now since anarchism had to precede statism as production had to precede consumption, one must find a way for the state to emerge out of a free society which is impossible given most of the incentives & institutions in such a society. Except for one way and that way is that the state had to have had some profitability to all the members of society since anarchism specializes in profitability and so anything born from it must make use of this basis to take form as the baby needs the mother's body to proceed forth. Therefore statism must be inherently good to most people.
Is my argument contradictory in any way?
Well, it presumes that all would profit from the state. That is a huge presumption. Also that the state "came from" anarchism.
It is entirely possible that, at some time in the past, the state met certain needs that could not be handled by the market, probably due to lack of technology or social progress, or small size of the economy. That does not necessarily mean that any case of anarchy will be unable to fill these needs. So I would say your argument is incomplete.
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. -- River Tam
I aim to misbehave. -- Malcolm Reynolds
Knight_of_BAAWA:Well, it presumes that all would profit from the state.
I thought that was only the conclusion, my argument being that anarchism profits everyone, but statism emerged from it, so statism had to profit everyone.
Secondly anarchism had to be the first social relationship since before it, nothing could be produced and social relationships mean nothing without stuff to enter into a relation with. So statism had to have come after
I think the presumption is that humans were first born into a state of anarchy, although I'm not sure that remains true after the first generation of whatever we can call humans (or even the first generation, if society had been already formed by the predecessors of humans in terms of evolutionary species). Even if it remains true, I have come to believe that at the time humans had not rationalized natural law and the concept of self-ownership, so if anything freedom was taken for granted and was not really understood—even as an abstract principle. It was only thousands of years after the formation of the State that humans first began to plant the seed of rationalization of human liberty, and that was probably done in Ancient Greece. Even then, a complete rationalization probably did not really take place until the 18th century.
To support your argument, you would have to make a case that the State was formed voluntarily by all members of society. I do not believe that to be true, although it is probably impossible to prove either way, given that we are dabbling into prehistory.
Aster_Lacnala: It is entirely possible that, at some time in the past, the state met certain needs that could not be handled by the market, probably due to lack of technology or social progress, or small size of the economy. That does not necessarily mean that any case of anarchy will be unable to fill these needs. So I would say your argument is incomplete.
That's a possibility. I think that the market meets everyone's needs but there are many kinds of needs. One of those needs is truth but the state was chosen (presumably) so it had to contain some truth. Now the question is, is it a truth that is incapable of being modified or is it an inferior truth like 1+1=2? It is possible that the mistake of choosing the state wasn't that the false was chosen but rather the trivially true was.
"It was only thousands of years after the formation of the State that humans first began to plant the seed of rationalization of human liberty" - So anarchism would thrive now and not result in statism - assuming that the average person had a modicum of intelligence?
Your error is that you assume there is only one form of anarchy. If that is true, we are still in anarchy, as there does not exist one world government to rule over all of the sovereigns.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
fakename: now since anarchism had to precede statism as production had to precede consumption, one must find a way for the state to emerge out of a free society which is impossible given most of the incentives & institutions in such a society. Except for one way and that way is that the state had to have had some profitability to all the members of society since anarchism specializes in profitability and so anything born from it must make use of this basis to take form as the baby needs the mother's body to proceed forth. Therefore statism must be inherently good to most people. Is my argument contradictory in any way?
I agree with you that anarchism preceded the state, and therefore the state must have arisen from anarchism. And it is true that freedom tends toward more general profitability than the state does. However, it does not follow that everything that emerges from anarchism need be generally profitable. The notion that the first state was profitable only to the members of the state, and not to its subjects, is not precluded by the general tendency toward profitability. General tendencies are not absolute laws.
In my posts Between the Rivers, Before the State and Cradle of the State, I propose where and how the state may have arisen out of anarchy.
fakename: now since anarchism had to precede statism as production had to precede consumption, one must find a way for the state to emerge out of a free society which is impossible given most of the incentives & institutions in such a society. Sounds absurd to me. If one guy is really good at accumulating wealth, he hires the strong but dumb poor guys. Also he hires the smooth talkers who aren't good for much else. A protection racket starts, with the apologists saying it's legitimate. Welcome to the state. Short answer, being free is hard work, and lost easily. Except for one way and that way is that the state had to have had some profitability to all the members of society since anarchism specializes in profitability and so anything born from it must make use of this basis to take form as the baby needs the mother's body to proceed forth. Therefore statism must be inherently good to most people. Taking it one step further, since statism is so wonderful, so are concentration camps and world wars and mass starvation. Those all came from states, like the baby etc. Is my argument contradictory in any way? No, just a non sequitor, and reductio ad absurdum demolishes it as well.
now since anarchism had to precede statism as production had to precede consumption, one must find a way for the state to emerge out of a free society which is impossible given most of the incentives & institutions in such a society.
Sounds absurd to me. If one guy is really good at accumulating wealth, he hires the strong but dumb poor guys. Also he hires the smooth talkers who aren't good for much else. A protection racket starts, with the apologists saying it's legitimate. Welcome to the state.
Short answer, being free is hard work, and lost easily.
Except for one way and that way is that the state had to have had some profitability to all the members of society since anarchism specializes in profitability and so anything born from it must make use of this basis to take form as the baby needs the mother's body to proceed forth. Therefore statism must be inherently good to most people.
Taking it one step further, since statism is so wonderful, so are concentration camps and world wars and mass starvation. Those all came from states, like the baby etc.
No, just a non sequitor, and reductio ad absurdum demolishes it as well.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Smiling Dave:reductio ad absurdum demolishes it as well.
Then there would be a contradiction but I don't think there is. It is true that concentration camps aren't good but there are many ways in which something is called good. I think that if my argument is correct, then the state must be or was, good in some way and certainly from the point of view of social profits.
Smiling Dave:No, just a non sequitor,
That just means that the premises don't lead to the conclusion but that seems to be something that needs demonstrating in light of my definition of "good".
Smiling Dave:Short answer, being free is hard work, and lost easily.
my objection to the theory that the state came about by accident is basically that it lacks theoretical coherence -where in AE can one infer such a conclusion? But my theory of the state is based on the likely superiority of anarchy over the state.
Granted the state was established by criminals that only gives a historical answer and not a theoretical one. I think that perhaps things created by the market are profitable but not in the maximum absolutely speaking (the hammer is less effective than the hydrolic pump). The state then must've been profitable in the same way but when people began to realize that the state was bad, as they realized the hammer was not useful for every application, they began to oppose it. And so there was us.
fakename: Smiling Dave: reductio ad absurdum demolishes it as well. Then there would be a contradiction but I don't think there is. TY for correcting me. Here is the contradiction: Your original argument seems to be: 1. good produces only good. 2. Anarchy is good 3. Anarchy produces statism. 4. Therefor statism is good. The rebuttal is : 5. statism produces needless mass starvation, concentration camps, pointless worldwide wars and the unimaginable human suffering attending them. 6. therefor, by 1. and 5. we may conclude that needless mass starvation etc is good. 7. but mass starvation etc is obviously bad [and if you disagree with this line, God help us] 8. so that 6. and 7. contradict each other. Therefor since assumptions 2, 3 5 and 7 seem correct, it must be assumption 1 that is wrong I think that if my argument is correct, then the state must be or was, good in some way if we accept 1,2 and 3, then 4 follows, but 1 is wrong as proven above. So it is good "in some way", but this good is so hidden and elusive [as opposed to its clearly unspeakable evils] that you can only prove it's out there somewhere, but nobody has any idea what good it is and certainly from the point of view of social profits. "Certainly?" Huh? What social profits are we talking about? Needless mass starvation, etc etc? Smiling Dave:No, just a non sequitor, That just means that the premises don't lead to the conclusion but that seems to be something that needs demonstrating in light of my definition of "good". Firstly, when did you define "good"? Second its a non sequitor if we omit the post hoc ergo prompter hoc assumption you are making. Let me spell it out. 1. statism always is preceded by anarchy in time. 2. therefor anarchy produces statism, like a mother produces a child 3. anarchy is good 4. good always produces only good. 5. therefor statism is good. 5 does not follow from 1, 3 and 4 alone . which means its a non sequitor if we omit the fallacy, 2. Smiling Dave:Short answer, being free is hard work, and lost easily. my objection to the theory that the state came about by accident is basically that it lacks theoretical coherence -where in AE can one infer such a conclusion? But my theory of the state is based on the likely superiority of anarchy over the state. At this point I'm too tired to continue. Perhaps someone else will pick up the banner of enlightening you, oh errant child. Granted the state was established by criminals that only gives a historical answer and not a theoretical one. I think that perhaps things created by the market are profitable but not in the maximum absolutely speaking (the hammer is less effective than the hydrolic pump). The state then must've been profitable in the same way but when people began to realize that the state was bad, as they realized the hammer was not useful for every application, they began to oppose it. And so there was us.
Smiling Dave: reductio ad absurdum demolishes it as well.
Then there would be a contradiction but I don't think there is.
TY for correcting me. Here is the contradiction:
Your original argument seems to be:
1. good produces only good.
2. Anarchy is good
3. Anarchy produces statism.
4. Therefor statism is good.
The rebuttal is :
5. statism produces needless mass starvation, concentration camps, pointless worldwide wars and the unimaginable human suffering attending them.
6. therefor, by 1. and 5. we may conclude that needless mass starvation etc is good.
7. but mass starvation etc is obviously bad [and if you disagree with this line, God help us]
8. so that 6. and 7. contradict each other.
Therefor since assumptions 2, 3 5 and 7 seem correct, it must be assumption 1 that is wrong
I think that if my argument is correct, then the state must be or was, good in some way
if we accept 1,2 and 3, then 4 follows, but 1 is wrong as proven above.
So it is good "in some way", but this good is so hidden and elusive [as opposed to its clearly unspeakable evils] that you can only prove it's out there somewhere, but nobody has any idea what good it is
and certainly from the point of view of social profits.
"Certainly?" Huh? What social profits are we talking about? Needless mass starvation, etc etc?
Firstly, when did you define "good"? Second its a non sequitor if we omit the post hoc ergo prompter hoc assumption you are making. Let me spell it out.
1. statism always is preceded by anarchy in time.
2. therefor anarchy produces statism, like a mother produces a child
3. anarchy is good
4. good always produces only good.
5. therefor statism is good.
5 does not follow from 1, 3 and 4 alone . which means its a non sequitor if we omit the fallacy, 2.
At this point I'm too tired to continue. Perhaps someone else will pick up the banner of enlightening you, oh errant child.
Your premise that anarchy equals a free society and specializes in profitability is false. Anarchy can be (and has been) complete lawlessness and disorder. Using that view of anarchy, the idea of the state emerging from it actually makes sense. I think you have conflated a specific brand of anarchy (market anarchism, libertarian anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, panarchy, private-law society, etc) with anarchy, all anarchy.
Long explanation:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/12969.aspx
Shorter:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/8889/228392.aspx
Elaboration on the technology aspect:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/8550.aspx
Why anarchy fails