How to make the pin stand?

z1235:

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.

I already refuted this silly point and my point was ignored.

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.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

But that's not the traded product.

And you should let your lack of evidence--praxeological and otherwise--bother you.

z1235:

What is the traded product

Money.

 

z1235:

For evidence, check any history book

Not evidence.

Snowflake:

Actually our history books mainly cover conflicts between states... like the civil war, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, bla bla bla.

My history books also cover a lot about what happens in state-less space-times. None of it is pretty, especially if you've lived through some of it. 

Snowflake:

This is due to the state's failure to provide law and order in poor urban areas.

That's a picnic in the park. I wasn't even referring to the US. 

Snowflake:

Numerous laws keep the crime around... the war on drugs, fire arms restrictions, taxes in general...

How does that even follow? How do you explain gangs in state-less and LAW-less territories then? How is illegality in any way associated with power's self-reinforcing tendency to grow? Your argument simply doesn't make sense. 

Snowflake:

Conversely, there are many examples of private law being very successful. I would be happy to point them out to you but anyone who can type should be able to find them here on mises.org. Plus you've displayed a lot of hubris over a poorly thought out and poorly argued position.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. Mine, in return, is that this was quite condescending on your part. 

Z.

 

 

 

z1235:

My history books also cover a lot about what happens in state-less space-times.

Kindly list these so-called times.

z1235:

 

Anyway, I thought Atlanta was already "taken" and for much longer than a week. Where are the volunteers?

Z.

Yeah, by a state which is seen as legitimate. Not by a private entity, which is precisely my point.

It is enough to convince me you are a disingenious loser. I am out of this.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

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.

No to both.

Prove it. 

Z.

 

No, you have to prove that it is.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

z1235:

What is the traded product

Money.

Good, you're half-way there. What's your money being exchanged for when you enter into a contract to use the other trading party's men and guns? The product you're buying is POWER, and sellers of power are nothing like sellers of shoes or apples.

Z.

 

z1235:

My history books also cover a lot about what happens in state-less space-times.

If you're referring to ancient times, it can be argued that humanity was once in a position that rendered it very vulnerable to the state/violence. In the modern era, security is much better and cheaper, and will continue to develop along these lines.

If you're referring to modern examples you'll have to point them out... most modern stateless societies are coming out of terrible terrible conditions, like Somalia or Argentina.

Actually I would say that the internet is the strongest example of a modern anarchy. Hackers and viruses constitute aggression and anti-virus/web browsers offer security at competitive prices (zero w adds). Private lawmakers on forums and websites determine what kinds of things fly on their property.

z1235:

That's a picnic in the park. I wasn't even referring to the US. 

Not compared to what you're used to. In either case, the majority of war-ridden African countries are messed up in part because the UN has told people to rely on their governments rather than self defense for security. Between debt slavery and a history of state-warfare, it is no wonder the entire region is messed up. The G20 will continue to ensure that the third world stays in hell. These countries are not evidence of the failure of anarchism.

Similarly the wealth and power of the west was built upon colonialism/slavery, and more recently upon debt slavery and state-sponsored-terrorism. This is not evidence that states produce prosperity, but that mass thievery and murder are good for you if you can get away with them. If you look at humanity as a whole, the state has been an utter and complete failure, worse than virtually any conceivable anarchism.

z1235:

How do you explain gangs in state-less and LAW-less territories then?

See above. You'll need to throw a specific example out if you want a response.

z1235:

How is illegality in any way associated with power's self-reinforcing tendency to grow?

Well making something illegal creates a black market, and markets tend to grow. Actually this is my best guess at what you're trying to say, I couldn't make much sense of it.

z1235:

Good, you're half-way there. What's your money being exchanged for when you enter into a contract to use the other trading party's men and guns? The product you're buying is POWER

But it's not. You're confusing politics with defense. Don't do that.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

No, you have to prove that it is.

Sorry, but no. YOU have to prove that your proposed change is better than (or at worst equal to) the status-quo.

Z.

 

Snowflake:

most modern stateless societies are coming out of terrible terrible conditions, like Somalia or Argentina.

Evidence is in the eye of the believer. Whatever example may be pointed out to you will have its own particular "extenuating circumstances". 

Snowflake:

If you look at humanity as a whole, the state has been an utter and complete failure, worse than virtually any conceivable anarchism.

Humanity as a whole has also flourished and prospered in nothing BUT a state form. The fact that humanity has repeatedly converged to points of stability in the form of STATES while ALL stateless situations have been utterly unstable and short-lived chaos (until they stabilize into some form of a STATE) should at least give you SOME doubt about the validity of your conjecture.

Snowflake:

z1235:

How is illegality in any way associated with power's self-reinforcing tendency to grow?

Well making something illegal creates a black market, and markets tend to grow. Actually this is my best guess at what you're trying to say, I couldn't make much sense of it.

Black markets are not necessary for gangs and turf-wars. Gangs can flourish perfectly fine where laws (thus illegality and "black markets") are non-existent. In fact, they love it there. 

Let me clarify my position. Power is not just another product/service amenable to FREE trading like shoes, apples, or carpet-cleaning. A free market in power is an oxymoron. Assume the following situation: There are four merchants sitting at your dinner table offering you their wares: M1 sells apples. M2 sells shoes. M3 sells carpet-cleaning. M4 sells power/"protection". Each of them have a truck-full of their product parked at the street in front of your house. M1 has a truck-load of apples for sale. M2 has a truck-load of shoes for sale. M3 has a truck-full of carpet-cleaners ready for work. M4 has a truck-full of men with guns ready to act. Here's a question for you: For which ONE of the four offerings a bigger supply (bigger truck with more wares) translates into a HIGHER price for you to pay? (And please think before responding that you can always go to a cheaper guy with a smaller truck-load of men. You know full well why.)

The English dictionary is full of nouns representing concepts/objects that are not amenable to being traded in free markets: color, sadness, joy, distance, air, etc. I believe that POWER and LAW are just a couple more from that list. You believe that they aren't and that's where we differ.

Z.

 

 

 

 

This quote from Spideynw seems relevant:

"Power is not being able to kill someone.  Power is being able to kill someone and then convince everyone that it was OK.  Power is not about being able to steal from someone, but about stealing from someone and then convincing everyone that it was OK.  Government is one big sales pitch.  It is all about confusion and disinformation.  Governments can only do as much as the general populace will allow it to do."

Knight_of_BAAWA:

No, you have to prove that it is.

z1235:

Sorry, but no.

Sorry, but no. YOU Have to prove that the status quo of institutionalized monopoly is the right way.  You have to prove that initiating force is proper.

 

z1235:

Humanity as a whole has also flourished and prospered in nothing BUT a state form. The fact that humanity has repeatedly converged to points of stability in the form of STATES while ALL stateless situations have been utterly unstable and short-lived chaos (until they stabilize into some form of a STATE) should at least give you SOME doubt about the validity of your conjecture.

This is a very narrow sighted statement. It's like stating a slave has lived a good life because his master gave him some leeway.

Man has flourished and prospered NOT because it co-existed with the state. It existed and flourished ONLY because the state ALLOWED a level of ANARCHY to exist. History irrefutably proves that the more anarchy(economic freedom) that existed the more prosperous humanity became. In contrast, The less anarchy there was, more state, the more stagnant humanity became. 

Your narrowminded statement seems to advocate things like socialism and fascism. Had I read no other statement from you the quote above would leave me to believe that you were a collectivist and believed that more state would equate to a wealthier economy. 

Zoo animals flourished and prospered while in the confines of the zoo. Slaves flourished and prospered under the control of a benevolent slaveowner. Therefore slavery is acceptable. Is that what your arguing?

z1235:

Evidence is in the eye of the believer. Whatever example may be pointed out to you will have its own particular "extenuating circumstances". 

Ahuh. Well you didn't address any of my examples, so I'll take this as a cop-out. You're basically saying that anyone can believe anything about anything and that's okay. So just ignore my analysis of Argentina, Somalia, the internet etc etc out the window at your convenience.

z1235:

Humanity as a whole has also flourished and prospered in nothing BUT a state form.

Only until very recently. You have about 5900 years of state slavery and poverty and maybe the last hundred years where stuff has gotten a lot better for a small minority of humans. If it weren't for the minarchist government and open borders of the United States, the world might still be a completely crappy place for everyone.

z1235:

The fact that humanity has repeatedly converged to points of stability in the form of STATES while ALL stateless situations have been utterly unstable and short-lived chaos (until they stabilize into some form of a STATE) should at least give you SOME doubt about the validity of your conjecture.

I wasn't talking about the inevitability of the state where you quoted me. I was saying that the state is a failure, not that it wasn't self propagating. In fact I'd say that the majority of states are at least a couple of hundred years old, and I was arguing that while states in the past had been inevitable due to poor communication, imbalances of power etc, that we have more hope than ever to form an anarchist community. Hoppe and friends have some very articulate arguments on micro-secession. Stranger has a link to the thread in his signature.

Note that you failed to address my analysis of why "we" have it so good, which is that our states are violently parasitic on the natural resources of the third world. To paraphrase my conclusion: The status quo isn't evidence that states work, its evidence that if your state is a murdering thieving warmongering f*ck, you can live just fine on the backs of 10x as many people.

z1235:

Gangs can flourish perfectly fine where laws (thus illegality and "black markets") are non-existent.

I'm sure you'll agree that its harder for people to get away with "bad stuff" if there's more security around. There are already more private security guards than police in the US. What do you think about the State now? I can tell you what Hobbes would have to think: That every state is a complete failure and should be overthrown because its does not even try to prevent anything close to all violence.

z1235:

Assume the following situation: There are four merchants sitting at your dinner table offering you their wares: M1 sells apples. M2 sells shoes. M3 sells carpet-cleaning. M4 sells power/"protection".

You're just trying to repackage the argument that might will make right in the free market, that some people will buy tons and tons of security and lord their POWER over everyone else. This argument has been addressed elsewhere. The long and short of it is, that whatever dumb imaginary scenarios you can dream up where one guy buys tons of power and kills everyone, there is still a better chance of you surviving in the free market than if he were the state because you can at least potentially fight back. Fighting the state is the biggest no-no I can think of.

z1235:

color, sadness, joy, distance, air, etc. I believe that POWER and LAW are just a couple more from that list. You believe that they aren't and that's where we differ.

Well thats because they are all conceptual, but you can buy things that lead to concepts. You can buy red ink to lead to red. Alcohol to lead to sadness. Air to get you... air... because you can buy air since its a physical tangible thing.... You can buy guns for power and make rules for law.

Why on earth did you think this analysis would work? If the market cannot provide POWER and LAW then by what twist of logic does the state do it?

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

z1235:

Good, you're half-way there. What's your money being exchanged for when you enter into a contract to use the other trading party's men and guns? The product you're buying is POWER

But it's not. You're confusing politics with defense. Don't do that.

There's no politics in anarchy. Your reply constituted of merely renaming "power" into "defense". Don't do that.

Z

filc:

Had I read no other statement from you the quote above would leave me to believe that you were a collectivist and believed that more state would equate to a wealthier economy. 

That's why you shouldn't have even addressed it outside of the discussed context. The rest of your post is punching a ghost that's not there. Or "strawman" as I see it popularly being used here. 

Z.

 

Snowflake:

If it weren't for the minarchist government of the United States, the world might still be a completely crappy place for everyone.

It is settled then!

Snowflake:

You're basically saying that anyone can believe anything about anything and that's okay. So just ignore my analysis of Argentina, Somalia, the internet etc etc out the window at your convenience.

Please don't put words in my mouth. "Evidence is in the eye of the believer" because each side is free to conjecture whether correlation, in fact, represents CAUSATION. I could as easily state (which I do) that "terrible terrible situations" (being highly correlated with stateless conditions) are in fact CAUSED by statelessness. I, however, don't call your refusal to address and acknowledge my conjecture a "cop out". 

Snowflake:

I was arguing that while states in the past had been inevitable due to poor communication, imbalances of power etc, that we have more hope than ever to form an anarchist community. Hoppe and friends have some very articulate arguments on micro-secession. Stranger has a link to the thread in his signature.

That's all fine and good. It's still a "Trust me, this time it will be different" argument. And if a society is indeed established to resemble your conjecture -- and the pin manages to stay straight for longer that a second -- I would seriously consider joining. 

Snowflake:

Note that you failed to address my analysis of why "we" have it so good, which is that our states are violently parasitic on the natural resources of the third world. To paraphrase my conclusion: The status quo isn't evidence that states work, its evidence that if your state is a murdering thieving warmongering f*ck, you can live just fine on the backs of 10x as many people.

I agree that this has been going on all throughout human history. Again, for you that is evidence about the state. For me, that is evidence about human nature. Since humans have pretty much done everything (good and bad) in state-based structures, how do we separate which part is responsible for what? 

Snowflake:

The long and short of it is, that whatever dumb imaginary scenarios you can dream up where one guy buys tons of power and kills everyone, there is still a better chance of you surviving in the free market than if he were the state because you can at least potentially fight back. Fighting the state is the biggest no-no I can think of.

There's nothing dumb and imaginary about power's self-reinforcing tendency to grow toward a monopoly. It's NOT in weaker gang's (or PDAs) self-interest to fight with a stronger gang. They profit MUCH more by joining forces with the stronger. The more powerful your counter-party is in a deal the less "free" the deal/market becomes. And please, don't bring up societal ostracism as a counter-balancing force as that's plain ridiculous.

Intelligent people centuries over have pondered this phenomenon. Humans have heuristically -- through trial and error -- tested ways to rain in and control power so society can be productive and flourish. So far, the (heuristically and evolutionarily derived) answer has been (and still is) to have the power and laws reflect the values and wishes of a stable majority in each society. This majority is usually of critical size as to be able to rein in the power if it gets too much out of hand. So far, that has been the ONLY set-up that has worked. 

Snowflake:

Why on earth did you think this analysis would work? If the market cannot provide POWER and LAW then by what twist of logic does the state do it?

Voting and laws reflecting the will and values of a critical majority of the population is the ONLY stabilizing (and counter balancing) force -- the "goo" that keeps the pin standing. Free markets in POWER and LAW are too violent for the former, and plain oxymoronic for the latter. The number of games of chess played (deals done) in a society is proportional to the level of agreement as to what the chess rules are. Without uniform chess rules our game of chess would be over before it has even started. 

Z.

 

 

z1235:

So far, the (heuristically and evolutionarily derived) answer has been (and still is) to have the power and laws reflect the values and wishes of a stable majority in each society. This majority is usually of critical size as to be able to rein in the power if it gets too much out of hand. So far, that has been the ONLY set-up that has worked.

And yet each voting cycle and each day on the news political action is advocated to 'change the way things are'.  It never does converge upon what the majority wants.  The majority and the political system of voting and having representatives IS enacted because there is always a problem that needs to be fixed.  Each voting majority is never satisfied or else they wouldn't have to keep voting in people they want.  There wouldn't be opposing parties and opposing ideologies if it was simply the majority trying to hold power and keeping it "stable".  The republic system is actually very unstable and thousands of people and an ever-growing number of them and government agencies are formed constantly in an effort to keep an unstable ship afloat.

z1235:

Humanity as a whole has also flourished and prospered in nothing BUT a state form.

filc:

Your narrowminded statement seems to advocate things like socialism and fascism. Had I read no other statement from you the quote above would leave me to believe that you were a collectivist and believed that more state would equate to a wealthier economy. 

z1235:

That's why you shouldn't have even addressed it outside of the discussed context.

I'm not discussing it outside of the discussions context. Your using a collectivist argument. Also you accused me of speculating, but your entire accusation was founded on one big logical fallacy. 

Furthermore back to my point, it was no conjecture. You nicely evaded the punchline. I'll re-state it for your convenience. The success of humanity has not been so because of the existence of the state. The statement is non-sequitur. Additionally, states have formed violently you call the victims of that violence 'failures' and 'unstable'. Historical impiricism on the other hand shows that countries that allowed the most anarchy equally prospered the most. Countries that allowed the least anarchy or no anarchy, and total state control,  gained the least economic prosperity. Anarchy is the market.

filc:

Slaves flourished and prospered under the control of a benevolent slaveowner. Therefore slavery is acceptable. Is that what your arguing?

This is not punching at a ghost. It's hitting your problem on the head. Stop evading.

z1235:

each side is free to conjecture whether correlation, in fact, represents CAUSATION. I could as easily state (which I do) that "terrible terrible situations" (being highly correlated with stateless conditions) are in fact CAUSED by statelessness.

So argue about it. Logic and evidence determine the winner. It is a cop-out if you're going to bail on all empirical arguments just b/c some people might have different interpretations.

z1235:

That's all fine and good. It's still a "Trust me, this time it will be different" argument.

Well we have good arguments as to why it would be, we're not asking for blind faith. In fact its all about who can make the most convincing case so as to reduce the amount of trust involved.

z1235:

There's nothing dumb and imaginary about power's self-reinforcing tendency to grow toward a monopoly.

And this was possible at one time in history. You're thinking that Power is the kind of thing that one person can have all of. If one person has all the power and uses it abusively, this is called a state. All you're talking about is that you think the state is inevitable. There are many responses to this that have been covered in other threads. Simply do a search of "state inevitable" and you'll pull them up...

z1235:

They profit MUCH more by joining forces with the stronger.

Well by cooperating with the stronger. It costs a lot of money to build up armaments especially if you're not going to use them. Sure PDAs could join together and do battle with competing PDAs but they have to bear the costs of their conflicts. The State on the other hand can externalize its costs so it is much more likely to engage in warfare.

Human beings have free will. There are no guarantees in anarchy or the state; we can only say that the incentive strucuters tend to promote certian types of behavior. The state structure promotes abuse.

z1235:

This majority is usually of critical size as to be able to rein in the power if it gets too much out of hand. So far, that has been the ONLY set-up that has worked. 

And before democracy, Monarchy was the only setup that had worked. When America got started as a democracy, people were predicting that it would fall apart in total chaos within a matter of months; they were wrong. It is one thing to use evidence to come to conclusions, but when you have no experience with proper democracy or anarchy, you cannot condemn them.

Indeed you haven't really addressed my example of the internet as a stable anarchy... and I would go further to say that the internet could not be a stable anarchy without the affordability of personal security on the internet. Imagine that there were no antivirus or firewall programs, and that everyone was vulnerable to attacks from everyone else. It would be chaos, and then restrictions on what you can and can't send over the internet might be justified. For example, make it so that terminals can only send basic information through secure channels or something draconian like that. But instead, the internet has evolved cheaper and cheaper means of consumer protection spontaneously on its own, so that we don't need a state to regulate our interactions on the internet. Innovation, competition, and private property rights have made it a revolution for all of mankind.

Can you imagine if the internet were run by the government? Mises.org probably wouldn't exist.

z1235:

Voting and laws reflecting the will and values of a critical majority of the population is the ONLY stabilizing (and counter balancing) force -- the "goo" that keeps the pin standing.

Bull. There are many historical examples of unpopular laws and wars. You keep using this analogy of a pin standing; that if the pin were to fall over we would have chaos and everyone would shoot everyone. The deterioration into a hobbesian state of nature occurs very quickly under a state because the state will never give up control peacefully. You have to fight it, usually with guerrilla tactics.  So in this way, the State itself is a pin, but this does not mean that all social arrangements are pins.

On the market, if one PDA went out of business it would be because another had taken its place or that demand had fallen too low. There is no pin here in the provision of security any more than there is a pin in any other industry. If the vegetable industry collapsed, everyone would not run into their backyards and start farming vegetables, so why do you think that if the security industry collapsed everyone would run into the streets a start shooting. If an industry were somehow to die when demand was still high, new companies would arise to meet the demand.

z1235:

The number of games of chess played (deals done) in a society is proportional to the level of agreement as to what the chess rules are. Without uniform chess rules our game of chess would be over before it has even started. 

Even if this were true, it would simply mean that the market was self regulating and could solve this problem easily. Because if there is profit to be had by trading, and trading can only occur under a certain set of rules, then the market will tend to uphold whatever rules these are.

I hope you realize that people play by the rules in chess without government intervention.

 

z1235:

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

z1235:

Good, you're half-way there. What's your money being exchanged for when you enter into a contract to use the other trading party's men and guns? The product you're buying is POWER

But it's not. You're confusing politics with defense. Don't do that.

There's no politics in anarchy. Your reply constituted of merely renaming "power" into "defense". Don't do that.

Z

 

So If I buy a hammer, does this mean I acquire "power" equivalent to political power since I can misuse the hammer and cause injury or death to someone?

Do you not see the absence of coercion in the process of acquiring "defense" services on a voluntary basis?  The fact that the defense agency can theoretically turn criminal does not somehow make it more "powerful" then then anybody else in the free society.  Any group of individuals can come together, buy firearms, and attempt to commit criminal acts against others.  But "criminal" is the key term here!  Misusing my hammer to inflict injury is criminal, just as it would be to misuse a defense agency.

 

 

z1235:

There's no politics in anarchy. Your reply constituted of merely renaming "power" into "defense".

No, it didn't. Now either address your problems or concede. It's time you grew up.

 

z1235:

Snowflake:

Why on earth did you think this analysis would work? If the market cannot provide POWER and LAW then by what twist of logic does the state do it?

Voting and laws reflecting the will and values of a critical majority of the population is the ONLY stabilizing (and counter balancing) force -- the "goo" that keeps the pin standing.

What population? The country's population? The state's? The county's? The city's? The neighborhood's? The family's? The individual? Please consider these options, and also consider why in the first place voting should be territorial at all. Why does the population have to all be in one place?

z1235:

The number of games of chess played (deals done) in a society is proportional to the level of agreement as to what the chess rules are. Without uniform chess rules our game of chess would be over before it has even started. 

This is a strawman. Lack of monopoly on force does not mean lack of standards.

z1235:

Free markets in POWER and LAW are too violent for the former, and plain oxymoronic for the latter.

We already have a free market in power and law, it's just that one "company" is monopolizing it in each territory: the State. The question is not whether we want to have a free market in power and law, because strictly speaking  there's really no way to escape a free market in power and law. The question is that, given we will always have a free market in power and law, do we want one group to have a perennial monopoly on it?

AJ:

We already have a free market in power and law, it's just that one "company" is monopolizing it in each territory:

we already have a delicious meal, its just that the main course is disgusting.

We already have a would-be free market in power and law, it's just that one "company" is monopolizing it in each territory.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

No, you have to prove that it is.

z1235:

Sorry, but no. YOU have to prove that your proposed change is better than (or at worst equal to) the status-quo.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Sorry, but no. YOU Have to prove that the status quo of institutionalized monopoly is the right way.  You have to prove that initiating force is proper.

With or without a state, there is not ONE human being that has ever lived on this planet toward whom force hasn't been initiated. Force/aggression WILL be initiated, period. Take it as an axiom, if you prefer. If you don't, we may as well argue the superiority of the HP (Happiness Principle) by which the only proper behavior is the one which makes the most people around you happy --  and other such fairy tales.

The question we are discussing is merely about the TYPE (nature, size, predictability, volatility, and all other aspects) of the forces around you. I prefer a stable and predictable force -- one whose whim changes at glacial speed due to the checks/balances of the democratic process. You prefer a dynamic and volatile one -- driven by the "free" market in POWER. This difference is not unlike the difference between a conservative and an aggressive investor or a mortgage buyer -- the former preferring fixed and predictable income/payments over the long term vs. the latter who's willing to take (MUCH) more risk for (presumably) higher returns. Except the risks and returns of the riskier strategy are nothing more than a conjecture on your part since there's no data to perform a back-test. 

So no, I don't have to prove anything to you as we're both living the sustainable REALITY that I claim. It is YOU who has to prove that your sand castle model is in fact transferable into reality if you want people to subscribe to the concept. So far, after this thread, I am equally (perhaps even a bit less) convinced that your model holds water.

And FYI, I prefer losing to winning my arguments. I am merely a curious skeptic before anything else, and am not married to any ideology (life is too short for commitments of such sort). This allows me to especially look forward to losing an argument. Sadly, it hasn't happened here yet. 

Z.

 

 

z1235:

With or without a state, there is not ONE human being that has ever lived on this planet toward whom force hasn't been initiated. Force/aggression WILL be initiated, period. Take it as an axiom, if you prefer.

so you advocate initiating physical aggression and say you "WILL" do it.  thanks for letting us know you just flew off the handle.  i hope you aren't making bombs in your attic.

edit:  dude you really need to start explaining yourself.  you don't sound too good.

z1235:

With or without a state, there is not ONE human being that has ever lived on this planet toward whom force hasn't been initiated.

So what?  Why don't you try again--this time, a measure of thought before you post would help.

Snowflake:

And before democracy, Monarchy was the only setup that had worked. When America got started as a democracy, people were predicting that it would fall apart in total chaos within a matter of months; they were wrong. It is one thing to use evidence to come to conclusions, but when you have no experience with proper democracy or anarchy, you cannot condemn them.

America wasn't started as a democracy.

Stranger:

Snowflake:

And before democracy, Monarchy was the only setup that had worked. When America got started as a democracy, people were predicting that it would fall apart in total chaos within a matter of months; they were wrong. It is one thing to use evidence to come to conclusions, but when you have no experience with proper democracy or anarchy, you cannot condemn them.

America wasn't started as a democracy.

I think what Snowflake's point is, and a valid one for Z135, is that large scale change has happen and resistance to that change have always had the same arguments. Destruction, chaos, turmoil. meanwhile ignoring the destruction and chaos of their existing system. Mises states it well in human action.

Mises:

The main objective of praxeology and economics is to substitute consistent correct ideologies for the contradictory tenets of popular eclecticism.

Mises:

Some authors try to justify the contradictions of generally accepted ideologies by pointing out the alleged advantages of a compromise, however

unsatisfactory from the logical point of view, for the smooth functioning of interhuman relations. They refer to the popular fallacy that life and reality are “not logical”; they contend that a contradictory system may prove its expediency or even its truth by working satisfactorily while a logically consistent system would result in disaster. There is no need to refute anew such popular errors. Logical thinking and real life are not two separate orbits. Logic is for man the only means to master the problems of reality. What is contradictory in theory, is no less contradictory in reality. No ideological inconsistency can provide a satisfactory, i.e., working, solution for the problems offered by the facts of the world. The only effect of contradictory ideologies is to conceal the real problems and thus to prevent people from finding in time an appropriate policy for solving them. Inconsistent ideologies may sometimes postpone the emergence of a manifest conflict. But they certainly aggravate the evils which they mask and render a final solution more difficult. They multiply the agonies, they intensify the hatreds, and make peaceful settlement impossible. It is a serious blunder to consider ideological contradictions harmless or even beneficial.

z1235:

The question we are discussing is merely about the TYPE (nature, size, predictability, volatility, and all other aspects) of the forces around you. I prefer a stable and predictable force -- one whose whim changes at glacial speed due to the checks/balances of the democratic process. You prefer a dynamic and volatile one -- driven by the "free" market in POWER.

You reveal to us that your entire arguments are backed by nothing more than opinions. You like the freemarket only sometimes. The distinction of when you do and do and do not wish to use the market is entirely arbitrary and based on unsubstantiated fears.

You need to pull your emotion out of this and do your historical and economic research with a clear head. Don't be scared of the truth bud. :)

Snowflake:

Indeed you haven't really addressed my example of the internet as a stable anarchy

You can always unplug your computer from the network or push the power button off. You get up from your chair with merely a "Wow, that didn't work out as expected." Or in the case with private security working today, you can always call the state when/if things get out of hand. You know it, they know it, and everyone knows it. Examples of stable anarchies abound under the uncontestable power of a "night watchman" incentivising every agent's behavior in a profound way -- and you get to live another day, to give it another go, even if your risk/reward model was wrong. But what about merchant M4 sitting at your dinner table with an "offer you can't refuse" -- his men with guns getting antsy in the truck out in front? Who are you going to call then? What are you going to do? Ostracize him into shame, or slap him into submission with your copy of "Ethics of Liberty"? Or go ahead and "voluntarily" sign the "protection" contract under your nose? Yes, exactly the same way it works with apples and carpet-cleaning.

Z.

 

 

z1235:

But what about merchant M4 sitting at your dinner table with an "offer you can't refuse"

But you can refuse it. Stop trying to justify theft.

z1235:

You can always unplug your computer from the network or push the power button off.

So? You can always avoid crime by moving to the middle of the desert. You shouldn't have to forfeit your private property to avoid aggression; that itself would be aggression.

z1235:

Or in the case with private security working today, you can always call the state when/if things get out of hand.

Haaaaah. The opposite. The state won't put men outside your store or outside your apartments cus it doesn't care. Its the failure of the state to provide security that private agencies have arisen. The whole point that there are more private security agencies and more cases settled in private courts was that the State doesn't even do most of the work as far as social order is concerned.

z1235:

But what about merchant M4 sitting at your dinner table with an "offer you can't refuse" -- his men with guns getting antsy in the truck out in front? Who are you going to call then?

I wouldn't be able to call anyone, not even the state. Look this is an idiotic and childish example. ANARCHY WON'T WORK CUS WHAT IF YOU WERE SURROUNDED BY TERRORIST KILLERS. derp.

But let me indulge you: You're just saying I need to be in a group to defend myself against gangs like this. Anarchy doesn't say you can't organize, it just says you can't force people to join your cause. So, say for example, the landlord at my apartment complex takes part of our rent and uses it to protect us from baddies. This is exactly analogous to a tax, so anything a state can do, my apartment complex can do. The difference is that the landlord has legitimate ownership over the complex, and our rights are defined in voluntary contracts.

z1235:

What are you going to do? Ostracize him into shame, or slap him into submission with your copy of "Ethics of Liberty"? Or go ahead and "voluntarily" sign the "protection" contract under your nose? Yes, exactly the same way it works with apples and carpet-cleaning.

Actually it does. You can die if someone somehow monopolizes penicillin, or food, or electricity. Someone could threaten you by cutting off any one of these resources, exactly like an M4. Except its going to be insanely hard to do so, because monopolizing these industries is near impossible.

Look: We have free will. Anything could happen at any time. Its just that the incentive structure of the state is towards despotism and war. The incentive structures of anarchy are towards cooperation and compromise. This is why we prefer anarchy to the state. Anarchy is not a Utopia. Shit happens. But it is far superior to the idea that we should cede our power to a central authority.