Bank Run: macsnafu:And I'm not sure it's an improvement over other terms. Perhaps this is just a bunch of quacking over terms. Understanding terms and where they come from, helps the rationality of argument. I am sticking with the terms I find to be most constructive like, contractual society, laissez-faire, self-rule/autarchism.
macsnafu:And I'm not sure it's an improvement over other terms.
Perhaps this is just a bunch of quacking over terms. Understanding terms and where they come from, helps the rationality of argument.
I am sticking with the terms I find to be most constructive like, contractual society, laissez-faire, self-rule/autarchism.
But autarchism is a term usually applied to states that want to keep all production internal - grow their own food, manufacture their own cars, etc., etc...and of dictators. If you think "anarchism" is going to be misunderstood ....!
Paul: Bank Run: macsnafu:And I'm not sure it's an improvement over other terms. Perhaps this is just a bunch of quacking over terms. Understanding terms and where they come from, helps the rationality of argument. I am sticking with the terms I find to be most constructive like, contractual society, laissez-faire, self-rule/autarchism. But autarchism is a term usually applied to states that want to keep all production internal - grow their own food, manufacture their own cars, etc., etc...and of dictators. If you think "anarchism" is going to be misunderstood ....!
You're thinking of Autarky, not Autarchy.
Greek is a weird language...
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
I think the problem is that English renders the two words identical in terms of pronunciation, whereas in Greek it differs (although not too significantly.) The 'ch' in Greek is not pronounced as the English 'k'.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: I think the problem is that English renders the two words identical in terms of pronunciation, whereas in Greek it differs (although not too significantly.) The 'ch' in Greek is not pronounced as the English 'k'.
Still, I hope he's made his point that use of the term, while technically correct, is confusing. In fact, after quickly checking a couple of on-line dictionaries, I see only the "national economic independence" definition for both spellings. What exactly is the meaning you have in mind for which spelling?
"He that struggles with us strengthens our nerves, and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper." Edmund Burke
Even its meaning, self-rule, is incredibly ambiguous. I take anarchism to be a negative, the absence of coercive authority. Autarchy seems to denote a much more positive notion of governance.
No, the problem is it's the same word - just variant spellings (there are two Greek words mixed up in there, but the English words are not distinct).
(And yes it is; 'k' in English is not a single sound - it can be aspirated as in Greek χ or unaspirated as in Greek κ - compare "key" vs. "ski" - but English speakers don't usually distinguish between them)
Spideynw: There is no reason to believe anyone would want to invade a free society. First of all, the free society would be producing so much wealth for the rest of the world, that no one would want to harm that golden goose egg. Second of all, and more likely, people would just simply have absolutely no reason to do so. There is absolutely no threat from a free society. Lastly, who would want to invade a free society, where everyone has their own weapons for defense. Even in this country, as stated in another thread, there are people who have their own artillery weapons. The reasons the United States has "enemies" is because the government of the United States mingles in the affairs of other countries. If the United States simply brought all its troops home, quit giving out foreign aid, canceled all treaties, and opened up free trade to the world, the United States would almost immediately cease to have "enemies", and as such, all threats would almost immediatly disappear.
There is no reason to believe anyone would want to invade a free society. First of all, the free society would be producing so much wealth for the rest of the world, that no one would want to harm that golden goose egg. Second of all, and more likely, people would just simply have absolutely no reason to do so. There is absolutely no threat from a free society. Lastly, who would want to invade a free society, where everyone has their own weapons for defense. Even in this country, as stated in another thread, there are people who have their own artillery weapons.
The reasons the United States has "enemies" is because the government of the United States mingles in the affairs of other countries. If the United States simply brought all its troops home, quit giving out foreign aid, canceled all treaties, and opened up free trade to the world, the United States would almost immediately cease to have "enemies", and as such, all threats would almost immediatly disappear.
While I agree that in most cases, countries that do not meddle have far fewer enemies, you have to understand the psychology of states in competition with a free society. Firstly, while the free society may not pose any direct threat, it does actually provide an example of an entire society working without government, and doing so much better than other statist countries. Most statist rulers would simply not stand for that, since most of their arguments depend on the idea that freedom doesn't work. When proven wrong, they would do all in their power to supress the free society, if only to preserve the status quo in theirs. So in essence, a free society is a threat to the status quo of statism.
Secondly, statists may invade precisely because that society is a beacon of wealth! Remember, unlike entrepreneurs, governments always think in the short term (policy myopia). They might not even realise that it is in their interest to have long term trade agreements with the free society, they might just want to pillage the wealth, either literally as military loot, or take over the country and tax it (not understanding the harmful effects of taxation, or again, not caring for the long term).
Thirdly, a free society would not be generating enormous wealth for other countries, for the simple reason that no state capitalism can compete with the free market, and so they will invariably resort to protectionism, suffocating trade. Perhaps they will even use embargoes, saying that the competitive prices offered by that country are "unfair". You all know the excuses for protectionism, and if what we have today is a lot, in the presence of a free society there would be much more of it.
Paul, autarky means self-sufficiency, whereas autarchy means self-rule.
-Jon
Jon Irenicus: Paul, autarky means self-sufficiency, whereas autarchy means self-rule. -Jon
Yes, I know that's what you're claiming, but there is no such clear distinction in standard English - see http://dictionary.com/browse/autarchy (dictionary.com: 3. AUTARKY; American Heritage Dictionary: n. variant of autarky and au·tar·ky or au·tar·chy - a policy of national self-sufficiency, ...; WordNet: autarchy noun 1. economic independence as a national policy [syn: autarky]; Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary: Au"tar*chy\, n. [Gr. ? independence; a'yto`s self + 'arkei^n to be sufficient.] Self-sufficiency. [Obs.]) - no dictionary gives "self-rule" as a definition, only "absolute rule" - i.e., despotism, dictatorship. You're redefining the terms - with good basis, but it doesn't solve any problem "anarchy" suffers (at least the political definition of "anarchy" is in the dictionary, even if it's conflated with the vulgar "chaos" definition)
Bizarre. I'd been taught that there's a clear cut distinction between the two.
Fred Furash: While I agree that in most cases, countries that do not meddle have far fewer enemies, you have to understand the psychology of states in competition with a free society. Firstly, while the free society may not pose any direct threat, it does actually provide an example of an entire society working without government, and doing so much better than other statist countries. Most statist rulers would simply not stand for that, since most of their arguments depend on the idea that freedom doesn't work. When proven wrong, they would do all in their power to supress the free society, if only to preserve the status quo in theirs. So in essence, a free society is a threat to the status quo of statism. Secondly, statists may invade precisely because that society is a beacon of wealth! Remember, unlike entrepreneurs, governments always think in the short term (policy myopia). They might not even realise that it is in their interest to have long term trade agreements with the free society, they might just want to pillage the wealth, either literally as military loot, or take over the country and tax it (not understanding the harmful effects of taxation, or again, not caring for the long term). Thirdly, a free society would not be generating enormous wealth for other countries, for the simple reason that no state capitalism can compete with the free market, and so they will invariably resort to protectionism, suffocating trade. Perhaps they will even use embargoes, saying that the competitive prices offered by that country are "unfair". You all know the excuses for protectionism, and if what we have today is a lot, in the presence of a free society there would be much more of it.
The world follows the example of the wealthiest society. As such, other societies would see the wealth generated in a free society and would start following the example set. This is how it works today. As such, there is no evidence that any statist society would attack a free society. A leader may want to crush the example. But the people would not follow. Again, it takes a lot to get people to kill others.
To your second point, what ruler wants to invade a country full of people with weapons? Again, in the U.S., where we have a right to bear arms, there are individuals that have their own artillery.
To your third point, there may be countries that refuse to trade with a free society, but it could not last long as they would see how everyone else is benefiting where they are losing.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.