So what, there are countless goods that anarchistic society could provide way better than any "modern state". Pointing one flaw in a system doesn't refute the basic principle. Just show, that people are not perfect and there is always a room for improvement.
P.S. either Mises didn't understand what word anarchy meant, or he used a different definition.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Argument by Mises. Brilliant!
Sieben and Autolykos: I agree with most of your criticism, that is, the conclusion i made is a conditional, and rests on the premises i assumed. Of course, i never claimed the conclusion to be true if the premises weren't, hence why i wrote the premises in the first place(duh). Note also that the same criticism you use could be used to debunk Austrian Economics entirely. As it rests on nothing but good-willed hope that the listener accept its premises(action axiom, utility of leisure, time preference) as AE has no material proof behind it. If you remember solving physics exercises or whatever in school, that is analogous to it. The speed of a bus may not always be 50 km/h and distance covered not always 25 km, but when the two premises are met, the conclusion of time taken being 0.5h is strictly true. Sieben about your dance example though, it does not fit exploitation theorem premise, at least i cant concieve it to: It doesnt fit exploitation theorem third premise: action by itself being a source of revenue. It fits the first and second though, but that is not the necessary and sufficient condition for the conclusion to be drawn. In fact the third condition is such a special one in the first place because of the fundamental two ways of getting possessions: through exchange or nonexchange. Since the third premise assumes non-exchange way of getting possessions, it practically hints that the action A must be 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.
People also have a demand to be protected from theft, so they like, lock their doors and buy home defense systems
Smiling Dave: 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? 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?
Johnny Doe: Smiling Dave: 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? fear of cops?Ostracism!
fear of HELL.
xarthaz: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) Aside from the apparent appeal to authority, there's the question of what exactly the law is and/or should be. Of course, this is the point of all legal philosophy -- to answer the question "What is to be obeyed?" Note that legal positivism invites agents of the law to claim that they're allowed to do things which are otherwise illegal. This is a form of special pleading. Furthermore, legal positivism tends to result (de facto if not de jure) when there's an organization claiming and enforcing a monopoly over "law". The keyboard is mightier than the gun. Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem. Voluntaryism Forum | Post Points: 5
"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)
Aside from the apparent appeal to authority, there's the question of what exactly the law is and/or should be. Of course, this is the point of all legal philosophy -- to answer the question "What is to be obeyed?" Note that legal positivism invites agents of the law to claim that they're allowed to do things which are otherwise illegal. This is a form of special pleading. Furthermore, legal positivism tends to result (de facto if not de jure) when there's an organization claiming and enforcing a monopoly over "law".
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
xarthaz:Sieben and Autolykos: I agree with most of your criticism, that is, the conclusion i made is a conditional, and rests on the premises i assumed. Of course, i never claimed the conclusion to be true if the premises weren't, hence why i wrote the premises in the first place(duh).
You actually seem to be still ignoring the main thrust of our criticisms -- that most of your premises appear to be invalid when weighed against reality.
xarthaz: Autolykos: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 misunderstood. It is payment for the action A to be used on someone else, not on the person paying..
Autolykos: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 misunderstood. It is payment for the action A to be used on someone else, not on the person paying..
I did not misunderstand at all. But you did. My point was that, in economics, "demand" is (at least typically) defined as I stated in that quote. For you to use a different definition of "demand", you must use it consistently in your entire analysis. This means you must radically re-arrange the semantics of economics. Otherwise you are equivocating.
See my paragraph on argumentative trick on shifting the burden of proof to you guys. About the action of service, that is totally a semantic issue.. you could just replace "action A" with "action of performing action A on target" or whatever you feel better Also, you have not at all addressed the alternative theorem of exploitation i showed in Dec 2 2010 1:08 PM post
xarthaz:See my paragraph on argumentative trick on shifting the burden of proof to you guys.
You've done no such thing. The burden of proof remains with you, as you made the positive claims in the OP.
xarthaz:About the action of service, that is totally a semantic issue.. you could just replace "action A" with "action of performing action A on target" or whatever you feel better
My point was that it's indeed a semantic issue. Allow me to repeat myself:
Autolykos:I did not misunderstand at all. But you did. My point was that, in economics, "demand" is (at least typically) defined as I stated in that quote. For you to use a different definition of "demand", you must use it consistently in your entire analysis. This means you must radically re-arrange the semantics of economics. Otherwise you are equivocating.
Do you see now?
xarthaz:Also, you have not at all addressed the alternative theorem of exploitation i showed in Dec 2 2010 1:08 PM post
I responded that same day. Didn't you read it?
Your posts havent addressed(or in fact any posts other than mine in this thread) mgmcintyre's variation of the exploitation argument. Semantics of economics need not be altered, merely those of my premise.. And no, no one has addressed my " I shall use a method of shifting the Burden of proof to you guys, not me: Existence of states implies the premise of exploitation theorem to be broadly true (in the context of the states that are the product of exploitation theorem premises), because exploitation theorem is the necessary condition for existence of states. The latter is true because it shows a model of how exploitation of security is profitable, whereas other models of why it is profitable(that are not subsets of exploitation theorem model) have not been shown. " part
Happy new year. Unfortunately the laws of exploitaion hasnt changed in the mean time, so the hopeless discussion on attempts to dislodge it might continue to be problematic.
Your building from a false premise that violence is immediately, universally, and always more profitable. This is a massive assumption, one that is easily argued in counter of. In order for violence to truly be more profitable then non-violence there must be ideological support, otherwise market forces will just create a natural deterrents from such activity. That is the only reason why the state operates successfully FYI.
Any other party of violence will financially fail. Stolen goods are generally sold at discount, people generally don't like to buy stolen goods and dislike doing business with thieves(A businessmen you inherently cannot trust). The effort that goes into stealing those goods generally outweighs the reward. Now you may be able to argue that this is simply due to the fact that the state does not like competitors. However this then just comes back to ideological support.
For violence to be truly effective one must be able to confiscate the most liquid of goods(money). Establishing security is always far easier and far cheaper then offensive violence.
This is what happens when you try to reason from assumption.
The easiest way to show the fallacy in your argument is to ignore society, and just focus on the interactions of two individuals.
FarmerA and FarmerB. They can take the violent route, the ignoring route, or the comparative advantage route via trade. THe most productive output will come from trade, and that implies that both parties trust each other and are generally honest.
Honestly unless I am mis-understanding things, I don't know why so many people are getting hung up on this.
As Nirgraham pointed out, each person decides this path individually. You assume that all individuals consider violence more profitable. As such your not staying as praxeologically consistent as you claim to be.
Prices exist in markets where supply, for which there is demand, is scarce. Your proof, therefore, implies a zero-sum system when unemployment is considered (I place criminals in this category). The price system more effectively distributes supply to those who produce than can welfare (or in the case of criminals, theft). Economics as a zero=sum system ensures a collapse when welfare is implemented to correct the 'inefficient' distribution of goods under the price system (or be it, to maximize profits). Producers denied scarce goods cannot long continue to produce when denied the incentives of production. The unemployed (or criminal) may benefit in the short-term but without someone to produce what welfare (read: theft) 'redistributes,' the non-producer (read: criminal) is not better off than producer in the long-term.
Summary: Does crime pay? No. Evidence? Empires collapse.
xarthaz:Your posts havent addressed(or in fact any posts other than mine in this thread) mgmcintyre's variation of the exploitation argument.
So now you're changing the subject? I wasn't aware that I was supposed to address mgmcintyre's "variation of the exploitation argument" in this thread. You only mentioned mgmcintyre once before in this thread, in a response to I. Ryan. In case you haven't noticed, I've been responding only to what you've written directly in response to me. Please point out where I'm obligated to respond to everything you write.
In any case, if you're going to resort to mgmcintyre's argument, then does this mean you're abandoning your own, as stated in this thread's OP?
xarthaz:Semantics of economics need not be altered, merely those of my premise..
Your argument is economic in nature, is it not? Therefore it depends upon economics, and apparently upon Austrian Economics or praxeology in particular. Since you're using a definition of "demand" that's different from the one espoused in AE, yet you claim your argument results from AE, you're necessarily equivocating.
xarthaz:And no, no one has addressed my " I shall use a method of shifting the Burden of proof to you guys, not me: Existence of states implies the premise of exploitation theorem to be broadly true (in the context of the states that are the product of exploitation theorem premises), because exploitation theorem is the necessary condition for existence of states. The latter is true because it shows a model of how exploitation of security is profitable, whereas other models of why it is profitable(that are not subsets of exploitation theorem model) have not been shown. " part
That was apparently addressed to Sieben, not me. If you wanted me to address it, you should've said so to begin with. As I've already mentioned, I don't typically respond to (parts of) posts addressed to other users.
However, I'll address it now. Let me begin with your phrase "broadly true". What do you mean by this phrase? In logic, a proposition cannot be "broadly true" -- it can only be absolutely true (or absolutely false). There is no variable breadth or narrowness to logical truth.
The burden of proof also remains with you in the above to prove that your "exploitation theorem" is indeed a necessary condition for the existence of states. Pointing out that states exist, and have existed in the past, does not constitute proof here.