Premise:
∃ action A ∃ demand for action A Action A ⇒ monetary income Opportunity Cost of action A < Opportunity Cost of supplying A (more difficult to conduct action A against other action A'ers)
Conclusion
revenue from supplying A < revenue from action A ⇒ monetary incentive for action A & monetary disincentive for supplying A
If we choose violence as A, it fits the premise, so the conclusion must be true.
I already alluded to this, but an important point is that, if A is exploiting B, he is making it less profitable to trade with B even in the longterm, and that might seem to create a vicious circle, where, whenever someone gets exploited, it becomes more profitable to exploit them, and so on. But the fact that, if someone defends the person from that exploitation, he will be allowing the capital accumulation to increase for the person that he is defending, destroys the circle. What I mean is that, if A is exploiting B, and C defends A, C will be making it easier for A to accumulate capital, and will be making him more and more profitable to trade with. So the two forces fight each other, and the defenders tend to win, because of the theory that I came up with earlier, the result of which we can see all around us, because, if they didn't tend to win, society wouldn't exist, yet it does exist.
Very well presented argument. Waiting to see what the community here has to say about it.
I especially like those backwards E's. How'd you pull that off?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
xarthaz:Opportunity Cost of action A < Opportunity Cost of supplying A (more difficult to conduct action A against other action A'ers)
Implied premise: opportunity cost can be measured objectively.
Although there is no such thing as an invalid premise, from the standpoint of deductive logic, since we're talking about the real world here, we must use inductive logic. Therefore, can opportunity cost actually be measured objectively? Since you're the one making this implicit claim, the burden of proof rests with you.
xarthaz:revenue from supplying A < revenue from action A ⇒ monetary incentive for action A & monetary disincentive for supplying A
Implied premise: incentives can be measured objectively. My response from above applies here.
Implied premise: no other incentives can exist besides monetary incentives. My response from above applies here.
xarthaz:If we choose violence as A, it fits the premise, so the conclusion must be true.
The burden of proof rests with you to prove that all of your propositions hold true when substituting "violence" for "A". You have not done this yet.
xarthaz:Defending from aggression has a higher opportunity cost than aggression. It is harder to use violence on a bandit than on a peaceful citizen.
Here again there is an implicit premise that opportunity cost can be measured objectively. I've already addressed this.
The meaning of your last sentence seems to depend on what you mean by "peaceful citizen". Until you provide that meaning, I (at least) cannot determine what you mean by that sentence.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Put informally, the argument seems to be that it is easier to be the bad guy who hits old crippled ladies with a lead pipe than the the good guy who defends them. Which seems to ensure a plentiful supply of bad guys and a scarcity of good guys.
Smiling Dave:Put informally, the argument seems to be that it is easier to be the bad guy who hits old crippled ladies with a lead pipe than the the good guy who defends them. Which seems to ensure a plentiful supply of bad guys and a scarcity of good guys.
Yes I can grasp the intended meaning of the argument in an informal sense. Whether the formal argumentation actually matches that meaning is another issue which I don't think has been settled.
With that said, if it's so much easier to be the bad guy who... etc., then why aren't there bad guys all over the place?
if it's so much easier to be the bad guy who... etc., then why aren't there bad guys all over the place?
fear of cops?
Autolycos:if it's so much easier to be the bad guy who... etc., then why aren't there bad guys all over the place?
Define "bad". What % of the global population would you say is ancap? What % approves of (supports, or participates in) wealth re-distribution through taxation? In other words, the "bad" outnumber the "good" by such a margin that they are commonly referred to as simply "humans".
Power (force) monopolies affect the subjective valuations and norms of agents subjected to them, including the definitions of terms describing such valuations/norms.
Define bad etc. Sophistry. The easy way out of any argument is to ignore the common use of a word and say define. and then ask to define words used in the definition. bla bla.
Define ":define". hahahaha
Smiling Dave:fear of cops?
Are you sure that's the only possibility? Or aren't you taking this seriously?
z1235:Define "bad". What % of the global population would you say is ancap? What % approves of (supports, or participates in) wealth re-distribution through taxation? In other words, the "bad" outnumber the "good" by such a margin that they are commonly referred to as simply "humans". Power (force) monopolies affect the subjective valuations and norms of agents subjected to them, including the definitions of terms describing such valuations/norms.
Good point, although I don't think that's the definition Smiling Dave intended for "bad". I also think, following La Boetie, that part of the resistance against (perceived) power monopolies can be weakened by (perceived) tradition. If you're raised from birth to believe that the state is good and/or necessary, I'd say you'll be less likely to resist it.
Smiling Dave:Define bad etc. Sophistry. The easy way out of any argument is to ignore the common use of a word and say define. and then ask to define words used in the definition. bla bla. Define ":define". hahahaha
I don't think z1235 was engaging in sophistry. He had a good and interesting point IMO, although it may have been rather tangential to the subject presented in the OP.
Additionally, many words don't seem to have any "common" uses whatsoever, or the contexts in which they're embedded make them appear ambiguous. I don't see anything wrong with asking someone what they mean by a word in those situations.
Smiling Dave:fear of cops? Are you sure that's the only possibility? Or aren't you taking this seriously?
I'm no expert on why there are not more bad guys. Was taking my best guess.
As for your last point, so someone would argue that it is "good" to beat crippled old ladies with lead pipes?
xarthaz: Premise: ∃ action A ∃ demand for action A Action A ⇒ monetary income Opportunity Cost of action A < Opportunity Cost of supplying A (more difficult to conduct action A against other action A'ers) Conclusion revenue from supplying A < revenue from action A ⇒ monetary incentive for action A & monetary disincentive for supplying A If we choose violence as A, it fits the premise, so the conclusion must be true. Defending from aggression has a higher opportunity cost than aggression. It is harder to use violence on a bandit than on a peaceful citizen.
Defending from aggression has a higher opportunity cost than aggression. It is harder to use violence on a bandit than on a peaceful citizen.
What is the point of all of this? What are you trying to prove?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Trying to show that agents interested in monetary profit maximisation prefer using violence to selling violence.
autolykos, the utility comparison is between the utilities as seen by a single agent, not different agents. So all it assumes is the preferences of an agent being in such a manner. Which seems reasonable(who would prefer robbing bandits to robbing citizens). But yes, it is not strict, but a conditional statement(hence being explicitly expressed in the premise).
The method is mathematical induction: if conclusion is true about all actions, then it must be true about any action.
Makes sense - governments all over the world would have to be evidence of this.
xarthaz: Trying to show that agents interested in monetary profit maximisation prefer using violence to selling violence.
Well, you again ignored the time element, so your argument, whether correct or not, is useless.
To prove anything about how people would act in the real world, you need to show how the incentive structure would change based on what the actions that the people will take based on the earlier incentives would do to the later incentives. You can't just talk about what the incentives would be at time 1, say it is X, and then say that everyone forever will be subject to incentives X. People can try to forecast the future, and try to predict what the incentives will be in the future, which might change the incentives that they have right now. Ever if it would be harder and less monetarily profitable to attack a citizen instead of a bandit right now, you might think that attacking the bandit right now might change the incentive structure in the future, making people with sufficiently low time preferences want to go with attacking the bandit right now, though it will yield less in the present than attacking the citizen.
But, even if I were to accept everything about your argument, it still suffers from a serious difficulty. If someone were to start up a defense agency for a reason not of monetary maximization, or were to incorrectly start one up for monetary maximization, that company would then make it so other people wouldn't be choosing between attacking a citizen or a bandit, but would be choosing between attacking a defense agency or a bandit. In that case, new defense agencies might come about because of the increased opportunity cost of attacking non-bandits created by the first defense agency, and those new defense agencies would make the opportunity cost go even higher for the next people choosing between "using violence" and "selling violence", and so on, creating a re-inforcing circle, which fixes the problem that you are posing.
xarthaz:autolykos, the utility comparison is between the utilities as seen by a single agent, not different agents. So all it assumes is the preferences of an agent being in such a manner. Which seems reasonable(who would prefer robbing bandits to robbing citizens). But yes, it is not strict, but a conditional statement(hence being explicitly expressed in the premise).
I'm going to take this as you changing your argument as presented in the OP. The way you wrote it in the OP could only be logically interpreted as being true for all actors and at all times. It would be nice, then, if you'd edit your argument in the OP so it will accurately reflect what you state here.
Assuming the preferences of an agent being in such a manner makes the argument "if one prefers to engage in violence, he will (likely) engage in violence" to be a near-tautology. It says nothing about how many people will actually have such preferences, and where those preferences stand in relation to all of their other preferences. Also, the burden of proof remains with you as far as demonstrating the "reasonableness" of robbing "citizens" over robbing "bandits" (putting your words in quotes because I'm not sure what you mean by them). Note that I will reject any appeals to "common sense" as necessarily appeals to subjective valuations.
So although you've sidestepped having to demonstrate how utility can be objectively measured (hint: it can't), by doing so you seem to have taken away the intended thrust of your argument. It remains for you to show that there will necessarily be a sufficient number of people who prefer aggression (what you deviously call "violence") over non-aggression such that all people will always be divided into exploiters vs. exploited.
xarthaz:The method is mathematical induction: if conclusion is true about all actions, then it must be true about any action.
You are mistaken about what mathematical induction is. From Wikipedia:
Mathematical induction is a method of mathematical proof typically used to establish that a given statement is true of all natural numbers. It is done by proving that the first statement in the infinite sequence of statements is true, and then proving that if any one statement in the infinite sequence of statements is true, then so is the next one.
Furthermore, your concession that utility is subjective makes an appeal to mathematical induction especially inaccurate, as the latter (as defined by Wikipedia) necessarily applies to non-subjective things, such as natural numbers. The subjectively-valuating "human element" remains steadfastly with your argumentation and must be addressed.
Finally, let me add that you have yet to 1) prove that all of your propositions hold true when substituting "violence" for "A", and 2) provide the definition you're using for "peaceful citizen".
Autolykos:
Violence ⊆ Actions, hence replacing A with it is a correct procedure according to premises.
The only objective valuation assumed is the profit maximisation of enterprises. Something that Mises himself applied aswell to many of his sequences.
Eveyone: This exploitation argument, as far as i can see, is a strict case against abolishment of State. It is a strict case of showing market failure, due to the nature of action itself. It is a purely praxeological argument, in the Misesian sense.
xarthaz:It is a strict case of showing market failure, due to the nature of action itself. It is a purely praxeological argument, in the Misesian sense.
xarthaz:Autolykos: Violence ⊆ Actions, hence replacing A with it is a correct procedure according to premises.
For those who don't know, that funny-looking symbol is mathese for "belongs to the set".
Now with that said, while violence is an action, your claim above is meaningless when at least one of the premises is under dispute (as against reality). So far I've questioned the validity of your last premise, namely "Opportunity Cost of action A < Opportunity Cost of supplying A (more difficult to conduct action A against other action A'ers)". Let me also question two more of your premises, namely "∃ demand for action A" and "Action A ⇒ monetary income". Since we're talking about reality, not pure logic, it would seem that empirical evidence is in play. You have yet to demonstrate that these three premises are necessarily true in reality. Re-stating your argument does not advance the discussion one bit.
xarthaz:The only objective valuation assumed is the profit maximisation of enterprises. Something that Mises himself applied aswell to many of his sequences.
What makes profit maximization of enterprises objective? How are you defining "objective"? Can you provide one or more quotes of Mises that support this? (Hint: I think you're confusing "objective" with "rational".)
xarthaz:Eveyone: This exploitation argument, as far as i can see, is a strict case against abolishment of State. It is a strict case of showing market failure, due to the nature of action itself. It is a purely praxeological argument, in the Misesian sense.
Nice try at unilaterally ending the thread. Of course, it hasn't worked.
With that said, how are you defining "strict case"? If you're defining it the way I think you are, then not only is it not a strict case, it is no case at all. You have repeatedly ignored the burden of proof that necessarily rests with you in demonstrating the validity of your assertions against reality. Indeed, for a strict case (per my understanding of the phrase), you must show (if not prove) that the premises you've listed must always and everywhere be true for what you call "violence" (I've assumed you're using commonly accepted definition there, i.e. "physical force").
I'm now going to quote the parts of my last post which I believe you have not addressed. I will continue to do this until you address them. Furthermore, until you address them, I will conclude that you are conceding the points that they make.
...
On second thought, there's no reason for me to do this, since the only thing you addressed in my last post was where I asked you to "prove that all of your propositions hold true when substituting 'violence' for 'A'". And you didn't even provide a proof there, as I've shown above. So really, the entirety of my last post stands unrefuted by you. I rest my case... for now.
Opportunity Cost of action A < Opportunity Cost of supplying A
I don't get it. A is an action, what is the distinction between performing an action and supplying that action?? If I act violently, that is supplying violence, is it not?
The real question is the relative cost of offensive and defensive measures. If it costs more to defend a house against break-in than the value of the property which is to be secured against break-in, then security is not viable. Vice-versa and aggression is not viable, absent systemic distortion of the relative costs of aggression and defense (i.e. stupid laws, police/law monopoly etc.)
Clayton -
Clayton:Opportunity Cost of action A < Opportunity Cost of supplying A I don't get it. A is an action, what is the distinction between performing an action and supplying that action?? If I act violently, that is supplying violence, is it not?
Oh good point. I saw this myself and meant to bring it up, but you beat me to it. :)
Still, I think what Xarthaz meant to say is that the opportunity cost of initiating A is less than the opportunity cost of responding to A with more A. If that makes sense.
Clayton: Yes Autolykos got it right. However Smiling Dave also got it right. You are disputing the premises that are common sense to anyone but the most naive idealist of libertarian goodness. The rejection of those premises itself is the pitfall that so many accuse libertarianism of: the assumption of manhood being good. It is regrettable that the obsfuscated system of market production of security provided to cover up the issue never addresses the core problem i presented in the opening post. Neither does Ryan do this as I will demonstrate: Ryan brings up the point of investment: giving up income now for income later in time. This can be true, however what does happen later in the progress of time? It is assumed that the would-be good PDA makes a speculation over higher income in future by providing retaliatory justice as a trade good at present. This is all correct, it is a solid business plan as it decreases the cost of production of security in the future due to decreasing number of bandits having to cope with. It has happened in history and in fact is the precondition of formulation of state itself, as well as being the business plan of state's income insurance. The key about this action however is that if successful, the fundamental premise of my OP does not go away. Though the pda has increased his popularity, made income by exchange, the fact remains that whatever income he can make in the future, will still be higher if he extorts it instead of exchanging for it. You cannot give more money to someone offering to protect you from theft than to the robber robbing you, the paradox of production of security is, as mgmcintyre argued in his thread http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/18788.aspx Note that it can be argued for directly, ignoring my premises. I assumed opportunity cost of robbing a citizen being lower than that of robbing a bandit for the same income. The other way to argue is to assume that for equal opportunity cost robbing someone results in higher income than them paying you to rob someone else.
xarthaz:However Smiling Dave also got it right. You are disputing the premises that are common sense to anyone but the most naive idealist of libertarian goodness. The rejection of those premises itself is the pitfall that so many accuse libertarianism of: the assumption of manhood being good. It is regrettable that the obsfuscated system of market production of security provided to cover up the issue never addresses the core problem i presented in the opening post.
I'm now also challenging the notion that the premises you put forth "are common sense to anyone but the most naive idealist of libertarian goodness". Nowhere does any/all of the premises you put forth imply (as far as I can tell) that man is evil, or that man is not good. Furthermore, I am in no way assuming that man is inherently good. For the record, I believe that man is neither inherently good nor inherently evil.
With all that said, I once again ask you to support your premises against reality. I will note once again that you have unequivocally failed to do so thus far.
Premises in reality:
∃ action A :look at any crime statistics: people steal, rob, plunder ∃ demand for action A: people are payed to do the things above(any law enforcement agency, military, etc) Action A ⇒ monetary income: when you steal something, you cab trade it for money Opportunity Cost of action A < Opportunity Cost of supplying A (more difficult to conduct action A against other action A'ers): its easier to steal 50 bucks from an old lady than from a police man/swat team guy
As you can see, these premises can indeed exist in reality. It is quite dull that you have taken this direction with the argument, without even elaborating as to what about the statements is so counter to reality/perception, or indeed bring examples as to show the opposite to be true. As is, i have nothing to bite on, only an eternal sceptic ready to reject all premises.
what is this thread all about? surely not the trivial truth that criminal exploitation appears attractive to some and so such action occurs and may be expected to occur...
Its the very fact that there is the threat of criminal exploitation that demands the comparative analysis of institutions that must deal with it.... it is the very fact that there is a threat of criminal exploitation that makes anarchists anarchists, it is not a naive utopianism
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Basic idea is: its easier to steal 50 bucks from a citizen than be paid 50 bucks to rob from a police man/swat team guy Or alternative exposition: A would-be victim cant pay more to someone offering to beat up the robber than he can to the robber threatening to beat up the victim.
what is this thread all about? surely not the trivial truth that criminal exploitation appears attractive to some and so such action occurs and may be expected to occur... Its the very fact that there is the threat of criminal exploitation that demands the comparative analysis of institutions that must deal with it.... it is the very fact that there is a threat of criminal exploitation that makes anarchists anarchists, it is not a naive utopianism
>>What is the difference between an institution that robs someone and that robs someone?
you cannot be serious? Your line of Proudhon-lite is beneath contempt.
The argument is not about political philosophies or aims. It is about the industry providing the services("criminal exploitation", and those "institutions that must deal with it"). On that level, there indeed is no difference between the two. In fact Rothbard himself indirectly expressed that, or at least hinted at it, with his ideal of proportional punishment, which essentially by definition eliminates differences between the means of the two. And that is what describes the actions done, it is the means employed. Whether the end is to pay back the robber and get the stolen money from him, or to rob someone just for profit, the means have no differences.
Your text is incomprehensible. Yes, you are right that the using a hammer 'the means' to build a house is 'no different' than using a hammer 'the means' to hit someone over the head. in both cases its the same hammer, you are swinging it with such an arm movement etc. are you saying that if i pay someone to put his hammer to use building me a house to live in that is the same as if I have paid to have someone thwacked on the cranium?
Please elaborate which is incomprehensible so i can explain. Can you define robbery and retribution in a way that the most optimal(in regards to profit and opportunity cost) means employed for them are not the same? If yes, then youve proven your point. Or to take this example: "A would-be victim cant pay more to someone offering to beat up the robber than he can to the robber threatening to beat up the victim." Can the most optimal course of action of the robber and person offering to beat up robber be described in a manner that the means employed for them are not the same?
xarthaz:∃ action A :look at any crime statistics: people steal, rob, plunder
xarthaz: ∃ demand for action A: people are payed to do the things above(any law enforcement agency, military, etc)
xarthaz:Action A ⇒ monetary income: when you steal something, you cab trade it for money
xarthaz:Premises in reality: ∃ action A :look at any crime statistics: people steal, rob, plunder
∃ action A :look at any crime statistics: people steal, rob, plunder
I wasn't disputing this premise. The mere potential for violence is sufficient.
xarthaz:∃ demand for action A: people are [paid] to do the things above(any law enforcement agency, military, etc)
My dispute starts here. Are law enforcement agencies, militaries, etc. necessarily paid to engage in violence per se? If not, then I think you still need to clarify what you mean by "demand for [violence]".
Also, in an economic context, demand for an action is really demand for a service to be provided directly to the one buying it. No one willingly pays to be aggressed against.
You can in theory, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you will be able to. Make sense?
In other words, you're injecting determinism here where none seems applicable.
xarthaz:Opportunity Cost of action A < Opportunity Cost of supplying A (more difficult to conduct action A against other action A'ers): its easier to steal 50 bucks from an old lady than from a police man/swat team guy
This premise is the most problematic IMO. Since opportunity cost is subjective, there is no way to claim that the opportunity cost of committing aggression is always and everywhere necessarily lower than the opportunity cost of defending against aggression.
As far as I can tell, I've said all this before. With all due respect, I expect you to miss my points once again.
xarthaz:As you can see, these premises can indeed exist in reality. It is quite dull that you have taken this direction with the argument, without even elaborating as to what about the statements is so counter to reality/perception, or indeed bring examples as to show the opposite to be true. As is, i have nothing to bite on, only an eternal sceptic ready to reject all premises.
I've disputed the claim that these premises are always and everywhere necessarily correlated with reality. I couldn't care less whether you think this is "quite dull". As for the rest of your paragraph, here's a helpful link: Burden of Proof
Wow my post got all messed up. Will fix when I get home.
xarthaz:Also, im not claiming that state is a solution to exploitation of security, only that there exists NO SOLUTION to the problem of robbery, hence the domination of robber-organisations around the world(whether the states of most of the world or warlords of anarchist Somalia/Afganistan).
Though I wanted to be convinced (taught) otherwise, this ^^^ has been my argument ever since I joined this forum. I think this is also why anarchy is utopian and why Mises didn't venture beyond minarchy.
Z.
Opportunity Cost of action A < Opportunity Cost of supplying A (more difficult to conduct action A against other action A'ers): its easier to steal 50 bucks from an old lady than from a police man/swat team guy
xarthaz:It is quite dull that you have taken this direction with the argument, without even elaborating as to what about the statements is so counter to reality/perception
z1235:Though I wanted to be convinced (taught) otherwise, this ^^^ has been my argument ever since I joined this forum.
z1235:and why Mises didn't venture beyond minarchy.
Sieben:You always "win" in your head, but you have convinced precious few of us. I guess your response is that we're all ideologues?
Sieben, please avoid using "we", "us", and putting words in my mouth. My response was to xarthaz as I felt that he shared the same concern/argument, and wanted to let him know that he wasn't alone with those thoughts. As for "winning", I've explained my debate motivations many times before, and winning is nowhere near the top of the list. Hopefully, I've also proven them in action as I've had no problems conceding or giving credit when new angles have been presented to me. On the contrary, that is when I find a debate most profitable.
Also note that Mises himself approved of the same idea, the ambiguousness of security and robbery, and hence the impossibility of anarchist production of the good:
"The main difference between a policeman and a kid- naper and between a tax collector and a robber is that the policeman and the tax collector obey and enforce the law, while the kidnaper and robber violate it. Remove the law, and society will be destroyed by anarchy."
(Bureaucracy, p 84)