it's obvious where you're coming from. But you have to realize that...whoever shows up ready to murder rape and steal will be prepared to deal with the defenses of the region.
Well according your thoughts, and I will use yours...
Anarchist societies are defenseless, so I am sure that they will not be prepared for much, and that is fine with me, do not be prepared, it is easier to hit center mass than a head....
Coincidentally Jake....
How is being free prison talk, yet needing a guard to make sure I am not voilating others not? You never answered this question on the other thread....
Jacob Bloom:You're also again tragically forgetting that all the states in the world will not dissolve at once. Which means somewhere...there will be a state that can organize massive military offensives.
That is fine, you are also forgetting the reason the british were driven from the US after 1812 was not the massive military the US aquired, but rather the local farmers and their hunting rifles....
The same reason we have not been invaded in the 3 less than 200 years since by a military force... It is not our military, but our armed citizens...
Nanny state is coming to rock you to sleep little boy, you will be free to dream of victimizing people without government, despite the reality....
Harry Felker:That is fine, you are also forgetting the reason the british were driven from the US after 1812 was not the massive military the US aquired, but rather the local farmers and their hunting rifles....
Absolutely false. The only reason the British did not go further with the War of 1812, and left when they did was because they needed their army to fight Napoleon in Europe. May I also add the only victory that the United States had during the entire war was Jackson's defense of New Orleans with an army unit that marched there from Kenucky.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
Jacob Bloom:I want to add that my study of AE has led me to conclude that utopianism and idealism is SO appealing to people that all you really have to do to sell any idea is paint it in the most...hopeful blissful colors and sweep the possible undesirability under the carpet.
You have let me know that manipulative little s___s will justify forcing other people though government, despite the fact that you claim it is fascism...
government = statism, since fascism like communism is statism, and you support government, it just lends to question, are you a nationalist or a collectivist...
Jacob Bloom:It's taught me that leftists aren't the only ones given to imagining the GREAT SOCIETY where everyone lives in harmony and all humans are happy.
Yes there is you, who happly greets his overseer's lash....
Jacob Bloom:It's taught me that on both sides of the spectrum you find an academic tendency to become removed from reality, drifting off into a dreamworld where perfect philosophy makes for perfect world.
In respect to this I find there are a group of sub par intellectuals that take the logical results and paint them as utopic....
Jacob Bloom:It's taught me that all humans are...awash with this endless desire to...live in some kind of community where everyone is just like them.
I do not want anyone to be just like me, I just want them to stop robbing from me....
We will ignore that no one can be just like me...
Jacob Bloom:It's taught me that the potential for manipulation and deception is ripe deep within leftist territory, deep within rightist territory and deep within libertarian territory.
This has taught me that you are looking ot decieve anyone and everyone you can to realize your perfect state, the one that robs from everyone to pay for the frills you want....
It has taught me that you are a small minded megalomaniac, that can justify murder by the thought, if I do not get caught, or if no one notices it, it does not constitute crime....
Harry Felker: Jacob Bloom:Your fear of me in particular is unbelievable. Wow.... Put the crack down Jakob... Like I have said before there is no quarter for you in my presence... Jacob Bloom:I know this is your prison think talking, and it's obvious where you're coming from. But you have to realize that...whoever shows up ready to murder rape and steal will be prepared to deal with the defenses of the region. Well according your thoughts, and I will use yours... Anarchist societies are defenseless, so I am sure that they will not be prepared for much, and that is fine with me, do not be prepared, it is easier to hit center mass than a head.... Coincidentally Jake.... How is being free prison talk, yet needing a guard to make sure I am not voilating others not? You never answered this question on the other thread.... Jacob Bloom:You're also again tragically forgetting that all the states in the world will not dissolve at once. Which means somewhere...there will be a state that can organize massive military offensives. That is fine, you are also forgetting the reason the british were driven from the US after 1812 was not the massive military the US aquired, but rather the local farmers and their hunting rifles.... The same reason we have not been invaded in the 3 less than 200 years since by a military force... It is not our military, but our armed citizens... Nanny state is coming to rock you to sleep little boy, you will be free to dream of victimizing people without government, despite the reality....
Felker, you're making this about you and I in particular. This isn't about you and I, it's about everyone who would be effected by your ideas, myself included.
I'm not arguing that anarchist societies are defenseless, just poorly defended. You look back to a war that happened...two hundred years ago to figure out how a sort of similar war will happen today! I mean...that's just stupid.
It's ironic that while the anarchist view of human individuality is to see each individual as different and important, they don't place much emphasis on seeing every point in time as individual and different and important. So basically, you can apply something that worked however long ago to today even if the variables have totally changed. That, again, is foolish.
So let's say you train every one of your guys with rifles or whatever. Ok, I just run you over with tanks. Let's say you've got tanks, I bring in planes and bombs. The military strategy has to change as the opposition changes. If the British in 1812 had had ICBMs, maybe they would've used those. But it's because of the...primitive tools of warfare that were at their disposal that they had so much trouble rounding up a bunch of people.
So let's say you've got your anarchist society. I know you've all got guns or whatever. But what else do you have? Do you have tanks? Jets? Are you going to make it legal for every man to own his own private tank and jet and rocket launcher or whatever? I mean what happens when only a few people can afford them? They'll just take everyone else over.
I mean you seem to think I, personally, am going to walk into town like a goddamn gunfighter and challenge everyone to a duel or something lol!! Why would I do that?
Your position is unrealistic because it imagines everyone thinks just like you.
laminustacitus:Absolutely false. The only reason the British did not go further with the War of 1812, and left when they did was because they needed their army to fight Napoleon in Europe. May I also add the only victory that the United States had during the entire war was Jackson's defense of New Orleans with an army unit that marched there from Kenucky.
That was comprised 90% of militia men...
They left when they did because the war was a stalemate, which did not stop them from NO, which was after the treaty...
The problem was that despite the fact that we lost tremendous amounts of people, 10 to 1 compared to british forces, we still had defenses, in any other country this would not have been a stalemate, the people in the "Old World" were not accustomed to fighting without conscription...
Harry Felker: Jacob Bloom:I want to add that my study of AE has led me to conclude that utopianism and idealism is SO appealing to people that all you really have to do to sell any idea is paint it in the most...hopeful blissful colors and sweep the possible undesirability under the carpet. You have let me know that manipulative little s___s will justify forcing other people though government, despite the fact that you claim it is fascism... government = statism, since fascism like communism is statism, and you support government, it just lends to question, are you a nationalist or a collectivist... Jacob Bloom:It's taught me that leftists aren't the only ones given to imagining the GREAT SOCIETY where everyone lives in harmony and all humans are happy. Yes there is you, who happly greets his overseer's lash.... Jacob Bloom:It's taught me that on both sides of the spectrum you find an academic tendency to become removed from reality, drifting off into a dreamworld where perfect philosophy makes for perfect world. In respect to this I find there are a group of sub par intellectuals that take the logical results and paint them as utopic.... Jacob Bloom:It's taught me that all humans are...awash with this endless desire to...live in some kind of community where everyone is just like them. I do not want anyone to be just like me, I just want them to stop robbing from me.... We will ignore that no one can be just like me... Jacob Bloom:It's taught me that the potential for manipulation and deception is ripe deep within leftist territory, deep within rightist territory and deep within libertarian territory. This has taught me that you are looking ot decieve anyone and everyone you can to realize your perfect state, the one that robs from everyone to pay for the frills you want.... It has taught me that you are a small minded megalomaniac, that can justify murder by the thought, if I do not get caught, or if no one notices it, it does not constitute crime....
Your lack of comprehension is astounding. You either don't read what I'm writing, or are so angry that I don't want to be an anarchist that you don't care. You lack empathy. You haven't once tried to see things from my point of view, you only throw the local buzz words around like "nationalist" "collectivist" and "communist" before you even think about whether or not they apply to me.
I have tried to explain that I see individualism as being the main concern of government, but that a collective does, in fact, exist. It's just not as important to me as the individual. That being said, I cannot reasonably claim that no collective exists at all, because it obviously does. The government must exist to make sure the line between individualism and collectivism doesn't change.
I am not a megalomaniac. But I do realize that if you don't get caught for something, it hardly matters whether you've done it or not. I mean...I don't care if philosophically that makes you uncomfortable, it's just how it works. I mean...why did you go to prison?
My main concern about AE, in keeping with the line of the thread, is that it doesn't talk enough about power. And influence. Not power and influence the state wields, but power and influence individuals can wield over one another.
Or even the philosophy of power. How it works, how it tends to be collected, how human nature effects the way humans deal with power. I mean...it talks a lot about the state and the collective power. But it doesn't talk about the individual with power. Or the power of the individual who understands how to manipulate other individuals. I find this to be a serious concern because Machiavelli dealt so well with it, and maybe Hayek and Mises do too, but from what I've read, it's mostly an overlooked subject.
Jacob Bloom: I'm not arguing that anarchist societies are defenseless, just poorly defended. You look back to a war that happened...two hundred years ago to figure out how a sort of similar war will happen today! I mean...that's just stupid. It's ironic that while the anarchist view of human individuality is to see each individual as different and important, they don't place much emphasis on seeing every point in time as individual and different and important. So basically, you can apply something that worked however long ago to today even if the variables have totally changed. That, again, is foolish. So let's say you train every one of your guys with rifles or whatever. Ok, I just run you over with tanks. Let's say you've got tanks, I bring in planes and bombs. The military strategy has to change as the opposition changes. If the British in 1812 had had ICBMs, maybe they would've used those. But it's because of the...primitive tools of warfare that were at their disposal that they had so much trouble rounding up a bunch of people. So let's say you've got your anarchist society. I know you've all got guns or whatever. But what else do you have? Do you have tanks? Jets? Are you going to make it legal for every man to own his own private tank and jet and rocket launcher or whatever? I mean what happens when only a few people can afford them? They'll just take everyone else over.
Yay.. he pulls out the idiot argument.....
Jacob Bloom:I mean you seem to think I, personally, am going to walk into town like a goddamn gunfighter and challenge everyone to a duel or something lol!! Why would I do that?
No, I am saying this was the impression you gave people, without law you are a savage animal looking to murder rape and steal from all who cross your path....
You would do it because you lack any self control, and you will find that you do not make it past two days in a society without a government to protect your ass...
Jacob Bloom:Your position is unrealistic because it imagines everyone thinks just like you.
No it does not, it assumes that everyone will understand that trespassers will be shot is not a suggestion...
Statism imagines that everyone is whipped up in nationalist or collectivist fervor and thinking alike, for the nation, or for the people...
Statism is sold only two ways manipulation or coersion, never through voluntary action...
Harry Felker:That was comprised 90% of militia men...
It was nevertheless a state militia, not a spontaneous grouping of farmers who suddenly decided to group up, and fight the British.
Harry Felker:They left when they did because the war was a stalemate
It was anything but a stalemante: the British razed Washington D.C, and the American offensive into Canada failed. The British though had more pressing matters to attend to, and could not launch another offensive against the Americans.
Harry Felker:the people in the "Old World" were not accustomed to fighting without conscription...
Conscription is a relatively new idea. Most OId World armies were professional forces.
Arggh, derailed. Oh well...
Jacob Bloom:Part of the study of AE has led me to realize that in libertarian idealism there is a painfully obvious ignorance or just...avoidance of the human nature discussion. Because it's assumed that all human behavior is entirely rational, the discussion ends there. You imagine a society where everything works perfectly like it does in your books. This is unrealistic. I'm simply criticizing your unrealistic ideas. My one big criticism about AE so far is that it's too idealistic. I want realism.
My one big criticism about AE so far is that it's too idealistic. I want realism.
Where on earth did you get these ideas - the bolded text? Human nature is front and center in anarchist thought! You do not know what you're arguing against because you have not read what we suggested, and you're wasting your time posting until you do. I don't think people should be attacking you, but I do think you need to stop jumping to conclusions based on half-assed discussions with people here. You've ended up thoroughly convinced that we believe X, but we don't believe X at all. For example, we do not believe human behavior is always rational. That is nowhere in AE or in anarchy, as far as I know. I mean, it's an obvious falsehood - we're not at that level here. We're not going to make a simple error like that. You need to read.
"I want someone to imagine an anarchist region that gets absolutely run over by people who aren't afraid of ostracism and private courts. So far, I haven't seen that."
I feel like I wasted my time explaining to you exactly how private courts and police would instill far more fear in the hearts of any would-be criminals, just like any free market company is worlds more effective than government programs. Where is your response? You seem to believe government will more effective, when this is the case in, let's see, NO other industries.
Harry Felker: Jacob Bloom: I'm not arguing that anarchist societies are defenseless, just poorly defended. You look back to a war that happened...two hundred years ago to figure out how a sort of similar war will happen today! I mean...that's just stupid. It's ironic that while the anarchist view of human individuality is to see each individual as different and important, they don't place much emphasis on seeing every point in time as individual and different and important. So basically, you can apply something that worked however long ago to today even if the variables have totally changed. That, again, is foolish. So let's say you train every one of your guys with rifles or whatever. Ok, I just run you over with tanks. Let's say you've got tanks, I bring in planes and bombs. The military strategy has to change as the opposition changes. If the British in 1812 had had ICBMs, maybe they would've used those. But it's because of the...primitive tools of warfare that were at their disposal that they had so much trouble rounding up a bunch of people. So let's say you've got your anarchist society. I know you've all got guns or whatever. But what else do you have? Do you have tanks? Jets? Are you going to make it legal for every man to own his own private tank and jet and rocket launcher or whatever? I mean what happens when only a few people can afford them? They'll just take everyone else over. Yay.. he pulls out the idiot argument..... Jacob Bloom:I mean you seem to think I, personally, am going to walk into town like a goddamn gunfighter and challenge everyone to a duel or something lol!! Why would I do that? No, I am saying this was the impression you gave people, without law you are a savage animal looking to murder rape and steal from all who cross your path.... You would do it because you lack any self control, and you will find that you do not make it past two days in a society without a government to protect your ass... Jacob Bloom:Your position is unrealistic because it imagines everyone thinks just like you. No it does not, it assumes that everyone will understand that trespassers will be shot is not a suggestion... Statism imagines that everyone is whipped up in nationalist or collectivist fervor and thinking alike, for the nation, or for the people... Statism is sold only two ways manipulation or coersion, never through voluntary action...
1. I mean what happens when your riflemen fail?
2. You're making this about me! I'm just an individual who will take advantage of opportunities when I see them if I think they're worth it. I trained in law and politics in school. Law and politics are all about opportunity. The opportunity to get your way. That's how people think; they want to get what they want. You want to get what you want, you just lack the resources to get it.
Now you're trying to coerce me with guilt instead of a gun. It won't work, I don't feel sympathy for you. If you don't like it here, you can leave. But no, you want to stay here and make everyone feel guilty and immoral. It won't work, Felker. Take responsibility for your life, man. Stop whining about people stealing your property, they steal mine too! Whining doesn't get it done.
3. I would never live in a society where I feared for my life constantly. The one you've described is a society of fear. Fear of everyone else. I don't want that.
Jacob Bloom: My main concern about AE, in keeping with the line of the thread, is that it doesn't talk enough about power. And influence. Not power and influence the state wields, but power and influence individuals can wield over one another. Or even the philosophy of power. How it works, how it tends to be collected, how human nature effects the way humans deal with power. I mean...it talks a lot about the state and the collective power. But it doesn't talk about the individual with power. Or the power of the individual who understands how to manipulate other individuals. I find this to be a serious concern because Machiavelli dealt so well with it, and maybe Hayek and Mises do too, but from what I've read, it's mostly an overlooked subject.
So ignorant. What books have you read and actually understood, that are sold by LvMI? Please list them all.
Society is a product of human action. Human action is directed by ideologies. Thus society and any concrete order of social affairs are an outcome of ideologies; ideologies are not, as Marxism asserts, a product of a certain state of social affairs. To be sure, human thoughts and ideas are not the achievement of isolated individuals. [p. 188] Thinking too succeeds only through the cooperation of the thinkers. No individual would make headway in his reasoning if he were under the necessity of starting from the beginning. A man can advance in thinking only because his efforts are aided by those of older generations who have formed the tools of thinking, the concepts and terminologies, and have raised the problems.
Any given social order was thought out and designed before it could be realized. This temporal and logical precedence of the ideological factor does not imply the proposition that people draft a complete plan of a social system as the utopians do. What is and must be thought out in advance is not the concerting of individual actions into an integrated system of social organization, but the actions of individuals with regard to their fellow men and of already formed groups of individuals with regard to other groups. Before a man aids his fellow in cutting a tree, such cooperation must be thought out. Before an act of barter takes place, the idea of mutual exchange of goods and services must be conceived. It is not necessary that the individuals concerned become aware of the fact that such mutuality results in the establishment of social bonds and in the emergence of a social system. The individual does not plan and execute actions intended to construct society. His conduct and the corresponding conduct of others generate social bodies.
Any existing state of social affairs is the product of ideologies previously thought out. Within society new ideologies may emerge and may supersede older ideologies and thus transform the social system. However, society is always the creation of ideologies temporally and logically anterior. Action is always directed by ideas; it realizes what previous thinking has designed.
If we hypostatize or anthropomorphize the notion of ideology, we may say that ideologies have might over men. Might is the faculty or power of directing actions. As a rule one says only of a man or of groups of men that they are mighty. Then the definition of might is: might is the power to direct other people's actions. He who is mighty, owes his might to an ideology. Only ideologies can convey to a man the power to influence other people's choices and conduct. One can become a leader only if one is supported by an ideology which makes other people tractable and accommodating. Might is thus not a physical and tangible thing, but a moral and spiritual phenomenon. 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.
A durable system of government must rest upon an ideology acknowledged by the majority. The "real" factor, the "real forces" that are the foundation of government and convey to the rulers the power to use violence against renitent minority groups are essentially ideological, moral, and spiritual. Rulers who failed to recognize this first principle of government and, relying upon the alleged irresistibility of their armed troops, disdained the spirit and ideas have finally been overthrown by the assault of their adversaries. The interpretation of might as a "real" factor not dependent upon ideologies, quite common to many political and historical books, is erroneous. The term Realpolitik makes sense only if used to signify a policy taking account of generally accepted ideologies as contrasted with a policy based upon ideologies not sufficiently acknowledged and therefore unfit to support a durable system of government.
He who interprets might as physical or "real" power to carry on and considers violent action as the very foundation of government, sees conditions from the narrow point of view of subordinate officers in charge of sections of an army or police force. To these subordinates a definite task within the framework of the ruling ideology is assigned. Their chiefs commit to their care troops which are not [p. 190] only equipped, armed, and organized for combat, but no less imbued with the spirit which makes them obey the orders issued. The commanders of such subdivisions consider this moral factor a matter of course because they themselves are animated by the same spirit and cannot even imagine a different ideology. The power of an ideology consists precisely in the fact that people submit to it without any wavering and scruples.
However, things are different for the head of the government. He must aim at preservation of the morale of the armed forces and of the loyalty of the rest of the population. For these moral factors are the only "real" elements upon which continuance of his mastery rests. His power dwindles if the ideology that supports it loses force.
Minorities too can sometimes conquer by means of superior military skill and can thus establish minority rule. But such an order of things cannot endure. If the victorious conquerors do not succeed in subsequently converting the system of rule by violence into a system of rule by ideological consent on the part of those ruled, they will succumb in new struggles. All victorious minorities who have established a lasting system of government have made their sway durable by means of a belated ideological ascendancy. They have legitimized their own supremacy either by submitting to the ideologies of the defeated or by transforming them. Where neither of these two things took place, the oppressed many dispossessed the oppressing few either by open rebellion or through the silent but steadfast operation of ideological forces. [5]
Many of the great historical conquests were able to endure because the invaders entered into alliance with those classes of the defeated nation which were supported by the ruling ideology and were thus considered legitimate rulers. This was the system adopted by the Tartars in Russia, by the Turks in the Danube principalities and by and large in Hungary and Transylvania, and by the British and the Dutch in the Indies. A comparatively insignificant number of Britons could rule many hundred millions of Indians because the Indian princes and aristocratic landowners looked upon British rule as a means for the preservation of their privileges and supplied it with the support which the generally acknowledged ideology of India gave to their own supremacy. England's Indian empire was firm as long as public opinion approved of the traditional social order. The Pax Britannica safeguarded the princes' and the landlords' privileges and protected the masses against the agonies of wars between the principalities and of succession wars within them. In our day the [p. 191] infiltration of subversive ideas from abroad has ended British rule and threatens the preservation of the country's age-old social order.
Victorious minorities sometimes owe their success to their technological superiority. This does not alter the case. In the long run it is impossible to withhold the better arms from the members of the majority. Not the equipment of their armed forces, but ideological factors safeguarded the British in India.[6 ]
A country's public opinion may be ideologically divided in such a way that no group is strong enough to establish a durable government. Then anarchy emerges. Revolutions and civil strife become permanent.
Traditionalism as an Ideology
Traditionalism is an ideology which considers loyalty to valuations, customs, and methods of procedure handed down or allegedly handed down from ancestors both right and expedient. It is not an essential mark of traditionalism that these forefathers were the ancestors in the biological meaning of the term or can be fairly considered such; they were sometimes only the previous inhabitants of the country concerned or supporters of the same religious creed or only precursors in the exercise of some special task. Who is to be considered an ancestor and what is the content of the body of tradition handed down are determined by the concrete teachings of each variety of traditionalism. The ideology brings into prominence some of the ancestors and relegates others to oblivion; it sometimes calls ancestors people who had nothing to do with the alleged posterity. It often constructs a "traditional" doctrine which is of recent origin and is at variance with the ideologies really held by the ancestors.
Traditionalism tries to justify its tenets by citing the success they secured in the past. Whether this assertion conforms with the facts, is another question. Research could sometimes unmask errors in the historical statements of a traditional belief. However, this did not always explode the traditional doctrine. For the core of traditionalism is not real historical facts, but an opinion about them, however mistaken, and a will to believe things to which the authority of ancient origin is attributed.
---------------
[4] A gangster may overpower a weaker or unarmed fellow. However, this has nothing to do with life in society. It is an isolated antisocial occurrence.
[5] Cf. below, pp. 649-650.
">[6 ] We are dealing here with the preservation of European minority rule in non-European countries. About the prospects of an Asiatic aggression on the West cf. below, pp. 669-670.
The "best" you could ever be Jacob Gloom, is a low life gangster scum. An isolated antisocial occurence.
AJ: Arggh, derailed. Oh well... Jacob Bloom:Part of the study of AE has led me to realize that in libertarian idealism there is a painfully obvious ignorance or just...avoidance of the human nature discussion. Because it's assumed that all human behavior is entirely rational, the discussion ends there. You imagine a society where everything works perfectly like it does in your books. This is unrealistic. I'm simply criticizing your unrealistic ideas. My one big criticism about AE so far is that it's too idealistic. I want realism. Where on earth did you get these ideas - the bolded text? Human nature is front and center in anarchist thought! You do not know what you're arguing against because you have not read what we suggested, and you're wasting your time posting until you do. I don't think people should be attacking you, but I do think you need to stop jumping to conclusions based on half-assed discussions with people here. You've ended up thoroughly convinced that we believe X, but we don't believe X at all. For example, we do not believe human behavior is always rational. That is nowhere in AE or in anarchy, as far as I know. I mean, it's an obvious falsehood - we're not at that level here. We're not going to make a simple error like that. You need to read. "I want someone to imagine an anarchist region that gets absolutely run over by people who aren't afraid of ostracism and private courts. So far, I haven't seen that." I feel like I wasted my time explaining to you exactly how private courts and police would instill far more fear in the hearts of any would-be criminals, just like any free market company is worlds more effective than government programs. Where is your response? You seem to believe government will more effective, when this is the case in, let's see, NO other industries.
1. Ok, well then why is it that everyone here seems to believe humans are totally rational? Have you not been reading your own pamphlets thoroughly enough? I don't trust experts to run things, by its very nature, anarchy will not be run by experts but by the people individually. If you don't even understand your own philosophy, why would I sign onto it? I have to look at each one of you as individuals to decide if I want to be like you. And I don't. So why would I want to study your philosophy?
2. Your explanation failed because it's a lousy explanation. It's a lousy lousy lousy explanation of a system of justice and law. It has nothing to do with the way you personally presented it, it just innately sucks. No one could present it to me and make me think it makes sense. It's not possible.
And by the way, I tried to just answer the thread's question, but I got attacked by the people on here. I intend to defend myself.
You don't find anything wrong with what Mises says about force being the providence of gangsters?
Jacob Bloom:1. I mean what happens when your riflemen fail?
The same thing that happens in capitalism when a business fails....
Jacob Bloom: 2. You're making this about me! I'm just an individual who will take advantage of opportunities when I see them if I think they're worth it. I trained in law and politics in school. Law and politics are all about opportunity. The opportunity to get your way. That's how people think; they want to get what they want. You want to get what you want, you just lack the resources to get it. Now you're trying to coerce me with guilt instead of a gun. It won't work, I don't feel sympathy for you. If you don't like it here, you can leave. But no, you want to stay here and make everyone feel guilty and immoral. It won't work, Felker. Take responsibility for your life, man. Stop whining about people stealing your property, they steal mine too! Whining doesn't get it done.
I will start calling you James...
Who is whining? Who is coercing? Coersion requires force, you probably meant manipulation...
I see the Collectivism "That's How People Think"
I see the Nationalism "If you do not like it you can leave"
This must be that new breed of statism, combining to two extremes into a palbable third option, Marquise first told me she noticed it, I suppose she is right...
I do not want anyone to feel guilty or immoral, I want you to pay for your military/police because you are afraid of bogeymen, and leave me out of it...
I have no need or desire to interact with people that need a government to control them....
Jacob Bloom:3. I would never live in a society where I feared for my life constantly. The one you've described is a society of fear. Fear of everyone else. I don't want that.
I am sorry, you maybe have that reading comprehension issue I mentioned in the other thread...
You fear for your life why? Because you know that you are out of control without the guy with a stick to punish you, so you assume all other people are the same. You live in a society of fear, being afraid of others produces an ultimate authority to control others...
Being afraid is not proper to an anarchist societies functions, it is however proper to a government societies functions...
laminustacitus:It was nevertheless a state militia, not a spontaneous grouping of farmers who suddenly decided to group up, and fight the British.
A complete misunderstanding what a militia is....
laminustacitus:It was anything but a stalemante: the British razed Washington D.C, and the American offensive into Canada failed. The British though had more pressing matters to attend to, and could not launch another offensive against the Americans.
Not according to Wellington
laminustacitus:Conscription is a relatively new idea. Most OId World armies were professional forces.
Really now....
Conscription is older than Rome....
Harry Felker: Jacob Bloom:1. I mean what happens when your riflemen fail? The same thing that happens in capitalism when a business fails....
I think the analogy falls apart when you are killed as a result of war.
Harry Felker:Being afraid is not proper to an anarchist societies functions, it is however proper to a government societies functions...
I don't think any of us knows how an anarchist society would function.
Harry Felker: Jacob Bloom:1. I mean what happens when your riflemen fail? The same thing that happens in capitalism when a business fails.... Jacob Bloom: 2. You're making this about me! I'm just an individual who will take advantage of opportunities when I see them if I think they're worth it. I trained in law and politics in school. Law and politics are all about opportunity. The opportunity to get your way. That's how people think; they want to get what they want. You want to get what you want, you just lack the resources to get it. Now you're trying to coerce me with guilt instead of a gun. It won't work, I don't feel sympathy for you. If you don't like it here, you can leave. But no, you want to stay here and make everyone feel guilty and immoral. It won't work, Felker. Take responsibility for your life, man. Stop whining about people stealing your property, they steal mine too! Whining doesn't get it done. I will start calling you James... Who is whining? Who is coercing? Coersion requires force, you probably meant manipulation... I see the Collectivism "That's How People Think" I see the Nationalism "If you do not like it you can leave" This must be that new breed of statism, combining to two extremes into a palbable third option, Marquise first told me she noticed it, I suppose she is right... I do not want anyone to feel guilty or immoral, I want you to pay for your military/police because you are afraid of bogeymen, and leave me out of it... I have no need or desire to interact with people that need a government to control them.... Jacob Bloom:3. I would never live in a society where I feared for my life constantly. The one you've described is a society of fear. Fear of everyone else. I don't want that. I am sorry, you maybe have that reading comprehension issue I mentioned in the other thread... You fear for your life why? Because you know that you are out of control without the guy with a stick to punish you, so you assume all other people are the same. You live in a society of fear, being afraid of others produces an ultimate authority to control others... Being afraid is not proper to an anarchist societies functions, it is however proper to a government societies functions...
1. You are using the force of emotion against me, trying to get me to feel some kind of sympathy for you. Like you're a victim. You're not. You choose to stay here and be a part of the system. Since you can't seem to get your way, no one is going to take you seriously. And you alienate the people who take an interest in you by calling them names. Man, I don't care if you like me. I really don't. I have nothing to gain from you. In fact, I don't even really need you to agree with me. Which makes me realize arguing with you is without purpose. So I'll stop doing it. Fine, you're right. Now get what you want changed. I'm waiting.
2. Instead of trying to fit me into your little convenient boxes, why not try and realize that you have failed to convert me over to your side? Isn't that what matters? You refuse to see things from my perspective, you are the one without empathy. You are the sociopath. Anyways, I refuse to take you seriously until you actually have some power to get what you want in life.
3. Being afraid is proper to being alive. Fear is an awareness of danger. And my spider sense gets to tingling every time someone starts talking about private law on here. I won't endorse it.
laminustacitus: Harry Felker: Jacob Bloom:1. I mean what happens when your riflemen fail? The same thing that happens in capitalism when a business fails.... I think the analogy falls apart when you are killed as a result of war. Harry Felker:Being afraid is not proper to an anarchist societies functions, it is however proper to a government societies functions... I don't think any of us knows how an anarchist society would function.
1. I know right? Because once they're dead...they're dead lol.
2. Finally, someone with some integrity! I could hug you! You're right, we're trying to figure out what an anarchist society would look like without having one to look at. We need a concrete example.
Harry Felker: laminustacitus:It was nevertheless a state militia, not a spontaneous grouping of farmers who suddenly decided to group up, and fight the British. A complete misunderstanding what a militia is....
Like it or not, the batallion that fought the British at New Orleans was created by the Kentucky state government in order to defend Kentucky, surely they were not professional soldiers, but they were apart of a military organization created top-down.
Harry Felker: laminustacitus:It was anything but a stalemante: the British razed Washington D.C, and the American offensive into Canada failed. The British though had more pressing matters to attend to, and could not launch another offensive against the Americans. Not according to Wellington
And of course you could not have bothered to quote Wellington.
Harry Felker: laminustacitus:Conscription is a relatively new idea. Most OId World armies were professional forces. Really now.... Conscription is older than Rome....
And for the most part died with Rome until the spread of nationalism. The only parrallel to conscription at this time was the navy's practice of pressing.
Jacob, what do Austrian economics, libertarianism, or anarcho-capitalism promise that makes them utopian?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Jacob Bloom:1. Ok, well then why is it that everyone here seems to believe humans are totally rational? Have you not been reading your own pamphlets thoroughly enough? I don't trust experts to run things, by its very nature, anarchy will not be run by experts but by the people individually. If you don't even understand your own philosophy, why would I sign onto it? I have to look at each one of you as individuals to decide if I want to be like you. And I don't. So why would I want to study your philosophy?
Cite me where you got this impression, and we can talk. I don't even know where you got this idea from. Some posters on here, well I could believe that they might not have presented themselves so as to avoid misinterpretation, but again, why take forum comments when we have offered polished treatments where such misinterpretations would be avoided?
Jacob Bloom:2. Your explanation failed because it's a lousy explanation. It's a lousy lousy lousy explanation of a system of justice and law. It has nothing to do with the way you personally presented it, it just innately sucks. No one could present it to me and make me think it makes sense. It's not possible.
If that is so, point to the specific errors in my explanation. Better yet, point to errors in the articles we linked. "Lousy" and "sucked" without supporting argumentation are not going to cut it on this forum.
Jacob Bloom:And by the way, I tried to just answer the thread's question, but I got attacked by the people on here. I intend to defend myself.
I didn't mean to imply it was your fault.
One thing that puzzles me, Jacob, is why you seem to mostly only respond to the more militant and abusive comments. If it were me, I would just ignore those. You have (had?) a good sense for parrying abusive comments and responding pretty civilly, but I suggest that the next level is to ignore them altogether. It's not going to make you look weak or anything, not on these forums. I think most people here recognize the right to ignore silliness and lack of civility outright. We're not revleft.com or DailyKos or FreeRepublic, despite a few inevitable flames you may get.
Daniel: Jacob, what do Austrian economics, libertarianism, or anarcho-capitalism promise that makes them utopian?
A perfectly free society where disputes are easily resolved without force and where no one with more guns than anyone else decides to just take over and start a new government. It promises something that we all...kind of emotionally want. Like communism. A unity of philosophy dedicated to individual freedom but maintained in no way by anyone with the power to enforce the rules authoritatively and to maintain a free market. You argue that it's possible for a government to infringe on a free market. This is indisputably true. But you seem to think without government, no one would infringe on other people's rights or on the market. This seems...naive. There will always be people who have the will to control others and aren't particularly concerned how they do so. They will exist in your society.
AE seems to imagine a society of men who act like perfectly civilized beings when in fact we are just animals with big brains. That's why it's utopian.
AJ: Jacob Bloom:1. Ok, well then why is it that everyone here seems to believe humans are totally rational? Have you not been reading your own pamphlets thoroughly enough? I don't trust experts to run things, by its very nature, anarchy will not be run by experts but by the people individually. If you don't even understand your own philosophy, why would I sign onto it? I have to look at each one of you as individuals to decide if I want to be like you. And I don't. So why would I want to study your philosophy? Cite me where you got this impression, and we can talk. I don't even know where you got this idea from. Some posters on here, well I could believe that they might not have presented themselves so as to avoid misinterpretation, but again, why take forum comments when we have offered polished treatments where such misinterpretations would be avoided? Jacob Bloom:2. Your explanation failed because it's a lousy explanation. It's a lousy lousy lousy explanation of a system of justice and law. It has nothing to do with the way you personally presented it, it just innately sucks. No one could present it to me and make me think it makes sense. It's not possible. If that is so, point to the specific errors in my explanation. Better yet, point to errors in the articles we linked. "Lousy" and "sucked" without supporting argumentation are not going to cut it on this forum. Jacob Bloom:And by the way, I tried to just answer the thread's question, but I got attacked by the people on here. I intend to defend myself. I didn't mean to imply it was your fault. One thing that puzzles me, Jacob, is why you seem to mostly only respond to the more militant and abusive comments. If it were me, I would just ignore those. You have a good sense for parrying abusive comments and responding pretty civilly, but I suggest that the next level is to ignore them altogether. It's not going to make you look weak or anything, not on these forums. I think most people here recognize the right to ignore silliness and lack of civility outright. We're not revleft.com or DailyKos or FreeRepublic, despite a few inevitable flames you may get.
One thing that puzzles me, Jacob, is why you seem to mostly only respond to the more militant and abusive comments. If it were me, I would just ignore those. You have a good sense for parrying abusive comments and responding pretty civilly, but I suggest that the next level is to ignore them altogether. It's not going to make you look weak or anything, not on these forums. I think most people here recognize the right to ignore silliness and lack of civility outright. We're not revleft.com or DailyKos or FreeRepublic, despite a few inevitable flames you may get.
1. Because Mises and Hayek and Rothbard are dead. A book only has power if you're willing to act out its ideas. I'm not concerned with what's in a book. I'm concerned with what's in YOUR minds. Because you all are the...mimetic descendants of Rothbard. Anyways, I know this sounds lazy, but I don't really feel like combing through pages of text to find examples where someone made humans sound like totally rational beings. Suffice it to say, I don't think you will find it difficult to imagine someone on here might have said such a thing and then used that as a rationalization for an anarchic region.
2. First concern: what happens if I go to a private court, they tell me I am guilty or whatever, so I go to another court, they say I'm innocent? Is there going to be a court war to decide whose judgement needs to be upheld?
3. You're right, I should probably just ignore them.
I will not read your books until I'm convinced I want to think like you. So talk to me.
Jacob Bloom:A perfectly free society where disputes are easily resolved without force and where no one with more guns than anyone else decides to just take over and start a new government.
I can see how you got this impression, but it's simply not accurate. We do - of course! - believe that disputes would be resolved much more efficiently and effectively on average, or else we wouldn't be advocating the change. Sloppiness of language can make it easy to misconstrue "much better" as "perfect," but that's what you get when you try to understand a deep and complex subject based on forum comments and snippets of reading here and there. The starting a new government objection has been dealt with by many scholars already. Once again, the forums are not an efficient way to get those answers, but they are all - and I do mean ALL - in the links we've provided.
Jacob Bloom:AE seems to imagine a society of men who act like perfectly civilized beings when in fact we are just animals with big brains. That's why it's utopian.
Minarchy (and all other statism)seems to imagine a society of men who act like perfectly civilized beings when in fact we are just animals with big brains. That's why it's utopian. The question is not "are human always civilized and rational or not?" The answer to that is an obvious "NO." The question is, would you rather have these imperfect beings in charge of a territorial monopoly, or have competing security firms and courts trying to outdo each other in providing the most fair, safe, efficient, and secure justice and security? One group cannot just take over, because all the other groups would stop them, because they would have the means, authority, support, and incentive to do so. The only reason you don't see this is that you're imagining things as they are now, in the highly artificial situation where there is and has been a monopoly of power and justice for 200+ years. You've shown you're intelligence and understanding in other areas, but I think this is one where you must concede you have not thought it through fully. It is obvious in your posts. No shame in that - that was me a mere two weeks ago. But I read, and I shed my statist fallacies piece by piece. I suggest you do the same so we can get on with advancing society in a beneficial way.
That Mises chose the word "rational" was probably a mistake. He redefined the word "rational" as a descripter that applies to all humans. If you care about this subject, then you should read books about this subject. Your posts reveal that you are incredibly ignorant.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Jacob Bloom:2. First concern: what happens if I go to a private court, they tell me I am guilty or whatever, so I go to another court, they say I'm innocent? Is there going to be a court war to decide whose judgement needs to be upheld?
I have been reading your posts for the past couple of weeks, now I do not post very much, but I decided to finally post here because I still see you making the same statements over and over and over again. This reminds me a lot like this guy Ixiom who posted here a while back, he was attacked vehemently in every single post he made, and did not know the very basics of libertarianism (mainly the NAP, so most of what people were saying flew right by him). At least he took the time to read some literature though to at least see a little of what we were saying (although again, I think it flew by him because he didn't even know what the NAP was).. sadly I think he got banned for attacking the mods. :)
I want to ask if you understand PDAs (Private Defense Agencies), or know exactly what your knowledge of them is? Because once you grasp at least a slight idea of PDAs, we can then discuss how multiple courts might work.
I. Ryan: Jacob Bloom:1. Ok, well then why is it that everyone here seems to believe humans are totally rational? Have you not been reading your own pamphlets thoroughly enough? I don't trust experts to run things, by its very nature, anarchy will not be run by experts but by the people individually. If you don't even understand your own philosophy, why would I sign onto it? I have to look at each one of you as individuals to decide if I want to be like you. And I don't. So why would I want to study your philosophy? That Mises chose the word "rational" was probably a mistake. He redefined the word "rational" as a descripter that applies to all humans. If you care about this subject, then you should read books about this subject. Your posts reveal that you are incredibly ignorant.
Perhaps you're the ignorant one for believing what someone else tells you as opposed to what's empirically obvious? Also, is it possible you haven't read the things I've read?
Tex2002ans: Jacob Bloom:2. First concern: what happens if I go to a private court, they tell me I am guilty or whatever, so I go to another court, they say I'm innocent? Is there going to be a court war to decide whose judgement needs to be upheld? I have been reading your posts for the past couple of weeks, now I do not post very much, but I decided to finally post here because I still see you making the same statements over and over and over again. This reminds me a lot like this guy Ixiom who posted here a while back, he was attacked vehemently in every single post he made, and did not know the very basics of libertarianism (mainly the NAP, so most of what people were saying flew right by him). At least he took the time to read some literature though to at least see a little of what we were saying (although again, I think it flew by him because he didn't even know what the NAP was).. sadly I think he got banned for attacking the mods. :) I want to ask if you understand PDAs (Private Defense Agencies), or know exactly what your knowledge of them is? Because once you grasp at least a slight idea of PDAs, we can then discuss how multiple courts might work.
Tell me about Private Defense Agencies.
Jacob Bloom:Perhaps you're the ignorant one for believing what someone else tells you as opposed to what's empirically obvious? Also, is it possible you haven't read the things I've read?
The methodology of AE is not empirical. The above post, again, reveals your ignorance.
You have constantly implied that you want to be convinced before you start reading books on this subject. That is ridiculous. Our posts are nothing more than an inferior alternate to books such as Human Action and MESPW and et cetera. Either way, you will be reading about AE and criticisms against AE.
AJ: Jacob Bloom:A perfectly free society where disputes are easily resolved without force and where no one with more guns than anyone else decides to just take over and start a new government. I can see how you got this impression, but it's simply not accurate. We do - of course! - believe that disputes would be resolved much more efficiently and effectively on average, or else we wouldn't be advocating the change. Sloppiness of language can make it easy to misconstrue "much better" as "perfect," but that's what you get when you try to understand a deep and complex subject based on forum comments and snippets of reading here and there. The starting a new government objection has been dealt with by many scholars already. Once again, the forums are not an efficient way to get those answers, but they are all - and I do mean ALL - in the links we've provided. Jacob Bloom:AE seems to imagine a society of men who act like perfectly civilized beings when in fact we are just animals with big brains. That's why it's utopian. Minarchy (and all other statism)seems to imagine a society of men who act like perfectly civilized beings when in fact we are just animals with big brains. That's why it's utopian. The question is not "are human always civilized and rational or not?" The answer to that is an obvious "NO." The question is, would you rather have these imperfect beings in charge of a territorial monopoly, or have competing security firms and courts trying to outdo each other in providing the most fair, safe, efficient, and secure justice and security? One group cannot just take over, because all the other groups would stop them, because they would have the means, authority, support, and incentive to do so. The only reason you don't see this is that you're imagining things as they are now, in the highly artificial situation where there is and has been a monopoly of power and justice for 200+ years. You've shown you're intelligence and understanding in other areas, but I think this is one where you must concede you have not thought it through fully. It is obvious in your posts. No shame in that - that was me a mere two weeks ago. But I read, and I shed my statist fallacies piece by piece. I suggest you do the same so we can get on with advancing society in a beneficial way.
1. Alright, maybe I'll read the articles.
2. I want to see a monopoly of force because if there's one things governments can actually handle pretty well, it's the use of force. I don't think humans are capable of handling force privately. And...to be honest, I can't think of any example of it working in real life. Someone suggested to me a few days ago...the IJC. But it turns out that it has only handled like 125 cases in 60 something years. I'm not against statism. I just disagree with the way the state is being used right now. It's not just the scope of government I have an issue with, but the role it plays. I believe governments are necessary and natural tools humans have developed to control one another. But there is certainly a lot of room to talk about what needs to be controlled and what doesn't. I believe markets work pretty well on their own. Courts? Not so much.
I. Ryan: Jacob Bloom:Perhaps you're the ignorant one for believing what someone else tells you as opposed to what's empirically obvious? Also, is it possible you haven't read the things I've read? The methodology of AE is not empirical. The above post, again, reveals your ignorance. You have constantly implied that you want to be convinced before you start reading books on this subject. That is ridiculous. Our posts are nothing more than an inferior alternate to books such as Human Action and MESPW and et cetera. Either way, you will be reading about AE and criticisms against AE.
Ok, well if AE is akin to Platonic forms that exist in some ethereal realm where we have to pluck the perfect ideas out of the sky and make them real despite the fact that they don't seem to be, I don't want anything to do with it. I have observed that markets work well without interference. I know that history has shown us this. I don't think that history has shown us that law is best handled privately. If you're inferior versions of the ideology, what makes you think you are capable of handling an anarchist society anyways?
Jacob Bloom:Ok, well if AE is akin to Platonic forms that exist in some ethereal realm where we have to pluck the perfect ideas out of the sky and make them real despite the fact that they don't seem to be, I don't want anything to do with it.
Have you ever taken a mathematics course? Around two thousand years ago, Euclid derived a comprehensive geometrical system without the use of observation; yet, his system seems to describe reality. Do you think that Euclidean geometry is "akin to Platonic forms that exist is some ethereal realm where we have to pluck the perfect ideas out of the sky and make them real despite the fact that they don't seem to be"?
The main claim of AE is that economics (that is, the study of human action) is methodically akin to mathematics instead of methodically akin to natural sciences such as physics.
Jacob Bloom:I have observed that markets work well without interference. I know that history has shown us this. I don't think that history has shown us that law is best handled privately.
Has a private law system existed in a developed country? No. And, you have not "observed that markets work well without interference". Non-intervention has never existed in a developed country in the modern world.
Jacob Bloom:If you're inferior versions of the ideology, what makes you think you are capable of handling an anarchist society anyways?
Anarcho-capitalism does not presuppose that any one actually understands economics. Economics is the study of how humans act; economics is not the study of how humans ought to act.