Rettoper will be arguing in the affirmative I will be arguing in the negative. First of all let's define our terms. Mises defines the state as "the apparatus of social coercion and compulsion." (Human Action, Chapter 27, Section 3.) Now anarchism does not mean the absence of coercion and compulsion. Nearly all anarcho-capitalists recognize the need to enforce property rights with violence if necessary. I believe what sets anarchism apart is its call to have no territorial monopolies of social coercion and compulsion, and its proposition that the enforcement of private property claims can be produced by a market. Retopper, do you accept these definitions of "state" and "anarchism"?
[SORRY ZACHARY, I FORGOT TO EXPRESS IN THE OP, THIS IS A PRIVATE DEBATE, SET UP TO TO SHORT-CIRCUIT THE ACRIMONY THAT WAS OCCURRING IN ANOTHER THREAD. TO AVOID THAT ACRIMONY SPILLING INTO HERE, I ASK THAT NOBODY ELSE POST IN HERE. PEOPLE ARE WELCOME TO PM CORRECTIONS AND ADVICE TO EITHER RETOPPER OR ME. -LILBURNE)
note that an anarchist society does not exist within a greater statist framework. for example, you cant argue for the efficacy of an anarchic system if it is imbedded within any kind of statist framework.
IMHO, that is not an example of a viable and vibrant anarchic society.
For example, anarchism means existence in the absence of any statist influence, benevolence, or coercion.
moreover, I acknowledge that anarchist societies have existed in tiny, scattered, irrelevent, and isolated enclaves of no strategic signifcance. however, good luck arguing this as evidence of the "efficacy" of anarchism
Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government
The question we are considering is whether anarchism is disproved by history, not whether it is proved by history.
Moreover, define "disproved"
for example, in previous posts, I posited that anarchism would have a chance of realization within a geopolitic of representative democracies who would be inclined toward benevolence toward a free market enclave.
in that example, history has indeed not disproved the viability of anarchism. for example, I have repeatedly cited the utility of democratic peace theory in promoting peace, prosperity, freedom, and stability among like minded democracies, including any anarchic societies that might emerge.
in contrast, I have repeatedly stated that in a geopolitik dotted with autocratic regimes, the prospects for anarchic enclaves has been and would remain dismal.
"Moreover, define "disproved""
I would say for anarcho-capitalism to be disproved would be for it to be shown that anarcho-capitalism is not feasible or would produce conditions that almost nobody would want to live in.
Since you admit that anarchic societies are feasible in small enclaves, let us extend the question to this: "The feasibility and/or desirability of a world-embracing anarcho-capitalism has been shown by history to be impossible." You in the affirmative. Me in the negative. Do you accept?
Also Zachary was right to correct me that, under Anarcho-capitalism, the protection of private property need not be provided in the market nexus (meaning it need not be exchanged for money), but can be provided for in non-catallactic exchanges.
The question we are considering is whether anarchism is disproved by history, not whether it is proved by history.-- grayson
disproved?
my point was that history has shown that anarchic societies have not been sustainable, period. I further specified that this could be corrected by the promotion of global representative governance that would provide a geopolitik that would be more amendable to the emergence of anarchic societies. (democratic peace theory)
in contrast, in a previous thread (before being banned) I argued that the best way to achieve an anarchist ideal was by a measured transistion from statism, to representative democracy, to anarchism.
you see this is part of the problem I have experienced with some isolated contributors, namely tunnel vision. any criticism of anarchism, no matter how rational, measured, and objective is met with invective, vitriol, and accusations of being a statist.
an example of tunnel vision just this evening:
I posted this on page 6 of a thread:
these founders recognized the defects in the Constitution and they attempted to forestall or prevent the likely progression toward more statist abuses by installing substantive checks and balances on the power of the statists to subvert the system. -- rettoper
on page 6 of the same thread, a contributor posted this:
You always have ignored our charge that minarchism devolves into collectivism.-- snowflake
on page 6 of a thread, I was criticized for the following:
It means that instead of simply stating your conclusions, you need to actually argue for them. Here is an example of your tactics: "The government is evil and unsustainable. Rettoper fantasizes that it is, but he's actually wrong. He doesn't realize that government is stupid and will never work" See. This is just mouthing off. I'm not proving anything. Thats a "baseless assertion". When I call you out for doing it, it means you need to go back and actually argue.--snowflake
It means that instead of simply stating your conclusions, you need to actually argue for them.
Here is an example of your tactics: "The government is evil and unsustainable. Rettoper fantasizes that it is, but he's actually wrong. He doesn't realize that government is stupid and will never work"
See. This is just mouthing off. I'm not proving anything. Thats a "baseless assertion". When I call you out for doing it, it means you need to go back and actually argue.--snowflake
then in the same post, this contributor offers the following retort and nothing else to support this assertion:
Exactly. We have nice stuff in SPITE of the constitution, not because of it.-- snowflake
do you see a double standard?
I used the word "disproved" when I challenged you to this debate, and you agreed to it.
"my point was that history has shown that anarchic societies have not been sustainable, period."
Chronology has shown that anarchic societies have not lasted forever. It does not follow from that that the anarchic nature of those societies was the prime factor in their eventual demise.
Almost everything else you wrote in your last post is outside of the scope of this debate.
[PLEASE SEE THE SECOND POST IN THIS THREAD]
Chronology has shown that anarchic societies have not lasted forever. It does not follow from that that the anarchic nature of those societies was the prime factor in their eventual demise.-- grayson
history has indeed condemned anarchism to the ash heap of history, so far.
True, it is not proven that the nature of anarchic society was the prime factor for their demise.
Indeed, I will go further and assert that in a vacuum -- anarchic societies would not only survive, they would prosper to a far greater extent than any previous system, even representative democracies!
Alas, we dont live in a vacuum of benevolent, prosperous, and free anarchic enclaves. And to make assumptions and develop theories on social experiments that discount this fact is folly.
history has indeed condemned anarchism to the ash heap of history, so far. True, it is not proven that the nature of anarchic society was the prime factor for their demise.
These two sentences of yours above contradict each other.
A world-embracing anarchic society would be "in a vacuum", so to speak. So it would seem then, in light of your sentence above, that you disagree with the proposition: ""The feasibility and/or desirability of a world-embracing anarcho-capitalism has been shown by history to be impossible." If that is the case, that means you accept that: (1) anarcho-capitalism can work in enclaves AND (2) anarcho-capitalism can work as a world system. Is that correct?
history has indeed condemned anarchism to the ash heap of history, so far. True, it is not proven that the nature of anarchic society was the prime factor for their demise. --rettoper
True, it is not proven that the nature of anarchic society was the prime factor for their demise. --rettoper
how is the fact that anarchy has failed absmally to establish itself over thousands of years and my agreement with you that "it is not proven" what the causal mechanism for this failure a contradiction?
and Yes, IMHO, if an global anarchic system was to magically metastasize over the entire globe in the absence of statist regimes, then yes I believe it would be viable, for a time.
however, I think we need to establish that we live in the real world. for example, one of the tenets of my argument on why anarchist societies are not viable is not based on their efficacy to provide freedoms and wealth in a vacuum, it was based on the real threat from autocratic forces in the real world.
Moreover, could you state unequivocally that if an anarchic system was established could it exist forever? Since all human systems have lurched toward absolutism (anarchist definition) than how can anarchists suddenly change their tune and presume that their favored system would not devolve into a more statist system like all others have?
more specifically, human beings would not magically and genetically mutate from brute statists that they have been throughout history to benevolent free marketeers just because their environment changed. Humans have always exhibited certain traits (greed, avarice, jeolousy, envy, pride, et al) that may be anathema to the permanent establishment of an anarchic society.
I dont think you can claim that anarcho-capitalism is present when it "exists" within a statist framework. I agree with the retort from many anarchists who posit that this is a ruse that statists use to placate the masses into thinking that they are free when in reality the statist pulls all of the strings. If this is your ideal of an anarchic society it is not a convincing one when it exists or dies on the whim of the statist landlord.
caveat:
before we can even begin to consider if an anarchic system is viable once established, in the real world nonetheless.
A necessary precursor would be "can an anarchic system establish and sustain itself, in the real world"
For example, before you can start training to beat Bolt in the 100m, we need to determine if you can walk across the room.
"how is the fact that anarchy has failed absmally to establish itself over thousands of years and my agreement with you that "it is not proven" what the causal mechanism for this failure a contradiction?"
Because when you say that "anarchy has failed abysmally" you are saying that those societies have failed BY VIRTUE of being anarchist. That is contradicted when you say that anarchism may not be the prime factor in the demise of those societies.
"however, I think we need to establish that we live in the real world. for example, one of the tenets of my argument on why anarchist societies are not viable is not based on their efficacy to provide freedoms and wealth in a vacuum, it was based on the real threat from autocratic forces in the real world."
Alright then, since you are in basic agreement with anarcho-capitalists with regard to the previous propositions, how about this: "History has proven that enclaves of anarcho-capitalism cannot survive for long given the existence of non-anarcho-capitalist societies." You in the affirmative. Me in the negative. How's that? To have an actual debate, it would be good if we could settle on a single question to consider, as opposed to a general range of misgivings about "the other side".
"Because when you say that "anarchy has failed abysmally" you are saying that those societies have failed BY VIRTUE of being anarchist. That is contradicted when you say that anarchism may not be the prime factor in the demise of those societies."--grayson
fair enough, let me clarify -- anarchic states have been subject to plunder and predation throughout history. Sadly because they were tiny and did not have the means to defend themselves. However, they did fight valiantly and effectively until they were sacked. I believe others were simply absorbed or annexed by both public and private entities over time.
In summary, I acknowledge that no internal collapse occurred, for example I havent read any evidence of anarchic societies imploding in the absence of external threats. Of course, most dont last more than a few years on the average, but some have lasted for hundreds of years. although these were not exposed to competition or predation from contiguous states since they were scattered in isolated geographically insignificant locales.
However, even the most absolutist of regimes have shown that they can survive indefinitely in the absence of competition. I guess I could be more specific. For example, "since 1776, capitalist-anarcho societies been generated less wealth and technological advances than those created within representative democracies" or "since the beginning of civilization less people have lived within anarcho-capitalist societies than communist states" or "anarcho-capitalist societies have had a lower "life expectancy" than monarchism, democracy, absolutism, et al"
"History has proven that enclaves of anarcho-capitalism cannot survive for long given the existence of non-anarcho-capitalist societies." You in the affirmative.-- grayson
I think my statement above answers your question. I will qualify it was a caveat that it is possible for an isolated anarcho-capitaist state to prosper under the benevolent wing of an autocratic neighbor. For example, hong kong (while no anarcho society) is still a capitalist enclave contiguous to china that is tolerated. However, history has shown these temporary symbiotic relationships usually go badly for the anarchist enclave if their usefulness as a market is overshaded by political and miitary considerations.
For example, "since 1776, capitalist-anarcho societies been generated less wealth and technological advances than those created within representative democracies" or "since the beginning of civilization less people have lived within anarcho-capitalist societies than communist states" or "anarcho-capitalist societies have had a lower "life expectancy" than monarchism, democracy, absolutism, et al"
In order for the debate to have a practical bent, let us not restrict the debate to mere questions of what happened in the past, but rather what that implies to you about the future (especially how exactly to you anarcho-capitalism is a "pipe dream"). So instead of just "X happened in the past", please add something like "therefore Y will happen (or not happen) in the future".
one question, before I take care of business in the "meat world"
please give examples of past anarchic societies. I made the assumption that some did exist based on statements from anarchists on various threads. However, I didnt verify whether these enclaves were really anarcho-capitalist. In addition, they were cited from wikipedia ( a habit of many anarchists) which is not a source I trust without verification. For example, my 5 year old has routinely edited sources in wikipedia.
My position is that historical episodes can neither prove nor disprove anything about the future. Whether pockets of anarcho-capitalism have existed in the past or not has no bearing on my position that you have in no way shown that anarcho-capitalism is a "pipe dream". If you would like to marshal historical episodes for your position, you are free to research them.
"In order for the debate to have a practical bent, let us not restrict the debate to mere questions of what happened in the past, but rather what that implies to you about the future (especially how exactly to you anarcho-capitalism is a "pipe dream"). So instead of just "X happened in the past", please add something like "therefore Y will happen (or not happen) in the future"
Anarcho-capitalism is a pipe dream because of the following:
(1) difficult to establish because of the predominance of statist influences. for example, even anarchists acknowledge that statism is not going to give up power voluntarily. and ancaps have lamented that statism is growing.
(2) since power wont be surrendered by statists and their cronies voluntarily, it must be taken by coercion. For example, anarchists are of the opinion that they can "educate" the masses to the benefits of anarchism -- however, do they believe that statist will volutarily surrender the reins of information and communication. For example, do they think that the statists will surrender the monopoly of education without a fight?
(3) when statist regimes do collapse -- what guarantee do ancaps have that they will be the fortunate ideologues to fill the void when they hold little sway among the masses today. Indeed, less than 1% of the citizenry even knows what an ancap is. history has shown that the void held by statist regimes is usually filled by...... you guessed it..........another statist regime. for example, what is different today than what has existed for thousands of years?
(4) virtually every nation has been created by force or conflict usually by destroying the previous power structure--- since ancaps are pacific by nature they are less likely to gain power in this manner.
this is the short list on why it is unlikely that ancaps will gain power.
Now the short list on why they cannot retain power once they achieve it:
(1) ancaps reject preventative and preemptive war which is a necessity in a world increasingly dominated by weaponry that can deliver a survival level attack in minutes.
(2) ancaps reject WMD's including nuclear weaponry. for example, ancaps would be far less inclined to use or threaten to use nuclear weaponry that has a demonstrated utility to deter predation and attack on those that possess it.
(3) ancap society is decentralized as a result it is less able to focus decisive concentrated applications of force in military conflicts. for example, an autocratic nation has centralized control of the means to wage war -- in contrast, ancaps power is dispersed. Military doctrine has generally shown that fast and concentrated applications of power are the most effective and decisive way to defeat a foe. this axiom combined with the ancap revulsion to use preemptive attacks significantly impacts their abiilty to defend themselves.
(4) ancaps depend exclusively on private for profit mercenaries for their defense. History is chock full of examples of mercenary armies failing their clients in decisive conflicts. Why? what is the utility of dying if you are engaged in a for profit activity? for example, mercenaries are in it for the money, not sacrifice -- yet all conflict demands instances of sacrifice to accomplish mission objectives, it is the nature of war. mercenaries will not risk death to accomplish the objectives of ancaps.
(5) ancaps can be undermined by the highest bidder. for example, the ancap mercenary army can be bought off by a consortium of autocratic states that pool resources. why wouldnt a mercenary army simply transfer allegiance to the highest bidder, especially when the former client is likely to become extinct by the new client. ancaps depending on the "sanctity" of contracts in the threat of predation from autocratic armies will be tragically disappointed.
(6) would ancaps authorize the bombing of industrial centers in populated areas to reduce the war making capability of the enemy. based on what I have read, they may not have the will to do so. as a result, the half measures used by ancap forces would more likely lead to their demise at the hands of more violent and less humane fighters on the autocrats side. for example, autocrats would employ whatever means were available to reduce the ancap ability to defend itself irrespective of how many civilians were killed.
(7) ancap societies would invite predation. first their pacifism invites predation. second, their prosperity invites predation. and third, the threat that the example of ancap society represents to statists is a survival level threat. for example, statists will never allow ancap societies to reach "critical mass" of getting too large that they cant be destroyed -- because to do so would hasten the end of the statist's power. while they tolerate tiny isolated ancap enclaves, they would crush these same enclaves if they got to big.
this is the short list.
later.
My position is that historical episodes can neither prove nor disprove anything about the future. Whether pockets of anarcho-capitalism have existed in the past or not has no bearing on my position that have you have in no way shown that anarcho-capitalism is a "pipe dream". If you would like to marshal historical episodes for your position, you are free to research them.-- grayson
history is a valuable "test tube" to evaluate human experience.
to ignore history is to repeat it, or fall victim to it.
moreover, that is a disturbing statement when the essence of human civilization and advancement is the transfer of information, ideas, and history from one generation to the next.
nonetheless, if you wish to discount and ignore the experiences and lessons of millions and milllions of those that came before us (including hoppe, rothbard, et al), be my guest.
however that would mean that all of your arguments must not be influenced by anything other than your personal experiences. for example, if you discount my citation of historical fact -- why should I acknowledge the veracity of your views when they no doubt have been formed by from the influence of past ancap philosophers ?
Indeed, the very foundation of anarchism is based on an examination of the past.
do you see that your stance is anathema to the truth and more suited to despots and statists who censor?
My position is that historical episodes can neither prove nor disprove anything about the future.-- grayson
didnt einstein say something about trying to do the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?
do you think that those that discount past historical events are at risk of doing the same thing?
particularily when the example of history shows that repeated experiments result in the same outcome?
correction, before you jump down my throat.
I was incorrect to label anything related to the austrian school as based on examination of the past.
from what little I have learned about von mises in the short time I have been peruse this site is that he was not focused on past history --- quite the opposite, I believe he formed his ideas for logic.
at least that explains why you are adopting that framework to defend your position.
I accept that, and I stand corrected on this point.
for example, if logic was good enough for the austrians, then it is good enough for me since I agree with virtually all of the tenets I have read so far within this site.
later, i really do have to go
(2) since power wont be surrendered by statists and their cronies voluntarily, it must be taken by coercion.
For example, anarchists are of the opinion that they can "educate" the masses to the benefits of anarchism -- however, do they believe that statist will volutarily surrender the reins of information and communication. For example, do they think that the statists will surrender the monopoly of education without a fight?
“This movement should create a situation in which authorities will control empty stores, but not the market; the employment of workers, but not their livelihood; the official media, but not the circulation of information; printing plants, but not the publishing movement; the mail and telephones, but not communications; and the school system, but not education.”
(4) ancaps depend exclusively on private for profit mercenaries for their defense
(5) ancaps can be undermined by the highest bidder.
(6) would ancaps authorize the bombing of industrial centers in populated areas to reduce the war making capability of the enemy.
first their pacifism invites predation.
second, their prosperity invites predation.
and third, the threat that the example of ancap society represents to statists is a survival level threat.
"The average American worker enjoys amenities for which Croesus, Crassus, the Medici, and Louis XIV would have envied him." (Mises, HA)
"correction, before you jump down my throat. I was incorrect to label anything related to the austrian school as based on examination of the past. from what little I have learned about von mises in the short time I have been peruse this site is that he was not focused on past history --- quite the opposite, I believe he formed his ideas for logic. at least that explains why you are adopting that framework to defend your position. I accept that, and I stand corrected on this point. for example, if logic was good enough for the austrians, then it is good enough for me since I agree with virtually all of the tenets I have read so far within this site."
"correction, before you jump down my throat.
for example, if logic was good enough for the austrians, then it is good enough for me since I agree with virtually all of the tenets I have read so far within this site."
This is great to hear. :) I hope you continue to benefit from the vast online library here. I particularly recommend Theory and History by Ludwig von Mises, if you haven't had a chance to read it yet.
"later, i really do have to go"
Have a good night. :)
That something is difficult does not make it a "pipe dream". Difficult is the US team winning the world cup -- that may occur within this century. However establishment of a viable and significant ancap society is in another league because there is no precedent and nothing on the horizon has changed to engender optimism for this happening. For example, the only comments from the peanut gallery is lamentation that the statist are gaining power. When you are going in the opposite direction, that sounds like pipe dream stuff to me. For example, if you believe that anarcho-capitalism is possible, there must be a set of indicators and causal mechanisms to describe how anarcho-capitalism will emerge and sustain itself. In summary, you cant be an advocate for something to happen and not have a clue on what the causal mechanisms and indicators for how it will be realized in the real world. Not every statist need surrender their power voluntarily: only a critical mass. Every advance of liberalism has involved a changing of minds and a large portion of society becoming less statist and relinquishing power over his fellow man by withdrawing the support he had in the past given in the past to overweening magistrates. Are you saying that government has gotten less oppressive and powerful ? And if yes, when did this trend begin? And what is the trend today? For example, anarchists are of the opinion that they can "educate" the masses to the benefits of anarchism -- however, do they believe that statist will volutarily surrender the reins of information and communication. For example, do they think that the statists will surrender the monopoly of education without a fight? In the latest issue of the Freeman, Lawrence Reed quoted the Polish Solidarity leader Wiktor Kulerski as follows: “This movement should create a situation in which authorities will control empty stores, but not the market; the employment of workers, but not their livelihood; the official media, but not the circulation of information; printing plants, but not the publishing movement; the mail and telephones, but not communications; and the school system, but not education.” The state currently has great influence over the mainstream media, not over "information and communication". The state currently has a near-monopoly over school systems, not over education. I like this assessment. It is proven everyday across the globe by the immediate establishment of black markets in virtually any commodity, good, or service when government taxation and regulation become oppressive, and these markets are generally impervious to statist control. You could site it as the “game plan” for establishing control over statist systems. However, why do you suppose zero anarchic societies have emerged from the myriad of black markets that have been established since time immemorial? If this was a viable way for anarchro-capitalist to gain power then presumably it would have happened by now. There is no such guarantee. Which anarcho-capitalists have said there was? If a critical mass of society are not convinced of the merits of freedom, the dissolution of any particular state will very likely not be a boon. More importantly, do we have a “critical mass” of ancap sympatherizes at the ready today if a society collapses? Moreover, tens of thousands of nations have become extinct, why do you suppose none of them developed into a lasting and viable anarcho-capitalist society? And if it doesn’t matter what happened in the past, what feature of the present lends itself more favorably to the establishment of an ancap society? We do not set out to create a nation. We set out to create a society. Unlike the free market, society building is a zero sum game. You have to remove the present power structure. Unless you believe it is desirable for an ancap society to function within a statist framework, a highly dubious outcome by any objective measure. For example, you cant make an omelet without breaking an egg -- ancaps are going to have to remove a statist regime from power or fill the void when one collapses. And I question whether they have the cojones to do so, otherwise they would have already done so. Many ancaps (Murray Rothbard included) believe in the (violent, if necessary) disarmament of holders of nuclear arms. You don’t think it is dangerous or destabilizing to disarm nuclear capable states by force? How would the ancap society do this without inciting all out nuclear holocaust? Note that the moment an ancap effort was made to disarm a nuclear power, that ancap nation would cease to exist. For example, what steps would an ancap nation take to deter or defend itself from a nuclear attack in the absence of mutual assured destruction or a strategic missile defense system? Neither history nor military doctrine has proven that the military forces of centralized power are inherently inferior to the military forces of decentralized power. For any given "Alexander the Great trouncing Greek city-states" example, there is a" Greek city-states trouncing the Persian Empire" counter-example. (Of course Greek city-states were not anarcho-capitalist, but this gets at the whole "decentralized-vs.-centralized" thing.) Moreover any advantage centralized states gain in "decisiveness" they more than lose in economic growth which tends to get strangled by illiberal regimes. And any advantage decentralized states lose via "plurality" they more than gain in the economic growth made possible by liberalism. An illustrative example of this principle is the "decisive" planned economy and war machine of early 20th century Germany losing twice against the far-more-capitalist and individualistic (and thereby wealthy) countries of the west. Now a large anarcho-capitalist society, completely untrammeled as it would be by economic intervention, would be amazingly wealthy. And its economic flexibility would be such that, if a great demand for defense against belligerent neighbors merely showed up as a flicker in the price system, industry would be able to turn on a dime, and bring forth such a torrent of defense-related production, that it would make the dirigiste "decisive" belligerents look flat-footed in comparison. My point was that centralized or concentrated military force is far more effective than decentralized or dispersed units. My argument was confined to military forces, not society in general. I agree that an anarchic society would be economically more efficient and wealthy. However, I also stated that prudent statist regimes would never let the anarchic society reach “critical mass” required to survive an attack. As a result, your assertion that a “large” anarcho-capitalist society defeating the dirigiste enemies presumes too much. Namely, how did it get large in the first place, for example why would a statist cartel allow it to get large enough to be a threat. Lastly, can your anarcho-capitalist industry “turn on a dime” in 20 minutes -- the time it takes any of the thousands of world’s ballistic missiles to reach a major metropolitan center anywhere on the globe? Wealthy, maximally-capitalist societies will always tend to be the highest bidder. If the power hungry statist are napping and allow this anarcho-capitalist enclave to get big enough to reach what you call “critical mass”. However, you presume to much when you assert that these regimes will allow the ancap society to get big enough to become a threat. For example, your argument is dependent on the actions or lack of action from potential adversaries over which you have no control. That would be counter-productive to the far more effective "fifth column" strategies of convincing the population of such centers of the vast benefits of maximal capitalism. What if a group of people don’t want your maximal capitalism? For example, tens of millions of moslems believe that sharia law is preferable to any form of anarcho-capitalism. And within the next 50 years, Indonesia, Pakistan, iran, turkey, Egypt, et al will have nuclear weaponry. How do you suppose to employ “fifth column” strategies against these faith based religious autocracies --- think fast! Ballistic missiles are arcing above your population centers?
Moreover, for thousands of years a competition has existed by secularism and religion. Organized religion has oft times by taken over by statist elements. For example, how would "market forces" deal with the inevitable threat from statists who use organize and exploit religion to gain power.
Ancaps are not pacifists in the modern sense. If you don’t have the will and the means to employ nuclear weaponry then you are a pacifist that is subject to predation by any nuclear power. Unless your ancap society can develop a deterrent or a defense against nuclear weaponry, the debate stops here! Because all I have to do as a autocratic is to threaten the ancap society with nuclear annihilation, and you will either comply or die. Moreover, the statist may be corrupt, inefficient, and wasteful --- but he is not stupid and he will not go gently into the night because of maximal capitalism. They will never allow ancap societies to reach the critical mass required for self-defense. Although there is a way to surmount this weakness, I will leave it to you to discover it if you havent already. Human beings are not fixed entities. Today's statist can be tomorrow's anarcho-capitalist. Ancap society does not threaten the statist as a man. It only threatens the function of "statist". The statist is a union of men (no pun intended) when you seek to undermine their power “function” ( and their ill-gotten gains) you undermine them directly --- they will vigorously oppose you (crack open a history book). Indeed the most heinous acts of torture, murder, genocide in history have been by statists seeking to gain or preserve power. It is folly to think that a group of people who have murdered tens of millions will suddenly “see the light” and surrender power to maximal capitalism dogma. "The average American worker enjoys amenities for which Croesus, Crassus, the Medici, and Louis XIV would have envied him." (Mises, HA) Had Louis XIV established economic liberty at the beginning of his reign, capitalist France would have poured a greater cornucopia of goods and services upon his head than his crippling taxes ever did. VERY few (if any) people benefit from the interventionist state more than they would benefit from capitalism. Mises knew what he was talking about: there truly is a harmony of interests. Had Louis XIV established economic liberty at the beginning of his reign, capitalist France would have poured a greater cornucopia of goods and services upon his head than his crippling taxes ever did. VERY few (if any) people benefit from the interventionist state more than they would benefit from capitalism. Mises knew what he was talking about: there truly is a harmony of interests I agree, where were you when I was arguing that capitalism within the framework of representative democracy had bestowed enormous benefits on its citizenry since 1776. I was labeled a statist for pointing this out even when I acknowledged that government was not the causal factor for this increase in prosperity. However, there is something interesting in play here. If Louis XIV (and obama, bush, sarkozy, harper, merkel, cameron, et al) didn’t understand the benefits of maximal-capitalism, how are you going to educate the masses? Moreover, if the majority of intellectuals, pundits, politicians, clerics, academics, entertainers, and even economists don’t subscribe to the tenets of maximal capitalism --- how do ancaps convince the masses who are inundated with reams of information on a daily basis. How do you break through the noise when only a sprinkling of entrepreneurs, economists, and random nutcases like us are even aware that von mises, hayek, hoppe, rothbard, et al even exist. Indeed less than 1% of the American people even know what an Austrian economist is much less agree with its tenets. How many decades, millennia will it take just to educate the majority of people that the Austrian school exists -- and then the process of convincing them of its merits begins.
Do you agree with the following axioms I have heard ad nauseam from myriad ancaps on this site:
(1) statist systems always seek out more power,
(2) once established, statist elements never surrender power.
(3) statist systems are utterly incapable of providing any benefit its subjects, everything that it does is damaging to society.
(4) statist systems are always despotic, violent, and inhumane
Ancaps are not pacifists in the modern sense. --grayson
"The average American worker enjoys amenities for which Croesus, Crassus, the Medici, and Louis XIV would have envied him." (Mises, HA) Had Louis XIV established economic liberty at the beginning of his reign, capitalist France would have poured a greater cornucopia of goods and services upon his head than his crippling taxes ever did. VERY few (if any) people benefit from the interventionist state more than they would benefit from capitalism. Mises knew what he was talking about: there truly is a harmony of interests. Had Louis XIV established economic liberty at the beginning of his reign, capitalist France would have poured a greater cornucopia of goods and services upon his head than his crippling taxes ever did. VERY few (if any) people benefit from the interventionist state more than they would benefit from capitalism. Mises knew what he was talking about: there truly is a harmony of interests--grayson
I missed putting these quotes into italics in a previous message. I hope this corrects the error, and it is not too difficult to follow my responses.
btw, you are quoting von mises, he definitely knows what he is talking about -- is he an anarcho-capitalist?
I was under that impression that he advocated some measure of government.
Perhaps for self-defense?
IMportantly, anachro-capitalism does not function within a vacuum. And while the free market is not a zero sum game --- geopolitics is.
for example, I believe that anachro-capitalists assert that it is undesirable for an ancap society to exist within a statist framework. For example, that would be a bastardized ancap model, it wouldnt be an example of a viable and free ancap system.
so, in order for an ancap society to become ascendant, it must remove the present power structure or fill the void left by a failed system.
you must understand the nature of the competitor, if you are going to replace it or prevent it from resurfacing.
Namely, if statism is so destructive, violent, and inefficient (and I believe that it is) why has it been so predominant for tens of thousands of years?
in contrast, why hasnt a single ancap society of note emerged despite tens of thousands of years of human conflict, revolution, and change?
However establishment of a viable and significant ancap society is in another league because there is no precedent
There was no precedent to the industrial revolution when it happened either.
nothing on the horizon has changed to engender optimism for this happening. For example, the only comments from the peanut gallery is lamentation that the statist are gaining power. When you are going in the opposite direction, that sounds like pipe dream stuff to me.
It is precisely because things are going downward so quickly that a revolution in people's thinking might be in the offing. From my article, For Civilization, it is Mises or Bust:
Before the rise of liberalism made continuous capital accumulation possible across generations, the common man held a gross underestimation of what his own species was capable of. He took it for granted that economic stagnation across millennia was simply an inevitable fact of life. He had no inkling that human society was capable of enormous strides in the standard of living within a single decade. If the average man had any notion of it at all, he would have shrugged at the fact that his own standard of living was not much different from that of the average man a dozen generations before him, or, for that matter, from an even more ancient forebear 1,000 years prior. And if the ruling caste lived high on the hog while the bulk of the populace remained mired in squalor, well that was just a fact of life, too.
But that has irreversibly changed. The phenomenal increases in the well-being of man over the past centuries have exploded such lies. The common man knows he and his fellows are capable of wondrous achievements.
And so, years from now, after the prodigious capital consumption engendered by the Federal Reserve and other government measures has reduced society to squalor again, the common man will not accept it. The ruling caste may insist to him that the new squalor is simply a product of circumstances brought on by the recklessness of certain private individuals, and that the maintenance of the rulers' own power and position are necessary to keep things from getting even worse (as the Fed is doing even now as it is confronted with but a mild curtailment of its powers).
But the common man will not believe these lies. He will not accept a return to the old order. He has already tasted the fruits of capital accumulation. He knows civilization is capable of more than this, and that somewhere there must be a wrench in the gears of society: a problem too fundamental to be explained by just the reckless investing or heedless consumption of certain private individuals at a certain point in time.
He will desperately look for this wrench, even if it means abandoning some of his most firmly held beliefs about government and society. He already knows from history that the students of Marx can't help him find it. And he will come to realize after a string of failed economic-rescue attempts that the students of Keynes and other mainstream economists don't know where it is either.
But, if he survives long enough, and if society does not descend into barbarism first, the common man might find the answer to his conundrum in the writings of Ludwig von Mises and his students. And he will learn from Mises that the wrench in the gears of civilization is nothing else but the interventionist state. He might even then find the will and the nerve to yank out the wrench for good.
Or he might not, and all will be lost.
For example, if you believe that anarcho-capitalism is possible, there must be a set of indicators and causal mechanisms to describe how anarcho-capitalism will emerge and sustain itself. In summary, you cant be an advocate for something to happen and not have a clue on what the causal mechanisms and indicators for how it will be realized in the real world.
Political orders are artifices of man. If enough people are convinced that anarcho-capitalism is the best means to their ends, they will erect anarcho-capitalism.
Are you saying that government has gotten less oppressive and powerful ? And if yes, when did this trend begin? And what is the trend today?
At some points it did become less interventionist. However, recently it has been trending toward more interventionism. For a full answer, read my article Society vs. State in Seven Epochs (keep in mind, however, that I've become a lot less moralistic since I wrote the introduction to that article).
However, why do you suppose zero anarchic societies have emerged from the myriad of black markets that have been established since time immemorial? If this was a viable way for anarchro-capitalist to gain power then presumably it would have happened by now.
Because people act according to the ideas they adopt. The scientific case for completely unfettered markets was not spelled out until Ludwig von Mises. And his works are an essential prerequisite for establishing the scientific case for anarcho-capitalism, which, it must be conceded, is still a work in progress. But his work was almost lost in the maelstrom of the early twentieth century before it had a chance to work upon the minds of man. But Austrian scholarship is spreading now like never before. And it is needed now like never before. That is why our times might be different.
More importantly, do we have a “critical mass” of ancap sympatherizes at the ready today if a society collapses?
No.
Moreover, tens of thousands of nations have become extinct, why do you suppose none of them developed into a lasting and viable anarcho-capitalist society?
Again, the sciences of human action had never been sufficiently developed.
And if it doesn’t matter what happened in the past, what feature of the present lends itself more favorably to the establishment of an ancap society?
The existence of the works of Mises and his students, and the possibility that those ideas can be propagated.
Unlike the free market, society building is a zero sum game.
That is not true. EVERYONE would benefit from maximal liberalism, even formerly high-level bureaucrats.
And I question whether they have the cojones to do so, otherwise they would have already done so.
Why would you write something so inflammatory? With just about anyone else than me, that would be a discussion-progress-stopper right there.
You don’t think it is dangerous or destabilizing to disarm nuclear capable states by force? How would the ancap society do this without inciting all out nuclear holocaust?
Note that the moment an ancap effort was made to disarm a nuclear power, that ancap nation would cease to exist. For example, what steps would an ancap nation take to deter or defend itself from a nuclear attack in the absence of mutual assured destruction or a strategic missile defense system?
I don't know exactly how a free people would defend itself from and gradually disarm nuclear states, but I know they would approach the matter intelligently and capably, because they have the wealth and all the right kind of incentives to do so.
However, I also stated that prudent statist regimes would never let the anarchic society reach “critical mass” required to survive an attack.
If the leading people in a country know how wealthy anarcho-capitalism will make another group of people who are trending toward anarcho-capitalism, then that means they know how efficacious anarcho-capitalism is to all members of society. If they know that, then they themselves will trend toward anarcho-capitalism. Also you presume a single-minded belligerence among other nations. This presumption is unjustified. The goals that can lead a nation to war are just some goals among many. Leaders of even statist nations are also interested in peaceful trade to a large extent. They're not a bunch of Stark Trek Klingons.
Lastly, can your anarcho-capitalist industry “turn on a dime” in 20 minutes -- the time it takes any of the thousands of world’s ballistic missiles to reach a major metropolitan center anywhere on the globe?
No, but I would say that entrepreneurs in a completely unfettered private security market would serve their customers in preventing and/or protecting against such an attack better than any military bureaucrats.
For example, tens of millions of moslems believe that sharia law is preferable to any form of anarcho-capitalism.
We have to change their minds.
And within the next 50 years, Indonesia, Pakistan, iran, turkey, Egypt, et al will have nuclear weaponry. How do you suppose to employ “fifth column” strategies against these faith based religious autocracies --- think fast!
If the answers to these questions were easy, then a state could handle them just fine, and we would not need a free society. I am not myself a private defense entrepreneur. I am a student of economics who understands better than 99% of the population the general superiority of the entrepreneur-driven market over the bureaucrat-driven state in solving difficult problems.
For example, how would "market forces" deal with the inevitable threat from statists who use organize and exploit religion to gain power.
With ideas which are evidently superior in their usefulness.
If you don’t have the will and the means to employ nuclear weaponry then you are a pacifist that is subject to predation by any nuclear power. Unless your ancap society can develop a deterrent or a defense against nuclear weaponry, the debate stops here!
That presupposes that M.A.D. deterrence is the only kind of defense.
he is not stupid and he will not go gently into the night because of maximal capitalism.
He will if he is convinced it would be beneficial to.
The statist is a union of men (no pun intended) when you seek to undermine their power “function” ( and their ill-gotten gains) you undermine them directly --- they will vigorously oppose you (crack open a history book). Indeed the most heinous acts of torture, murder, genocide in history have been by statists seeking to gain or preserve power. It is folly to think that a group of people who have murdered tens of millions will suddenly “see the light” and surrender power to maximal capitalism dogma.
Collectives don't "act". Individuals do. (Google "Mises" and "methodological individualism") Those individual statists thought that the bounty of their methods were superior to the bounty of capitalism. They were factually wrong. If such people are convinced they are factually wrong, they will choose the more bountiful approach.
If Louis XIV (and obama, bush, sarkozy, harper, merkel, cameron, et al) didn’t understand the benefits of maximal-capitalism, how are you going to educate the masses?
With Austrian economics, of which all those people were unfortunately ignorant. Louis XIV was ignorant even of the teachings of classical liberalism such as they were in the 18th century. Yet by the 19th century a critical mass of educated people in the west had adopted them.
how do ancaps convince the masses who are inundated with reams of information on a daily basis.
Our information, if carefully considered, is inherently more convincing, because it is true.
How do you break through the noise when only a sprinkling of entrepreneurs, economists, and random nutcases like us are even aware that von mises, hayek, hoppe, rothbard, et al even exist.
Indeed less than 1% of the American people even know what an Austrian economist is much less agree with its tenets. How many decades, millennia will it take just to educate the majority of people that the Austrian school exists -- and then the process of convincing them of its merits begins.
Intellectual revolutions always start out that way. There was a time when few people knew Adam Smith existed too. Classic liberalism spread like a forest fire across the west because of the printing press. Austrian economics may very well come to spread like a prairie fire because of the internet.
Systems do not "seek". Seeking is an action. Only individuals act.
No. There is no praxeological law that dictates that.
Everything that it does results in consequences that are less favorable than what a free society would have brought about.
Despotism refers to absolute power. Not all statist systems hold absolute power. All states are violent by definition, as the "social apparatus of coercion and compulsion". What exactly do you mean by "inhumane"?
No, he was not.
He did. Pretty much only a "night watchman state".
Geopolitics is not a zero-sum game. The people who run states, assuming states exist, benefit more from peace and free trade, than they would from military and trade wars. Google "comparative advantage" and "law of association".
Because people believed it was less destructive, violent, and inefficient than the alternatives for tens of thousands of years.
Because the sciences of human action had not advanced sufficiently such that, if understood, it could show people the advantages of maximal capitalism until the advent of Ludwig von Mises.
However, several factors have always been consistent regarding social change, among these that a government has always been present. Equally important is that nothing of benefit to mankind has ever emerged from the detritus of anarchism. All of the advancements and improvements in the march of human progress have come about within the framework of government. Before heads explode in the peanut gallery, I acknowledge that factors other than government were the primary drives for this change, nonetheless nothing noteworthy in any human endeavor (save heady and empty rhetoric) has ever emerged from anarchic society.
If I am wrong on this point, cite the innovation or advancement and the anarchic society in which it was advanced.
I have argued this point in a previous thread. However, there is no evidence to suggest that anarchism will be the outcome of anti-statist evolution/revolution. Indeed, as I stated earlier -- never in history has a sustainable anarchic society emerged from societal collapse. Most likely (hopefully) it will be a more minarchist construct.
But, if he survives long enough, and if society does not descend into barbarism first, the common man might find the answer to his conundrum in the writings of Ludwig von Mises and his students. And he will learn from Mises that the wrench in the gears of civilization is nothing else but the interventionist state. He might even then find the will and the nerve to yank out the wrench for good. Or he might not, and all will be lost.
I agree with the substance of your assessment. Moreover, I am more optimistic since I dont think that "all will be lost". Nonetheless, you presume too much when you think that the "common man's" conundrum is simply the preservation of private property, freedom, and the accumulation of wealth. A common thread (destructive IMHO) throughout mankind has been this principle of "fairness" or egalitarianism. It has been a tool that statists have used to undermine IMHO more practical systems, like classical liberalism, minarchism,and anarchism. MOreover, spirituality is another dominate thread of social interaction. For example, the tenets of many of the world's great religions are anathema to the freedom associated with economic freedom.
"enough people" are not going to be convinced that anarcho-capitalism is the best means to their ends -- because anarcho-capitalism is limited in that it is primarily an economic construct. In contrast, people are far more complicated, as I stated previously, they are motivated by more than just free markets and private property. I think that anarcho-capitalist dismiss at least two important facts of human--- the importance of egalitarianism and spirituality. For example, I remember watching a debate obama participated in when he was running for the US senate, when asked if he would be willing to sacrifice increased growth to attain a more egalitarian income distribution, he replied, "Yes". Moreover, muslims, evangelical christians, buddihists, anarcho-socialists, et al will never submit to a anarcho-capitalism system. Indeed, throughout history, the anarcho-capitalist systems that have existed have been assimilated by these systems -- in most cases, without a whimper.
IMHO, to the detriment of society in general. Just because I dont think a system is viable, doesnt mean that I disapprove of it.
I agree. Note for promoting this view, this I was challenged by numerous anarchists on a previous thread. for example, many ancap contributors called me a "statist" for repeating what you have just asserted. Indeed, even among anarcho-capitalists there is no consensus. among anarchists in general, there is outright contempt. Good luck uniting just anarchists --- it will never happen in the absence of coercion.
If anarcho-capitalism is a new construct, then please inform the contributors on this forum who continually cite examples of "successful" ancap societies dating back thousands of years (olovetto, andrew, et al ) . Note that I was derided for asserting that history has little or no record of viable and sustainable ancap societies. In summary, it seems that there is little consensus among ancaps regarding the "facts" of anarcho-capitalism that makes it very difficult to influence potential converts to the cause. For example, how are anarcho-capitalists going to influence the masses when their disciples cannot even find common ground on simple tenets?
Moreover, this site has some radical members who are insistent on banning and censoring potential converts who challenge any aspect of anarcho-capitalism. it is apparent that this site has been populated with by a counter-productive group of members who intent on "protecting their turf" and less on spreading the word.
I have seen citations that claim the holocaust is a myth. a post from a young lady who wished for the deaths of US military personnel, and you have witnessed first hand the myriad of posts devoid of fact and logic, dripping with vitriol and invective directed against me. In summary, if this is a premier hub of anarcho-capitalist thought -- it is hardly structured to gain converts, more likely it will alienated potential members.
Again, the sciences of human action had never been sufficiently developed. That is not true. EVERYONE would benefit from maximal liberalism, even formerly high-level bureaucrats.
I agree that the majority would benefit economically and materially. However, I question whether priviledged statists would IMMEDIATELY benefit from a dramatic loss of power and wealth. Note that any benefits accrued to society might take years. MOreover, the natural redistribution of assets from malinvestments to more productive enterprises would lead to serious short-term disruptions, not to mention the loss of million of jobs in both the private and public sectors. Again I have never questioned the efficacy of an ESTABLISHED anarchic system in the absence of any autocratic regimes at the ready to step-in to exploit this chaos makes the realization of an anachro-capitalism society a pipe dream. Moreover, while anarcho-capitalism is based on a sound economic framework, you cannot predict what impact it would have on the emotional and spiritual aspects of human needs and wants. As I have stated earlier, for better or worse, egalitarianism and spiritualism have strong influences in human social interaction.
I will respond to the balance of your post later.
Sorry for any typos, but I didnt have time to extensively edit this diatribe.
However, several factors have always been consistent regarding social change, among these that a government has always been present.
That is not true. It is possible to conceive a society without a state. It is not possible to conceive a state without a society. Therefore society must have predated the state.
Indeed, as I stated earlier -- never in history has a sustainable anarchic society emerged from societal collapse.
That is because an anarcho-capitalist theory had never been spelled out before. That is changing now.
Nonetheless, you presume too much when you think that the "common man's" conundrum is simply the preservation of private property, freedom, and the accumulation of wealth. A common thread (destructive IMHO) throughout mankind has been this principle of "fairness" or egalitarianism. It has been a tool that statists have used to undermine IMHO more practical systems, like classical liberalism, minarchism,and anarchism. MOreover, spirituality is another dominate thread of social interaction. For example, the tenets of many of the world's great religions are anathema to the freedom associated with economic freedom.
The overwhelmingly overriding concern dominating what political order humans choose to support is material well-being.
Human Action, Chapter 11, Section 2:
It is customary to call these concerns materialistic and to charge liberalism with an alleged crude materialism and a neglect of the "higher" and "nobler" pursuits of mankind. Man does not live by bread alone, say the critics, and they disparage the meanness and despicable baseness of the utilitarian philosophy. However, these passionate diatribes are wrong because they badly distort the teachings of liberalism.
First: The liberals do not assert that men ought to strive after the goals mentioned above. What they maintain is that the immense majority prefer a life of health and abundance to misery, starvation, and death. The correctness of this statement cannot be challenged. It is proved by the fact that all antiliberal doctrines--the theocratic tenets of the various religious, statist, nationalist, and socialist parties--adopt the same attitude with regard to these issues. They all promise their followers a life of plenty. They have never ventured to tell people that the realization of their program will impair their material well-being. They insist--on the contrary--that while the realization of the plans of their rival parties will result in indigence for the majority, they themselves want to provide their supporters with abundance. The Christian parties are no less eager in promising the masses a higher standard of living than the nationalists and the socialists. Present-day churches often speak more about raising wage rates and farm incomes than about the dogmas of the Christian doctrine.
Secondly: The liberals do not disdain the intellectual and spiritual aspirations of man. On the contrary. They are prompted by a passionate ardor for intellectual and moral perfection, for wisdom and for aesthetic excellence. But their view of these high and noble things is far from the crude representations of their adversaries. They do not share the naive opinion that any system of social organization can directly succeed in encouraging philosophical or scientific thinking, [p. 155] in producing masterpieces of art and literature and in rendering the masses more enlightened. They realize that all that society can achieve in these fields is to provide an environment which does not put insurmountable obstacles in the way of the genius and makes the common man free enough from material concerns to become interested in things other than mere breadwinning. In their opinion the foremost social means of making man more human is to fight poverty. Wisdom and science and the arts thrive better in a world of affluence than among needy peoples.
It is a distortion of facts to blame the age of liberalism for an alleged materialism. The nineteenth century was not only a century of unprecedented improvement in technical methods of production and in the material well-being of the masses. It did much more than extend the average length of human life. Its scientific and artistic accomplishments are imperishable. It was an age of immortal musicians, writers, poets, painters, and sculptors; it revolutionized philosophy, economics, mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology. And, for the first time in history, it made the great works and the great thoughts accessible to the common man.
it is apparent that this site has been populated with by a counter-productive group of members who intent on "protecting their turf" and less on spreading the word.
Sadly, there is some truth to that statement. But they are a minority here, however vocal they may be. And people can learn more effective ways of communicating (including you, by the way... although you've been quite civil toward me, and for that I thank you). Don't write all of them off.
However, I question whether priviledged statists would IMMEDIATELY benefit from a dramatic loss of power and wealth. Note that any benefits accrued to society might take years.
Think of the bounty of technology and consumer goods and services that even severely hampered capitalism has produced in just the past 15 years. What unhampered capitalism could create in 15 years would dwarf that. Most people plan on living for at least another 15 years.
my assertion was not meant to be an personal affront, it is based on anarcho-capitalism in general. For example, there is no record of anarchists taking power by coercion. Yet, rarely in human history has any significant revolutionary movement been accomplished in the absence of force. for example, if anarchism rejects the use of force in order to secure power, then this alone would be justification for my assertion that anarchism is a pipe dream. For example, produce a single significant change in the levers of power that did not involve some measure of coercion.
it is noteworthy to consider that free speech is not protected anywhere in an anarchic society. This is a glaring weakness by any objective measure. For example, counter-cultural and adversarial views would be severely restricted throughout this society. Unlike the AMerican melting pot that encourages assimilation and shared values -- the anarchic society would resemble a mosiac of disparate, isolated, alienated, and divisive groups who rarely interact or benefit from opposing views, methods, and ideas --- all free to perpetuate their lifestyle or ideology of choice in the absence of opposing, yet beneficial views. Moreover, this mosiac would lead to disunity that would make anarchic societies vulnerable to predation from less efficient and wealthy, but centralized liberal and autocratic societies. For example, neighboring anarchic enclaves would be less likely to intervene on behalf of a neighboring enclave under attack if they shared no common bonds or cultural traits other than being anarchic.
You dont think that classic liberals were thoughtful, intelligent, and capable? isnt that an inflammatory statement ? You dont think that classic liberals or minarchist have incentives to defend itself from nuclear weaponry?
Moreover, do anarchists know what would happen in the absence of nuclear weaponry ? The chance of war would be greatly enhanced. For example, nuclear weaponry, while its existance is bemoaned by anarchists, has saved tens of millions of innocents from violent death and enslavement. Indeed, an anarchic world would be a cauldron of continuous, low level, destabilizing, and violent confrontations of competing private security firms. IN the absence of WMD, the costs of conflict would be significantly reduced making its possibility more likely. Moreover, opportunistic autocratic regimes could lay in wait on the sidelines until an anarchic society was sufficiently weakened to make predation possible.
this statement is debunked by history. For example, iran, venezuala, cuba, russia, china, et al must know that from the standpoint of wealth accumulation the less government, the more prosperity. however, they are not likely to trend toward limited government, the opposite usually occurs. For complicated reasons, these governments become more despotic and confrontational when confronted with prosperous Western democracies. Empirical evidence suggest strongly that one of the primary factors that leads to war is when the balance of power between nations is perceived to be changing. The nation that sees its strength waning relative to a potential adversary is far more likely to pre-emptively attack that adversary. This supports my earlier assertion that autocratic states will not allow a prosperous anarchic state to emerge.
I disagree. The anarchic society would be too decentralized. It is unlikely that the disparate private defense contractors would unite in a coherent manner. For example, who would lead this union? Would a proud anarchist commander surrender his soveriegnty over his own forces to a competitor?
if they did -- that could lead to a statist threat from within. For example, the danger of a more effective centralized effort would lead to a coup from the unified forces led by a charismatic leader "crossing the rubicon" as has happened all too often in the REAL world. In summary, it is naive to think that the human nature that leads men to personal glory and renown would be prevented by "market forces" --- a single alexander the great, ceasar, napolean, et al could destroy the foundations of your anarchic society in a fortnight as they have all other systems.
you probably understand economics more than 99.99% of the economists, including myself. Human actions are not restricted to just economics alone. I think that anarcho-capitalists place too much focus on economics and the markets alone at the expense of other human social sciences. FOr example, virtually all human cultures have a tendency toward a heirarchal arrangement -- from the family, to local governance, and finally national governance. Many anthropologists have suggested this may be genetic as well as cultural. Obviously, if mankind is determined to have a genetic propensity to heirarchical arrangements then anarchism is debunked. For example, many species naturally develop complicated social structures that are statist in nature, mankind may have some remnant of this trait from his days on the savannah.
the policy of MAD is likely to have saved all of our lives from being lost by conventional arms. Moreover, it is likely that the cold war would have turned "hot" and all of europe lost and today enslaved in the absence of nuclear weaponry and more importantly, the demonstrated truth that the classical liberal had both the will and the means to use it.
Unlike any in history, classical liberal societies, while abhorred by the anarchists, have contributed more to promoting peace with freedom, prosperity, and stability than anyother system known to man. It is highly unlikely that anarchists, who have contributed nothing to these goals, can convince me -- or the rest of the citizenry that their system can defend against despotism (statism) as effectively as classical liberalism, particularily when naive anarchists are hell bent on disarming themselves.
The "bountiful" approach is not the one chosen by the islamists, the monk, the christian, the social-anarchist, the egalitarian, et al. YOu presume too much when you presume that the "be all and end all" of human existence is a free and functioning market. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even among rational people, the perception of security and stability is more likely to be chosen then the chance of actual prosperity in a dynamic and free society, albeit with no government protections or safety net.
For examples, polls from free market pollsters show repeatedly that over 90% of the citizenry believes that some measure of government is necessary for the smooth functioning of society. Hopefully, entities like the mises institute can change this view, although if curiousity seekers are derided and banned for providing an alternate opinion, then it is likely that anachro-capitalism will not gain a toe hold.
I have read the statist literature. Folks like soros, krugman, keynes, stiglitz, et al are not stupid. Moreover, they know the austrian school and they are persuasive when preaching to the uninformed masses because they invoke principles like egalitarianism, social justice, workers rights, environment, et al. Their ideas resonate with the masses who are undeniably moral, hard working, selfless, and intelligent. Nonetheless, while they are bestowing the bounties of capitalism that you eloquently described above, they dont have time to sift through the bullshit.
In contrast to the seemingly rose colored propaganda of the statist, the anarcho-capitalist dogma while logical has been deliver in a manner to alienate potential converts. For example, they cavilerly and vehemently disrespect and vilify institutions and ideas that millions have risked honor and life to perpetuate. Moreover, these institutions and ideas have created the very foundations upon which further progress along the austrian model can be realized. for example, if anarcho-capitalism is a super highway of human ideas and progress -- you cant get there unless you travel and nurture the dirt road classical liberalism.
I read a very succinct and noteworthy argument on another thread that pointed out how anarcho-capitalist undermine progress with their anti-minarchist vitriol and invective For example, if you have a hypothetical election and a statist and a minarchist running -- the minarchist will always win to the benefit of society and society is closer to the desired anarcho-capitalist outcome. WHen you have a statist and an anarchist running, the statist will always win. Lastly, when you have a statist, a minarchist, and an anarchist running -- the statist wins to the detriment of all.
something to think about. and it may illustrate why anarchism has not had any traction politically for hundreds of years.
The truth doesnt mean jack shit in politics and the acquistion of power. I can spend the next hundred years pointing out evidence of this fact. Moreover, the adage "nice guys finish last" was probably coined by a politician. For example, if anarchists cant put any teeth and political machinations behind their rhetoric -- they are always going to be sitting on the bench while the statists and minarchists battle it out. Moreover, anarchists have a propensity for sanctimonous frankness that alienates the hell out of the masses and continues to make you a fringe group. That is unfortunate since we all know that the tenets of the austrian school are far superior to any competing ideology.
Never in history has a system risen so quickly and so convincingly against as many hostile competing systems as classical liberalism. It is sad that the very benefactor that provided the impetus that might allow for the emergence of anarcho-capitalism is the one most vilified by these beneficiaries.
I agree that the emergence of electronic mass communications may be the spark that ignites a revolution. However, it those wielding the spark allow it to become extinguished in a disparate, divisive, petty, and self-serving manner than the more seasoned time tested rhetoric of the statist will prevail as it has for tens of thousands of years. In summary, history does fall into mankind's lap, it has to be seized and bent by those who wish to change it -- and in many cases brute force is the vehicle for this change.
and disturbingly for anarchists, they come to the fight with one hand tied behind their backs expecting to win.
sorry for the typos and grammar errors,but time is limited.
True, yet how can you explain why anarchism failed when not confronted with any statist competition? For example, if anarchism was the first society, why was it overrun by government?
Moreover, this would debunk the assertion that anarchism can sustain itself when it reaches "critical mass" --- indeed it must have had critical mass at the dawn of civilization, yet it was sent to the ash heap of failed systems by statists.
Whether it was "spelled out" or not, anarchism existed at the dawn of civilization without competition, yet it still failed. Moreover, von mises is not an advocate of anarchism so if his teachings lead to converts they will most likely be minarchists. moreover throughout history, there have been myriad philsophers who have pondered the merits of limited government and anarchism. The notion of society with no government has been around since man first learn to write. the austrians may be a little more persuasive then many of the older schools of thought, or perhaps their writings are contemporary and more easily understood and appreciated.
It appears that many anarchists would have labeled hayek and von mises "statists" for advocating a small measure of government.
do you agree with the assertion by anarchists that a small measure of government would lead to absolutism over time?
or do you side with von mises and hayek that a small measure of government is necessary ?
Perhaps that assertion is correct, but it is irrevelent.
the political order humans get is not the one they most desire. More likely it is the special interest group that wields power most effectively, that attains it. otherwise, why have some many people lived under tyrannical forms of government throughout history?
Moreover, if allowed to choose, most people choose or vote in their own petty self-interest. For example, that is why pure democracy is a form of soft tyranny against the minority and civilization in general. That is why the experiment of a Constitutional Federal Republic has been so successful, albeit imperfect. THe COnsitution places negative freedoms and balances on government branches. The Federal component decentralizes authority, and the Republic softens the tyranny of democracy. It is not perfect, but to paraphrase Churchill " it is the best we have"
By its very nature, anarchists will never take power since to do so requires them to betray one of their most cherished tenets, non-violence against their fellow man. This alone explains why anarchism is a pipe dream.
In order for anarchists to gain power, they have to denounce anarchism.
True,
capitalism leads to prosperity without negatively impacting morality. Nonetheless, you have not addressed the curse of egalitarianism that has infected society. For example, I stated in an earlier post that our leaders have always sought to exploit this human foible to gain power. They use class warfare to pit one side against their other through the use of envy and jeolousy.
Moreover, it seems that the more prosperous society becomes, the more likely this tactic will be successfully used by corrupt and self-serving politicians.
Paradoxically, it seems that the more affluent a society becomes the more likely it will lurch back toward statism. I think that egalitarianism has something to do with this, perhaps we just get lazy or it is human nature to tinker with hierarchal structures irrespective of whether they are beneficial or not.