Knight_of_BAAWA:Eeyah, I'm gonna hafta go ahead and point out your cop-out, mmkay.
By all means, go ahead and point away. You asked me for a "proof" that EVERY successful producer in a pseudo-stateless society would prefer to move to the USA instead. The ridiculousness of even attempting to "prove" something like this notwithstanding, to me, this is a mere statement from experience and not a theory in need of proof. You can go ahead and make whatever you want of it.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Evidence. For your proposal. Which you just claimed wasn't a proposal. So which is it?
So you need "evidence" that MOST (if not ALL) societal structures have now ACTUALLY converged to some form of a functioning state? Google "UN". I'm sure there must be a table of member nations in there somewhere. Sum the sizes of their populations and divide that number with the total size of this planet's population. If that fraction is higher than 90%, would that present strong enough evidence for your logic book?
Knight_of_BAAWA:And you were addressing beliefs, so please: don't play some little game.
I am not playing. If you're not enjoying this little conversation we're having I'd be perfectly OK if we stopped it. Just let me know.
Z.
z1235:By all means, go ahead and point away. You asked me for a "proof" that EVERY successful producer in a pseudo-stateless society would prefer to move to the USA instead.
z1235:So you need "evidence" that MOST (if not ALL) societal structures have now ACTUALLY converged to some form of a functioning state?
z1235:I am not playing. If you're not enjoying this little conversation we're having I'd be perfectly OK if we stopped it. Just let me know.
Stranger: z1235:It "protects" me by making the societal structure in which I produce and prosper more sustainable and less likely to collapse. That's not the question I ask. Why would it do this?
z1235:It "protects" me by making the societal structure in which I produce and prosper more sustainable and less likely to collapse.
That's not the question I ask. Why would it do this?
Answer 1: Because there are millions of minions (police, military, bureaucrats) in its hierarchy employed to provide the "goo to freedom" that I think keeps the societal needle standing. The inefficiencies and glacial pace of change in the mechanisms of voting and government bureaucracy may be exactly what makes the system sustainable, for all I know.
Answer 2: I may not know exactly, and I don't care. As long as it's been doing it consistently in the past, is doing it now, and is likely to be doing it in the future, I'm happy. I'll make a leap of faith and prefer that to "freely" organized armed gangs dynamically and "efficiently" fighting over ephemeral "protection racket" monopolies.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Oh, I'm enjoying it immensely. I'm loving watching you flail about with the standard refuted to death nonsense. "Oh, anarchism can't work because all we have now are states, and I think it would just devolve into states". Well it's a good thing other people don't have your lack of conceptual ability.
I'm glad I provided you with enjoyment. I'll go ahead and enjoy me some scotch and chocolate. All is well that ends well.
Can I point out that there are more private security personnel than police? That more cases are settled in private courts than public courts? Read kinsella. We are not so far off of anarchy. The state is a parasite.
z1235:I liked your write-up ( http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/12341.aspx?PageIndex=1 ). Thanks for the link. You do seem to be acknowledging the repeated failures of state-less structures but as the reason you are proposing that there had been something wrong (or defective) with human nature in the past. If only those deficiencies are corrected THEN anarchy could flourish. I would tend to agree with you on this one, but that's one large IF, you must admit. We live here, with humans as they are NOW, I'm afraid.
Thanks! The "something wrong" in the past was not about human nature, but these factors:
Interconnectedness of individuals and institutions (economic relationships, contractual agreements, etc.)Decentralization of power (the very definition of anarchy)Education and enlightenment of the people (especially in political economy)Advancement of economic prosperity and technology (in a word, civilization)
But I agree, humans as we are now, and society as it is now, will determine whether anarchy will work or not. There is the possibility that we are not ready yet, in light of where we are in these areas.
z1235:What's a panarchist? Either way, he stopped well short of suggesting anarchy. I would trust his intellect before any one's after him and on this forum -- especially when his instinct about human agents overlaps nicely with mine.
I recall Mises mentioning that people should be able to decide what kind of political system they live under, which is what panarchy is about. Under that view, suggesting anarchy (or minarchy) would be beside the point. The views espoused on the forums and in the other articles I linked by Long, Rothbard, etc. are frequently slightly off in focus or import (sometimes flat-out misguided), but I hope they would be the seeds for lines of thinking that would lead you to understand why the round of objections you've made in this thread are not necessary. All I can say is that the source of an idea does not determine it's validity, and appeal to authority - no matter how great - is not a sound basis for reasoning. I still think there are a few central AnCap arguments you haven't been exposed to, which if you read them you'd be asking different questions.
Why anarchy fails
z1235: Answer 2: I may not know exactly, and I don't care. As long as it's been doing it consistently in the past, is doing it now, and is likely to be doing it in the future, I'm happy. I'll make a leap of faith and prefer that to "freely" organized armed gangs dynamically and "efficiently" fighting over ephemeral "protection racket" monopolies.
So your belief in the state is based purely on faith. Thank you, but this is a scientific forum.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
z1235: Realization of NAP is Utopian:
Realization of NAP is Utopian:
There is an even more fundamental problem. Any effective defense that includes expensive and powerful weaponry will give rise to some sort of state. It's unavoidable. Thinking otherwise is not thinking right.
z1235: Structures grow/exist/sustain by SOME limitation of constituent's degrees of freedom:
Structures grow/exist/sustain by SOME limitation of constituent's degrees of freedom:
That's right. If you want aircraft to land at your airports, you will adopt thick books of regulations.
z1235: Homesteading is arbitrary:
Homesteading is arbitrary:
Something that confuses me, which is related, is the idea of private roads. Does a house with a street address have guaranteed access to the street? If a house didn't pay dues, or whatever, what happens?
I guess ultimately, I'd like to know, why invest in a system that has no credible means of getting off the ground? How do you about dismantling the state? Ask them to please hand over the launch codes, and just don't tell anyone that the SS checks are stopping?
z1235:I'm glad I provided you with enjoyment. I'll go ahead and enjoy me some scotch and chocolate. All is well that ends well.
Are you going to continue to address each persons posts / refutations of your position?
I mean, what is the point of raising these criticisms, then not being intellectually honest about it?
z1235: Answer 1: Because there are millions of minions (police, military, bureaucrats) in its hierarchy employed to provide the "goo to freedom" that I think keeps the societal needle standing.
Answer 1: Because there are millions of minions (police, military, bureaucrats) in its hierarchy employed to provide the "goo to freedom" that I think keeps the societal needle standing.
Rather it's making society fall apart.
z1235: The inefficiencies and glacial pace of change in the mechanisms of voting and government bureaucracy may be exactly what makes the system sustainable, for all I know.
The inefficiencies and glacial pace of change in the mechanisms of voting and government bureaucracy may be exactly what makes the system sustainable, for all I know.
You don't know is what you are saying here.
z1235: Answer 2: I may not know exactly,
Answer 2: I may not know exactly,
So the rest of what you say lines up with the former - you don't know. Thus you give no knowledge. Nobody learned anything from you.
z1235: ...and I don't care.
...and I don't care.
Is that because you want liberty or you favor hate?
z1235: As long as it's been doing it consistently in the past,
As long as it's been doing it consistently in the past,
Yet you don't know. So none-answer.
z1235: ...is doing it now,
...is doing it now,
Murder happens now. Flies stand on walls now. It's night now.
z1235: ...and is likely to be doing it in the future, I'm happy.
...and is likely to be doing it in the future, I'm happy.
Yet you don't know if anything is happening. You can't even say if you are certain of your happiness as you stated - you don't know.
z1235: I'll make a leap of faith
I'll make a leap of faith
pigs can fly
z1235: ...and prefer that to "freely"
...and prefer that to "freely"
prefer pigs flying to liberty eh?
z1235: ...organized armed gangs
...organized armed gangs
the government
z1235: ...dynamically and "efficiently" fighting over ephemeral "protection racket" monopolies.
...dynamically and "efficiently" fighting over ephemeral "protection racket" monopolies.
government v. government show downs on HBO
I took the liberty of filling in your "I don't know" gap.
Nothing wrong with defending the status Quo, z1235, whenever the status quo is actually helping things. You on the flip side are defending the status quo for it's own sake and your reason's are founded on logical fallacies, appeal to people, and opinions rather than logic.
Keith Ackermann: z1235: Realization of NAP is Utopian: There is an even more fundamental problem. Any effective defense that includes expensive and powerful weaponry will give rise to some sort of state. It's unavoidable. Thinking otherwise is not thinking right.
How do you know this? Also, define how you conclude what is right.
Keith Ackermann: z1235: Structures grow/exist/sustain by SOME limitation of constituent's degrees of freedom: That's right. If you want aircraft to land at your airports, you will adopt thick books of regulations.
On private property. Indeed buisnesses do this now. Also, define how you conclude what right is.
Keith Ackermann: z1235: Homesteading is arbitrary: Something that confuses me, which is related, is the idea of private roads. Does a house with a street address have guaranteed access to the street? If a house didn't pay dues, or whatever, what happens?
When a person is confused that means such a person doesn't understand and does not give any knowledge. Thank you for the disclosure.
Keith Ackermann: I guess ultimately, I'd like to know,
I guess ultimately, I'd like to know,
First you need to have knowledge (episteme) and then you will know something.
Keith Ackermann: ...why invest in a system that has no credible means of getting off the ground?
...why invest in a system that has no credible means of getting off the ground?
When you are confused you babble alot. Are you aware of this?
Keith Ackermann: How do you about dismantling the state?
How do you about dismantling the state?
First ask yourself, how do you learn and get episteme?
Keith Ackermann: Ask them to please hand over the launch codes, and just don't tell anyone that the SS checks are stopping?
Ask them to please hand over the launch codes, and just don't tell anyone that the SS checks are stopping?
Yeah, you sure rattled on about nothing. Next time offer a post that gives knowledge and doesn't declare that you are confused. Rise above intellectual immaturity if you can muster the will.
filc: Nothing wrong with defending the status Quo, z1235, whenever the status quo is actually helping things.
Nothing wrong with defending the status Quo, z1235, whenever the status quo is actually helping things.
Good point, but it would help if z1235 understood the status quo first.
wilderness: filc: Nothing wrong with defending the status Quo, z1235, whenever the status quo is actually helping things. Good point, but it would help if z1235 understood the status quo first.
Yea, he should also read these also.
filc: Yea, he should also read these also.
interesting link. To understand what an individual is going on about such an individual needs to make sense, be presentable, and provide logical clarity or else they are simply bells, whistles, and tin cans rattling about.
Snowflake: Can I point out that there are more private security personnel than police? That more cases are settled in private courts than public courts? Read kinsella. We are not so far off of anarchy. The state is a parasite.
Still, each private security force (and whoever has hired their services) are strongly incentivized toward certain (non-aggressive) behavior by the stronger over-arching force of the state. You cannot randomly pull off interconnected pieces from a complex structure and expect it to still stand. I haven't heard about private courts, I admit. I assume you're talking about arbitration. In this case too, this process resides in the shadow of the state legal system which ultimately determines the incentives of the arbitrated parties.
If you read my posts in this thread you will see that I am not necessarily disagreeing about the state being a parasite, nor am I claiming that USA (status quo) is even close to how I would prefer it. In this light my point is that even parasites may perform functions in complex structures that contribute to the sustainability of those structures. Not all connections in complex structures are imminently obvious.
Z
z1235: In this light my point is that even parasites may perform functions in complex structures that contribute to the sustainability of those structures. Not all connections in complex structures are imminently obvious.
In this light my point is that even parasites may perform functions in complex structures that contribute to the sustainability of those structures. Not all connections in complex structures are imminently obvious.
And yet you don't know this and might as well have written a book of fiction here about how the President is an alien.
z1235:Still, each private security force (and whoever has hired their services) are strongly incentivized toward certain (non-aggressive) behavior by the stronger over-arching force of the state.
That is a good insight. However, there is another good insight that may make the picture clearer: every State that ever wanted to wage war had to raise taxes and usually print money to do it. If they had no money, they could not wage war. If aggression were really that profitable they would have been able to recoup the losses, especially considering how military personnel aren't paid that much in a State system, and they have immense propaganda backing them. If the State can't even be aggressive for profit (at least not without the people's "donations"), how is a private security force going to profit from it? Partly this goes back to my post (Why Anarchy Fails), in the sense that way back in history it was (sometimes) profitable to be aggressive, but I think we're long past that point, owing to the factors I mentioned therein.
wilderness: How do you know this? Also, define how you conclude what is right. On private property. Indeed buisnesses do this now. Also, define how you conclude what right is. When a person is confused that means such a person doesn't understand and does not give any knowledge. Thank you for the disclosure. First you need to have knowledge (episteme) and then you will know something. When you are confused you babble alot. Are you aware of this? First ask yourself, how do you learn and get episteme? Yeah, you sure rattled on about nothing. Next time offer a post that gives knowledge and doesn't declare that you are confused. Rise above intellectual immaturity if you can muster the will.
Gosh, I didn't realize I was so stupid. I'm so stupid, I didn't even know I was stupid. I'm pure stupid.
I'll stay out of your way now, and just observe, but how much longer are you just going to pound sand?
Also, can my episteme start with anything? I'm inclined to go with you are a giant ass. I admit that it's probably not the most useful axiom to start off my calculus, but it has an oddly appealing aesthetic... like throwing a small rock at a dog for no good reason that I can give. Ahhh, to be human.
Keith Ackermann: Gosh, I didn't realize I was so stupid. I'm so stupid, I didn't even know I was stupid. I'm pure stupid.
being a bit hard on yourself eh?
Keith Ackermann: I'll stay out of your way now, and just observe, but how much longer are you just going to pound sand?
Again, another bunch of words that didn't give any knowledge.
Keith Ackermann: Also, can my episteme start with anything? I'm inclined to go with you are a giant ass.
Also, can my episteme start with anything? I'm inclined to go with you are a giant ass.
Definite ad hominem.
Keith Ackermann: I admit that it's probably not the most useful axiom to start off my calculus, but it has an oddly appealing aesthetic... like throwing a small rock at a dog for no good reason that I can give. Ahhh, to be human.
I admit that it's probably not the most useful axiom to start off my calculus, but it has an oddly appealing aesthetic... like throwing a small rock at a dog for no good reason that I can give. Ahhh, to be human.
You gave no knowledge here, again. And you advocate violence for "no good reason": "like throwing a small rock..." am I supposed to be the dog? I never said you were stupid before, simply that you didn't give any knowledge in your post. Try not to be so hard on yourself. As the saying goes, 'hold your face one way and it's bound to stay that way' same would go for thinking you are stupid.
good day
Keith, perhaps you should learn to take things in a constructive, non-personal manner. You may be wedded to your views, but that doesn't mean that you're correct, ok? That goes for a lot of people here, too.
Conza88:Benefits of "sustainability" / prosperity - arise out of Liberty. Minimize liberty and you minimize those. Now why on earth would you want to do that?
Conza88:Are you going to continue to address each persons posts / refutations of your position? I mean, what is the point of raising these criticisms, then not being intellectually honest about it?
You seem to have completely misunderstood my posts and points in this thread. Frankly, I find it difficult and unrewarding to have a discussion with a quote and slogan machine. More often then not the quotes you are posting (as replies and "refutations") have no relationship with the point discussed, so forgive me if I have begun to skip through a few of them.
Ever since I joined this forum I have not made a single complaint that a point/response/refutation of mine has been neglected. That doesn't mean that those oversights aren't in fact regularly occurring. I understand that people here are busy and have lives outside of this forum, and are perfectly free to focus on or neglect points as they choose. I'm not here to win a pissing contest, but merely to improve my structure of knowledge about the world. I couldn't care less whether anyone here walks away thinking that they have "won" by making me "lose".
I hope this helps you better understand my motives and MO.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Keith, perhaps you should learn to take things in a constructive, non-personal manner. You may be wedded to your views, but that doesn't mean that you're correct, ok? That goes for a lot of people here, too.
I guess.
Now I feel glum.
The fact is, my original post may have been thin on details, but this stuff, I'm sure, has been hammered to death. I'll pop in some more details here, but there are some very hardened positions that I feel are being hurled from an ivory tower.
There are some problems right out of the gate. What does a non-aggression principle realistically mean? It's just words. There is no way to definitively say that it wouldn't make complete sense to aggressively move against a sovereign. As the original post says, threat is a loosely defined term... possibly very loosely defined, such as, "If we don't invade, there is a threat that we might miss out on all that free stuff."
When I say, "we", I'm talking about one of two things: either a private army taking things for itself, or something that resembles a state that necessarily had to arise to contain the private army.
There has to be a final authority. Private courts, and private security are all fine and good, but what if I receive a summons, and decide not to show up? Is there someone going to make me show up? If not, I won't. If it's a security firm, well, I've already purchased a my armed bodyguard package, and they do what I say, so good luck, and expect the premiums to go up for security.
Or, perhaps it might make some sense to have a uniform coda.
Remember, private security is for hire. If they are the final authority, then there a more than an existential threat of complications. A poorly behaved security firm would lose no more business than the mafia does today.
My point about airports was that it would be reckless for a 747 to fly into an airport that allowed snoopy and his doghouse to fly in unannounced because there is nothing to prevent him from doing so.
That's probably enough to bite off for now.
The curtness of my previous comment was in reply to uncalled-for obnoxiousness.
Keith Ackermann:I guess. Now I feel glum.
Keith Ackermann:The fact is, my original post may have been thin on details, but this stuff, I'm sure, has been hammered to death. I'll pop in some more details here, but there are some very hardened positions that I feel are being hurled from an ivory tower.
Keith Ackermann:There are some problems right out of the gate. What does a non-aggression principle realistically mean?
Keith Ackermann:It's just words.
Keith Ackermann:There is no way to definitively say that it wouldn't make complete sense to aggressively move against a sovereign.
Keith Ackermann:As the original post says, threat is a loosely defined term... possibly very loosely defined, such as, "If we don't invade, there is a threat that we might miss out on all that free stuff."
Keith Ackermann:There has to be a final authority.
Keith Ackermann:Private courts, and private security are all fine and good, but what if I receive a summons, and decide not to show up? Is there someone going to make me show up?
Keith Ackermann: If not, I won't. If it's a security firm, well, I've already purchased a my armed bodyguard package, and they do what I say
Keith Ackermann: so good luck, and expect the premiums to go up for security.
Keith Ackermann:Or, perhaps it might make some sense to have a uniform coda. Remember, private security is for hire. If they are the final authority
Remember, private security is for hire. If they are the final authority
Keith Ackermann:My point about airports was that it would be reckless for a 747 to fly into an airport that allowed snoopy and his doghouse to fly in unannounced because there is nothing to prevent him from doing so.
Keith Ackermann:The curtness of my previous comment was in reply to uncalled-for obnoxiousness.
z1235:You seem to have completely misunderstood my posts and points in this thread.
Except I haven't.
z1235:Frankly, I find it difficult and unrewarding to have a discussion with a quote and slogan machine.
But surely you understand that "that people here are busy and have lives outside of this forum". Why should I re-write something when it has already been written and often than not more succinctly? It further gives the opportunity to 'air' articles, media and resources that are buried within Mises.org. If I didn't think they were relevant or addressed the point at hand, I wouldn't be posting them.
z1235:are perfectly free to focus on or neglect points as they choose.
Sure. Except it could be considered rude to ignore someones points that have been raised against yours.
z1235:I'm not here to win a pissing contest, but merely to improve my structure of knowledge about the world.
As am I. Yet I find it contrary to that goal, by raising criticisms and then not addressing the ones in return. Oh well.
Knight_of_BAAWA, thank you for taking the time to respond on all the points.
I came to Mises.org during my quest to find alternatives to the current situation on nearly all fronts. I used to love politics, and now I loath it. I've always been highly critical of the government, and I can point you to a great deal of my writings about that. I tried to organize a raid on the AT&T building in SF to remove the spy equipment ourselves, the thought being that a trial on trespassing and destruction of property would be the last thing the government would want. It had to involve more than one or two people, otherwise I (or we) would be isolated, crazy loners. You know... the standard line.
We (the US) adopted a constitution that tried to put in safeguards against tyranny and other problems. Various actors have been picking at the seams for over 200 years, and now the fabric of the nation is unravelling in many places. Something has to change, and I found mainstream libertarian ideas very appealing. I have not yet been able to wrap my head around some of the more extreme positions. I understand very well the concept of individual actors acting in their own self interest, and I agree we should be allowed to... right up to a certain point. I have not yet been able to go past that point. I believe a certain amount of organization makes complete sense in some areas. I believe there is utility in common cause, and central arbitration.
The free market is directly efficient at the transactional level, which is the most important. It's ability to spur innovation is a secondary effect, and that, in my opinion, is a glaring weakness. I have no problem chipping in for education and basic research. The free market did not produce the space program, and I've already heard all the excuses. The fact is, a directed effort using public funds is what gave rise to weather satellites and global communications. Think about the efficiency improvements those improvements have brought. I'm just using this as an example of the good that can come from common cause.
The government needs to be dismantled, but something will take its place. Under anarchy, the first jackass that comes along during hard times, telling the affected who their enemy is, and what he will do about it will be a problem. So won't the hundreds after him.
Keith Ackermann:We (the US) adopted a constitution that tried to put in safeguards against tyranny and other problems. Various actors have been picking at the seams for over 200 years, and now the fabric of the nation is unravelling in many places. Something has to change, and I found mainstream libertarian ideas very appealing. I have not yet been able to wrap my head around some of the more extreme positions. I understand very well the concept of individual actors acting in their own self interest, and I agree we should be allowed to... right up to a certain point. I have not yet been able to go past that point. I believe a certain amount of organization makes complete sense in some areas.
And while there may be some neat toys which have come from taxpayer-funded research, it's still based upon theft.
Keith Ackermann: I believe a certain amount of organization makes complete sense in some areas.
Keith your certainly welcome here and I hope we can help you understand the more 'radical' side of libertarianism.
Keith Ackermann:I understand very well the concept of individual actors acting in their own self interest, and I agree we should be allowed to... right up to a certain point. I have not yet been able to go past that point.
I highly recommend you read the first 200-300 pages of Human Action. I would recommend just buying the book in one way or another but you can also read it online here. This will get you caught up with the concept of Praxeology.
Keith Ackermann: The free market did not produce the space program, and I've already heard all the excuses.
In today's day in age the free-market would never produce a space program. It's probably the most unprofitable program one could think of.
Keith Ackermann:The fact is, a directed effort using public funds is what gave rise to weather satellites and global communications.
Ofcoarse it's naive to assume the government could not have accidently produced something of value. Entrepreneurs accidently produce things of value every day. Though how can we conclude that the free market would not have conceived of it's methods of global communication? What if those means were more efficient? I can almost guarantee you they would have been when put into practice more efficiently.
Using past technologies as an excuse to extort money from citizen's is a poor excuse. The market will conceive of things that people actually want. THe government plays a gamble, it doesn't know what people want. Sometimes it may get lucky, sometimes it's produced good isn't of value untill 20 years later. At the time the government was creating all it's space toys those objects were of little use to the consumer or businessmen. They didn't come into use until later when that technology got sold off.
If you look at the aggregate it's more likely that those technologies are still in the red considering how many resources have been by governments into making them. We are likely still paying it all off.
Keith Ackermann:The fact is, a directed effort using public funds is what gave rise to weather satellites and global communications. Think about the efficiency improvements those improvements have brought. I'm just using this as an example of the good that can come from common cause.
Keith,
Take a look at this video for a novel but piercing refutation of this conventional wisdom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_PVI6V6o-4
David Z: bloomj31: If one individual can arm themselves with 100,000 men while others can only purchase 5, you're gonna have a problem. Can we admit this is a "worst case" outcome? If so, it's qualitatively no different than the current set-up.
bloomj31: If one individual can arm themselves with 100,000 men while others can only purchase 5, you're gonna have a problem.
Can we admit this is a "worst case" outcome? If so, it's qualitatively no different than the current set-up.
Actually, we can't admit. The most likely outcome is MUCH worse than the current set-up, and the "worst case" is even much worse than that. The pin falls, whereas it is currently still standing.
Praxeologically or not, it's a tremendous stretch of imagination to presume that the free MARKET would be the decisive balancing force when the "traded product" is POWER. The self-interest incentives of an agent acquiring and "selling" POWER are much different from the incentives of an agent selling SHOES. And to even suggest that societal ostracism (what else?) would make the powerful think twice before they use their power to acquire more of it is at best romantic and at worst delusional. Only the people devoid of threats and fear can afford to ostracize. Instead, instinct of self-preservation conveniently transforms ostracism (that never was) into respect and submission to power.
And no, I don't have a proof, but I will only let that bother me after I see a single thing being proven by anyone else on this forum.
z1235:Actually, we can't admit. The most likely outcome is MUCH worse that the current set-up, and the "worst case" is even much worse than that.
z1235:Praxeologically or not, it's a tremendous stretch of imagination to presume that the free MARKET would be the decisive balancing force when the "traded product" is POWER.
And you should let your lack of evidence--praxeological and otherwise--bother you.
z1235: If one individual can arm themselves with 100,000 men while others can only purchase 5, you're gonna have a problem.
this happens now. he's called the commander in chief. he seriously outguns you. this might explain why he gets to determine so much of what happens to you and what you can do.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
z1235: Actually, we can't admit. The most likely outcome is MUCH worse than the current set-up, and the "worst case" is even much worse than that. The pin falls, whereas it is currently still standing. Praxeologically or not, it's a tremendous stretch of imagination to presume that the free MARKET would be the decisive balancing force when the "traded product" is POWER. The self-interest incentives of an agent acquiring and "selling" POWER are much different from the incentives of an agent selling SHOES. And to even suggest that societal ostracism (what else?) would make the powerful think twice before they use their power to acquire more of it is at best romantic and at worst delusional. Only the people devoid of threats and fear can afford to ostracize. Instead, instinct of self-preservation conveniently transforms ostracism (that never was) into respect and submission to power. And no, I don't have a proof, but I will only let that bother me after I see a single thing being proven by anyone else on this forum.
Knight_of_BAAWA: z1235:Praxeologically or not, it's a tremendous stretch of imagination to presume that the free MARKET would be the decisive balancing force when the "traded product" is POWER.But that's not the traded product. And you should let your lack of evidence--praxeological and otherwise--bother you.
What is the traded product when you enter into a contract (trade) with someone who has POWER (FORCE) while you don't. You need (demand) something that he has (supply)? What is "it"?
For evidence, check any history book, or presently ANY area in a state-power vacuum where turf wars, threats, rackets, and misery are the rule. Only an alien from another planet or someone nicely cushioned by benefits he fails to acknowledge would ACTUALLY ask to see evidence for the process that I just described.
z1235:For evidence, check any history book
z1235:or presently ANY area in a state-power vacuum where turf wars, threats, rackets, and misery are the rule
nirgrahamUK: z1235: If one individual can arm themselves with 100,000 men while others can only purchase 5, you're gonna have a problem. this happens now. he's called the commander in chief. he seriously outguns you. this might explain why he gets to determine so much of what happens to you and what you can do.
Actually, you quoted bloomj31 not me. Not important.
Yes, I agree. Except, something tells me that the pin is more likely to stand straight if the power structure with so much influence over me is decided by SOME input from the population instead of pure FORCE (or the "market" in your book). But that's me. We each get to pick our poison.
Marko:You try to take Atlanta with 100,000 men and in a week you are going to have 3 million Southern volunteers descending on your Dr. Evil arse.
It was someone else that mentioned "100,000", but that's besides the point.
Anyway, I thought Atlanta was already "taken" and for much longer than a week. Where are the volunteers?
z1235:What is the traded product when you enter into a contract (trade) with someone who has POWER (FORCE) while you don't. You need (demand) something that he has (supply)? What is "it"?
This is a silly point to make on an AE forum. Please read Chapter 6 'Business and Trade" in Walter Block's "Defending the Undefendable".
Your post is vague, are you referring to extortion and the use of (FORCE) as you state it? Or a free exchange where neither party is forced?
Your next comment is riddled with so many logical fallacies it's disturbing.
z1235:For evidence, check any history book, or presently ANY area in a state-power vacuum where turf wars, threats, rackets, and misery are the rule. Only an alien from another planet or someone nicely cushioned by benefits he fails to acknowledge would ACTUALLY ask to see evidence for the process that I just described.
Let me ask you this. How is it that Milk arrives on the shelves every morning untainted by poison? Don't answer the FDA because they don't have the resources to check every last carton of milk in the country.
z1235:For evidence, check any history book,
I'm going to go out on a limb and state right now that I think Austrian's have done a bit more researching in their history in comparison to you. Especially when you make such lofty claims as you just have.