@Libertyandlife
We justify our positions based on utility and efficiency. I think Friedman said it best when he said:
The big distinction you have to make is between marginal benefit and average benefit. The marginal benefit from having 91 percent of people in school rather than 90 percent does not justify making it compulsory. But if in the absence of compulsory education, only 50 percent would be literate, then I can regard it as appropriate.
a.began:I'm a closet anarcho-capitalist, openly a minarchist. I never try to argue the an-cap position with people who are totally ignorant of it. I fear it might scare them off completely and label me crazy. I always start off making an argument for capitalism and then end up arguing for minarchism, but never go too far as to suggest anarcho-capitalism. I just hope to plant a seed.
Has anyone ever asked you "If you think markets can provide [schools/money/healthcare/etc] better than government, why do you think the opposite is true for law/security?"
Government Explained 2: The Special Piece of Paper
Law without Government
pentahedron:We justify our positions based on utility and efficiency.
Utility and efficiency for whom?
Also, how do you calculate efficiency without markets?
I mean, I can play the Consequentialist game too. I get a lot of utility from liberty and I think markets are efficient, therefore, anarchism is best. Ta Da!
No moralizing whatsoever.
What would Friedman say?
And no one said anything about socialism, so don't even try to go there.
Pentahedron, ever hear of David Friedman?
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
I know who his son is.
pentahedron: Utility and efficiency for whom? What would Friedman say?
Why are we talking about Friedman? You said YOU are a Consequentialist. I am asking YOU about how you make choices as a Consequentialist.
Please answer the question.
Also, please comment on my Consequentialist argument for anarchism.
I'm mentioning Friedman because HE IS a consequentialist. Why would my definition be any different from his or any other consequentialist libertarians?
If you get a lot of utility from being a dictator and you think a command economy is the most efficient kind of economy, does that mean it's the best?
Hence why I mention David Friedman (Milton's son), who is anarchist because he sees as most efficient. Check out his writings.
Thanks. I've read a few of Daves arguments.
pentahedron:I'm mentioning Friedman because HE IS a consequentialist.
As are you.
pentahedron:Why would my definition be any different from his or any other consequentialist libertarians?
I don't know. But you neither articulated your position or Friedman's.
pentahedron:If you get a lot of utility from being a dictator and you think a command economy is the most efficient kind of economy, does that mean it's the best?
You tell me. You're the Consequentialist.
Most of the libertarians on these forums are deontologicals(libertarian moralist). The absence of minarchists who are more consequentialists, probably has to do with how cult like it can seem at times as Dave implied. Some of the reponses in here being a good example. I rarely come here because of it.
Where do you come then?
It seems that on this forum there are no minarchists. Everyone is an anarchist. As far as I know most libertarians are minarchists, and most Austrian school adherents are minarchists. So how come there are so few (if any) minarchists on this site?
I am an anarchist in that i want to end central government. But I do think that a transition to a civilised anarchist society might require a form of Minarchism. If they made taxation voluntary then a government could continue to exist. In an anarchist society people would be free to try and convince other people to join their government. But forcing people to join their government would be illegal. Local cooperation’s could form that could resemble a type of government. It would be realy just ending forced taxation and the national regional monopoly.
trulib:"If you think markets can provide [schools/money/healthcare/etc] better than government, why do you think the opposite is true for law/security?"
What (if not the market) has provided government? How is anything not provided by markets? How is any socio-economic outcome not the result of each human agent acting according to his/her subjective valuations, including their cost/benefit calculation of the coercion they're willing to accept from others and the coercion which they're willing to assert over others?
These are not rhetorical.
Z.
I`m a minarchist because I think it has the potential of leading to anarcho-capitalism.
Either way, I`m still gonna live like an Ancap, no matter what society dictates me.
There's no consequentialist "position". If you knew that you wouldn't be asking even after I already gave you a short definition on how consequentialists think: to maximize utility while minimizing the negative consequences. It can't get much more simpler than that and if you still don't understand, refer back to the Friedman quote.
I don't post on any other libertarian forum except here. I started out by first reading the Ron Paul forums and these forums while reading some of Mises works next before I signed up. Then I kind of broke away since I wasn't satisfied with just thinking of every position based on a NAP litmus test.
pentahedron:There's no consequentialist "position". If you knew that you wouldn't be asking even after I already gave you a short definition on how consequentialists think: to maximize utility while minimizing the negative consequences. It can't get much more simpler than that....
If it's so simple, then why do you evade the very heart of the matter. Why can't you answer two simple questions for him:
LS: Utility and efficiency for whom? Also, how do you calculate efficiency without markets?
Because it's self-explanatory.
Faith in what?
That statelessness would look anything remotely like anarcho-capitalism. It could very well end up looking like Somalia.
How does anarchism suffer from the fatal conceit?
Anarcho-capitalists claim to know the optimum size of governemnt through reason alone. When in fact nobody could possibly know the answer to this question, as civilization is far too complex, and the necessary knowledge dispersed. In fact just take the financial markets alone. Nobody could possibly know what would happen to the financial markets. My guess would be widespread panick and systematic collapse.
Edit: and if one wants to achieve anarcho-capitalism through gradual reform, that can legitemately criticized as completetly utopian.
Minarchy can be criticized as utopian as well. If you suggest that the wrong people were at the helm then the question of "Where will you find the angels?" is relevant. I suggest to you that humans are best in liberty (freedom of illegitimate force). I do not intend to transform humanity into mechanized moral agents, rather I know free market harmony will create the greatest potential for human moralization than any other option we have.
You can't hurry up good times by waiting for them.
Utopia is the idea that you can give guns and decision-making authority to profligates, degenerates, and stumblebums while expecting restraint, probity, and prudence.
There is no "correct" size of government. Government is simply other people so the only pertinent question is in regard to interpersonal conduct.
Eric:That statelessness would look anything remotely like anarcho-capitalism. It could very well end up looking like Somalia.
Somalia improved without a state. That tells you how bad states can be.
Why would you think that the civilized west would become like tribal Somalia? Do you really think the state is all that keeps people from that situation?
Statelessness can only occur when people stop recognizing thugs as authority. There is no faith involved in that, we all understand that Utopia is not possible, if you thought it would be, that means you were not approaching ancap from a position of reason.
Eric:Anarcho-capitalists claim to know the optimum size of governemnt through reason alone.
This is a strawman. Anarchists don't have a particular size for government. They know it is fundamentally irrational, immoral and dangerous. They know this the same way we know that cyanide is a poison. There is no conceit in recognizing the danger in a snake's venom or false promises of democracy.
Eric:When in fact nobody could possibly know the answer to this question, as civilization is far too complex, and the necessary knowledge dispersed.
This is a non sequitur. You're comparing two different kinds of knowledge.
Eric:In fact just take the financial markets alone. Nobody could possibly know what would happen to the financial markets. My guess would be widespread panick and systematic collapse.
You do realize that financial markets predated the state, right?
You haven't made one substantive point Eric.
DD5:If it's so simple, then why do you evade the very heart of the matter. Why can't you answer two simple questions for him:
That's a very good question. Pentahedron should answer.
pentahedron:Because it's self-explanatory.
Obviously it is not, because some of the brighter people on this forum aren't able to deduce the answer.
Why not answer those two simple questions? Why continue to avoid them? Aren't you confident and resolute in your belief system?
DD5: pentahedron:There's no consequentialist "position". If you knew that you wouldn't be asking even after I already gave you a short definition on how consequentialists think: to maximize utility while minimizing the negative consequences. It can't get much more simpler than that.... If it's so simple, then why do you evade the very heart of the matter. Why can't you answer two simple questions for him: LS: Utility and efficiency for whom? Also, how do you calculate efficiency without markets?
DD5, you have an admirable enthusiasm for understanding the market process. Why do you, as a libertarian, regard that understanding as so important?
Somalia improved without a state. That tells you how bad states can be. Why would you think that the civilized west would become like tribal Somalia? Do you really think the state is all that keeps people from that situation? Statelessness can only occur when people stop recognizing thugs as authority. There is no faith involved in that, we all understand that Utopia is not possible, if you thought it would be, that means you were not approaching ancap from a position of reason.
However, the safest and most stable part of Somalia is Somaliland, which is the portion where there is the closest thing to a functioning government. Also, if the North Korean government collapsed and anarchy ensued, I would certainly expect an improvement. However, I would not take that as a very good case for anarchy. The situation is very similar with regards to somalia.
I wouldn't expect the west to look Identical to Somalia, as we do not share their same tribal system. I would however expect gangs/warfare and a failure to protect property rights.
The idea that PDAs would arise and properly enforce property rights, that the there would not be a financial panic, and that there would not be a massive influx of fear and rebellion is a leap of faith.
This is a strawman. Anarchists don't have a particular size for government. They know it is fundamentally irrational, immoral and dangerous. They know this the same way we know that cyanide is a poison. There is no conceit in recognizing the danger in a snake's venom or democracy.
I admit it may be a strawman with respect to some anarcho-capitalists. But certainly not Rothbardians and many other groups. Anarchists generally attempt to reason, generally through the use of Austrian economics, what society would look like without a state. They then conclude that this is a preferable state of affairs, and thus become anarchists.
You do realize that financial markets predated the state, right? You haven't made one substantive point Eric.
You do realize that financial markets are a little more complex now than they were thousands of years ago, right?
Why not answer those two simple questions?
1. Social welfare
2. You can use a combination of a prior reasoning, empiricism and economic historical analysis to best make predictions about pareto efficiency. When it comes economics, the results largely favor deregulation and freer markets.
pentahedron:1. Social welfare
Who is social welfare? I am a methodological individualist. I need to know WHO is defining what constitutes social welfare, because society cannot decide this absent individuals deciding it. Society is just an abstraction for understanding behavior within a group, society is not a thinking acting entity itself.
pentahedron:2. You can use a combination of a prior reasoning, empiricism and economic historical analysis to best make predictions about pareto efficiency.
This is somewhat circular. I asked you what a Consequentialist values. You claimed efficiency. I asked how you determined efficiency without markets, you now reply back that it is Pareto efficiency you are interested in. Which is back to claiming there is a group value as above. But who determines what is pareto efficient?
Not how we get there, but what is "the social good"? Who decides this? Every individual has a different value scale. Which ones are making the final determination of what is good for the entire human race?
It seems to me you support freedom, as long as it is YOUR kind of freedom.
Eric:I wouldn't expect the west to look Identical to Somalia, as we do not share their same tribal system. I would however expect gangs/warfare and a failure to protect property rights.
Why do you think that it takes an expropriating property protector (a contradiction in terms) in order to protect property rights?
Eric:The idea that PDAs would arise and properly enforce property rights, that the there would not be a financial panic, and that there would not be a massive influx of fear and rebellion is a leap of faith.
So your fear of the unknown is why you support the state? Everything is a leap of faith. There are no guarantees in life. People have childern and some die at birth. People take medicine with side effects, because they are anxious for relief. People invest in the stock market, with almost ZERO understanding of finance. Humans know very very little. And yet, we function every day in this world we are largely ignorant of.
Eric:I admit it may be a strawman with respect to some anarcho-capitalists. But certainly not Rothbardians and many other groups. Anarchists generally attempt to reason, generally through the use of Austrian economics, what society would look like without a state. They then conclude that this is a preferable state of affairs, and thus become anarchists.
Right, and you conclude that the state is a preferable state of affairs. I wouldn't call that a fatal conceit. I don't think you can articulate a decent argument for the state, but if you want to try, I am happy to listen. Ancaps don't look at the state through economics and try to imagine statelessness. Maybe the Cato wonks do, but Rothbardians generally look at the state for what it is, and have to reject it, regardless of what the alternative looks like, because it is fundamentally unjust, immoral and irrational. It isn't the lesser of two evils, because it is fundamentally evil, and statelessness has the possibility of being not evil. Again, an expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms.
Eric:You do realize that financial markets are a little more complex now than they were thousands of years ago, right?
Because of the state. That doesn't mean we can't have complex systems outside the state. Look at the internet for example. Surely a species that can cook up the internet can come up witha viable commercial system. After all, the state co-opted the market systems and turned it inside out.
Remember, the only thing the state can do that the market cannot, is use aggressive force. That is the only difference between power and market. You're holding on to the state because you're scared of change, but what you're holding on to is institutionalized theft and violence, nothing more. Everything civil and social that the state does, can be done, and probably will be done by the market.
Unless you actually believe the state or its agents have some other special power or quality besides wielding guns and clubs.
Who is social welfare?
Social welfare simply refers to society as a whole being in a position to maximize utility.
This is somewhat circular. I asked you what a Consequentialist values. You claimed efficiency. I asked how you determined efficiency without markets, you now reply back that it is Pareto efficiency you are interested in. Which is back to claiming there is a group value as above. But who determines what is pareto efficient? Not how we get there, but what is "the social good"? Who decides this? Every individual has a different value scale. Which ones are making the final determination of what is good for the entire human race? It seems to me you support freedom, as long as it is YOUR kind of freedom.
When I think efficiency, I normally think pareto efficient which is simply how well off individuals are without there being a loss in utility. It's best maximized through competition, lesser regulations, and free trade and since each individual has their own preference scale they would be in the best position to determine this. That's kind of a broad statement though, it's probably better to look an example like airline deregulation and the positive effects it yeilded:
http://www.vatt.fi/file/vatt_publication_pdf/k149.pdf
And my kind of freedom is the same kind of freedom deontologicals support. I just simply go about coming to my conclusions in a different way
pentahedron:Social welfare simply refers to society as a whole being in a position to maximize utility.
One thing to keep in mind is that, because there is no such thing as cardinal utility, there is no way to do interpersonal utility comparisons, or make scientifically meaningful statements about the extent to which utility is maximized in one hypothetical or real society compared arithmetically to another.
What we can do, is demonstrate the singular tendency of capitalism to create general prosperity in direct variation with the degree to which it is unhampered. This is because, as I've said, the singular tendency of capitalism is to provide for individuals the satisfaction of their wants according to the extent of their contribution to the satisfaction of the wants of others.
Then, we can show how capitalism is unhampered (whether we are talking in regard to the production of tube socks, or the production of security) in direct variation with the extent to which a certain way of delineating property rights (which happens to be the way of delineating property rights, the violation of which deontological libertarians consider self-evidently fiendish) is adopted.
Once convinced of that, it is obvious that it is overwhelmingly likely that any given person's interests would be better served under complete (anarcho-) capitalism than under any other social order.
You gotta write a book, or, at least, more daily articles.
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."
Eric:Anarcho-capitalists claim to know the optimum size of governemnt through reason alone. When in fact nobody could possibly know the answer to this question, as civilization is far too complex, and the necessary knowledge dispersed.
This is nonsense. What does "size of government" actually mean? The number, substance and complexity of laws? The amount of resources devoted to adjudicating disputes? to inducing compliance? Anarcho-capitalists do not claim to know these answers - to know just how much governance their ought to be. This argument is only coherent if we assume just what is being disputed: that only the state can create and enforce rules/provide 'governance.'
pentahedron: Who is social welfare? Social welfare simply refers to society as a whole being in a position to maximize utility.
Ok, the wording I am not sure of, but I think we can agree on this.
pentahedron:When I think efficiency, I normally think pareto efficient which is simply how well off individuals are without there being a loss in utility. It's best maximized through competition, lesser regulations, and free trade and since each individual has their own preference scale they would be in the best position to determine this.
Again, this is a bit circular. You talk about individual utility, but what that utility is can't be determined FIRST without a market.
pentahedron:And my kind of freedom is the same kind of freedom deontologicals support. I just simply go about coming to my conclusions in a different way
I'm not sure about that. You mentioned freer markets, but Mises explained there was no third solution. It's the state or the market. You can't have it both ways. I cannot understand why minarchists won't grasp this.
liberty student:It's the state or the market.
Perhaps my previous post was not clear enough...
How is the state not a result (or a part) of the market? How is the state (or any other human creation) not the result of humans using means to pursue their (subjectively valued) ends? Who/what apart from acting humans creates a state?
How is any provision of law and security (including uniform law and security monopoly) not a market outcome?
z1235:How is the state not a result (or a part) of the market? How is the state (or any other human creation) not the result of humans using means to pursue their (subjectively valued) ends? Who/what apart from acting humans creates a state?
New thread time? This isn't a short discussion. You and I both like to argue. Let me know if you have time to do this right, and I will participate.
LS, a new thread here.
Daniel James Sanchez:DD5, you have an admirable enthusiasm for understanding the market process. Why do you, as a libertarian, regard that understanding as so important?
I don't have a good answer for this. I wish it didn't have to be so important. But it is. What is on your mind with this question?
Well, you seem to be against utilitarian arguments for liberalism, and I don't see how any argument informed by an understanding of the market process can be any thing other than utilitarian, so I'm wondering why you'd spend so much time and energy studying and communicating economics.
Daniel James Sanchez:Well, you seem to be against utilitarian arguments for liberalism,
What makes you think that I am against utilitarian arguments?