If by definition everything we do is necessarily self-interested, then I can't really say. I just wonder how much retroactive reasoning is going on when people say it is.
entrepreneurs who spring in to get a piece of the action
Aka warlords. The problem with this line of thought is that entrepreneurship is a function of property rights, not the other way around. If you just push a big, red button and make the State disappear, you will also create a propery rights vacuum, which will lead to all manner of looting. Hoppe is right on this one that the State is the de facto owner of the property it controls. The question is how to perform an orderly liquidation of those assets... it's not a trivial problem. But the first order of business is secession... we have to reduce the magnitude of the problem before we can hope to break it up in a manner that doesn't lead to social breakdown and chaos.
Clayton -
Well, let's be clear - the formal sense in which all human action is necessarily self-interested does not act as a predictor of whether an individual will act selfishly or selflessly in the ordinary sense of those words. Genuine altruism (for example, giving up your seat for a disabled person or giving up your lunch for a homeless person, etc.) is compatible with the formal sense of self-interest. Perhaps it's your self-image, your core ideals, the way you were raised, your cultural identity, or any of a number of other factors that were the reasons why you acted altruistically. The point is that, as long as there is a reason why, then your actions can be analyzed and understood in terms of cause-and-effect. Formal self-interest is a blanket concept which happens to correspond nicely with 99% of human action (ordinary self-interest), the 1% of out-of-band circumstances or truly extraordinary human behavior (neither illness nor easily amenable to analysis) can be neglected for the sake of analysis.
In fact, Mises is very clear in the opening chapters of HA to delineate the extents of the science of praxeology. It only concerns those aspects of human behavior which can be known on the basis of deductive inference from praxeological axioms. In particular, in the case of catallactics (voluntary exchange), a necessary condition for any action to be analyzed is that all parties be acting voluntarily.
The blind application of praxeological theory of voluntary exchange to situations where threats of force or other forms of manipulation and coercion are present is a simple blunder. You see this on these boards when people talk about "security markets" as if there is no element of coercion involved. There is a reason why Mises did not analyze a free market in security ... the tools of voluntary exchange are simply not powerful enough to analyze it. What happens when one "free market" security agency bombs the headquarters of one of its competitors? Clearly, this is not voluntary exchange so the laws that govern producers and consumers in free markets do not necessarily apply. That doesn't mean we can't analyze the production of security using different tools but it does mean we need different tools. Unfortunately, many people do not realize this and blindly charge ahead.
Praxeology covers all actions. The actions of private security firms wouldn't be fully contained in catallactics, but they would be fully contained in the larger field of praxeology. Suicide and pathological behavior are covered as well. A suicidal man is simply one who believes his state of affairs would be better if he were dead. (Only physiologically involuntary "action" is not covered, but then we'd also hesitate to call it suicide.)
Why anarchy fails
Praxeology covers all actions
Yes, but I think BP's objection is that this statement is purely taxonomic - until you're actually deriving useful predictions about human behavior, the fact that all action falls under the umbrella of praxeology is relatively meaningless.
Centinel:[..]Note that the anarchist is naive and deluded to think that government is the only organized entity to use coercion to obtain desired ends.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I second that doublefacepalm making it a quadruple facepalm. Would've considered it more of an
Note that the anarchist is naive and deluded to think that government is the only organized entity to use coercion to obtain desired ends.
In the words of the late, great Anarchicus Naivius, "Warlords? What warlords?"
Centinel: Anarchist society, if it existed for any length of time, would logically be violent. Self-interested economic actors will always use armed force to obtain wealth if peaceful exchange is not possible or more costly than the use of force.
Anarchist society, if it existed for any length of time, would logically be violent.
Self-interested economic actors will always use armed force to obtain wealth if peaceful exchange is not possible or more costly than the use of force.
Which leads to the demand for protection services, the supply of which drives up the cost of the initiation of force.
It would be irrational and inefficient for profit seeking individuals and firms in anarchist society to forego economic gain for pacifist motives.
You are using the word "pacifist" incorrectly. I have never met a pacifist anarchist, and certainly not in the Mises forums. Only using force/violence/etc. in self -defense is certainly not pacifism.
I know a lot of anarchists, and not one of them holds this opinion.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Amusingly, when Marxist and the anarcho-capitalist ideologues are painted into an ideological corner from which they cannot extract themselves, they eerily resort to similar inane retorts devoid of factual, logical and emprically supported arguments. Indeed, the trollish graphic retort is the last refuge of the failed ideologue. See previous three posts.
when Marxist and the anarcho-capitalist ideologues are painted into an ideological corner from which they cannot extract themselves, they eerily resort to similar inane retorts devoid of factual, logical and emprically supported arguments.
Indeed, the trollish graphic retort is the last refuge of the failed ideologue.
See previous three posts.
You would have to actually state a proposition (make an argument) in order to paint someone into an "ideological corner." Instead, you offered a psychoanalytic theory of the naivete of anarchists. Even if true, it's irrelevant to the truth or falsity of anti-statism (genetic fallacy).
"when Marxist and the anarcho-capitalist ideologues are painted into an ideological corner from which they cannot extract themselves, they eerily resort to similar inane retorts devoid of factual, logical and emprically supported arguments.
Indeed, the trollish graphic retort is the last refuge of the failed ideologue."
Are you suggesting that there will be gangs protecting every resource? You must play a lot of Heroes of Might and Magic.
If you were the manager or an investor of a corporate military agency and identified a mismanaged firm that was not effectively generating the level of revenue required to adequately defend that resource and you had the means to take that resource by force and realize a net profit on the 'exchange' -- would you fund this venture ?
Such behavior is immoral but it is an accurate description of the state order.
We do not assert that - in an unhampered market in security - people will be less immoral (less inclined to aggress than they are in a statist society). Rather, the assertion is that there will be no persistent underproduction of security and, therefore, the opportunities for such sophisticated aggression will be minimal or non-existent and the profitability of specializing in such aggression will not rise above the level of profitability of specializing in any other kind of crime.
Centinel: If you were the manager or an investor of a corporate military agency and identified a mismanaged firm that was not effectively generating the level of revenue required to adequately defend that resource and you had the means to take that resource by force and realize a net profit on the 'exchange' -- would you fund this venture ?
So if you don't beat up everyone smaller/weaker than you and take their wallets as you walk down the street, then you can't call yourself a capitalist and must call yourself a pacifist instead?
Hoo boy I love me some reductio ad absurdum. It's basically saying "if you don't rape, murder, and steal, you're not a capitalist". WTF? Pacifism is the rejection of all violence. A voluntary system merely rejects agressive violence. Sentinel, you're forgetting a very important point: Morality and empathy are ends in and of themselves. A materially "profitable" venture that results in a large deal of moral regret or empathetic pain can, in fact, be unprofitable overall. Real free-market exchange and action is all about psychic profit, not material profit. Thus, rejecting aggression does not exclude you from being a capitalist or an entreprenuer.
Centinel: So if you don't beat up everyone smaller/weaker than you and take their wallets as you walk down the street, then you can't call yourself a capitalist and must call yourself a pacifist instead? -- z1235 Exactly.
So if you don't beat up everyone smaller/weaker than you and take their wallets as you walk down the street, then you can't call yourself a capitalist and must call yourself a pacifist instead? -- z1235
Exactly.
I rest my case.
@Centinel: You are misapplying capital theory (applying concepts that hold within the realm of voluntary exchange but which we have no reason to believe hold outside that realm).
The constant threat of predation would force managers/owners of valued resources to maximize their resource or face the possibility that they would lose it.
Not true at all. For example, I can have a factory that employs slave labor and outdated equipment (inefficient) but which is hidden in some underground cavern where no one can find it to "predate" upon me or it. So, I can continue living comfortably off my highly inefficient slave labor while no one can profitably seize the (inefficient) source of my wealth from me.
You're just pulling random assertions out of thin air... or somewhere else.
While you are temporarily reveling in your pacifist humanitarianism --
Strawmen prove nothing.
your life, liberties and private property are being plundered.
This is certainly true but it proves you wrong (the State is not the answer):
The great social discussion cannot proceed otherwise than by means of the thought, will, and action of individuals. Society lives and acts only in individuals; it is nothing more than a certain attitude on their part. Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us. [Emphasis added]
Mises, Socialism
Centinal you're just simply redefining terms as you see fit. "Pacifist" is now someone who refuses to steal, rather than someone who rejects violence in all circumstances. "Capitalist" is someone who apparently has some sort of cognitive dissonance. This is absurd.
Centinel: I rest my case.-- z1235 No. more like 'Rest in peace'
I rest my case.-- z1235
No. more like 'Rest in peace'
Just curious. Would you call yourself a capitalist?
This is absurd.
Oh, no, this is all very cogent and if you don't act like Centinel's presenting serious arguments, then you're caving and proving that he's really right all along.
Can you summarize this argument in your own words?
Plunder or be plundered.
Have you read any of my posts because this citation doesnt have anything to do with my argument regarding anarchism and coercion ?
If society is sweeping toward destruction (dissolution of private property, rampant plundering, etc.) there is no safe way to escape, including joining in the plunder. Not only does joining in the plunder not make you any safer than any other course of action but, in the process, you lose your soul.
Centinel: @ z1235 What I call myself is not important.
@ z1235
What I call myself is not important.
Allow me to make that decision for myself. It was kind of important to me. So, indulge me, are you a capitalist?
Until Centinel actually provides the definition he's using for "coercion", I'd advise everyone to hammer him on this point.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Centinel: @z1235 Yes, capitalism is king.
@z1235
Yes, capitalism is king.
"Yes" meaning you are a capitalist?
I find it fitting that he would use "king" to describe something he favors.
@Centinel: You're all over the map. You have no methodology. Go learn methodology. Hand-waving is not a methodology.
Read my posts, I said that those owners and managers of valued resources that did not efficiently maximize the productive capacity of those resources would not have the level of security required to defend these resources. Under these circumstances, a competitor would use force to annex these resources under the following conditions: 1) peaceful exchange was not possible (the owner won't sell) 2) peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of armed force to annex the resource (the owner wants too much for the resource) 3) the resource can provide a positive return on investment (the transaction costs of armed force are less than the expected gain from annexing the resources)
Under these circumstances, a competitor would use force to annex these resources under the following conditions:
1) peaceful exchange was not possible (the owner won't sell)
2) peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of armed force to annex the resource (the owner wants too much for the resource)
3) the resource can provide a positive return on investment (the transaction costs of armed force are less than the expected gain from annexing the resources)
1 & 2 are contained in 3 but the point is that 3 is not productive, it is parasitic. Let's say Steve Jobs robbed a bank and that was the seed money with which he and the Woz started Apple. Could his future "productivity" justify his initial theft? Of course not.
It is true that State-aligned businesses operate very much as you describe - they employ aggressive force through "law" and other means in addition to performing truly productive work. But the aggression suffuses the entire enterprise and wholly delegitimizes it. This is, in fact, precisely the State's argument: that it builds our roads, maintains our power-lines, operates buses, and so on. But it is not a valid justification for the State's employment of aggressive force.
It goes without saying that those who under-invest in security are vulnerable to predation - this is as true in state-dominated society as it would be in a stateless society but security is not the organizing principle of society, stateless or otherwise. The organizing principle is the inherent harmoniousness of human action. From this principle of harmony flows the capacity of human beings to form legal systems, to produce specialized security services and engage in monetary calculation without central organization.
You seem to be persistently confusing harmoniousness with naivete. Harmoniousness is precisely the opposite of naivete. The lock on your front door is a part of the harmoniousness of human action. By obstructing free entry with an inexpensive technological device which threatens no one, can take no one's wallet, can tax no one, etc. you have increased your security. No one had to tell you to do it just like no one has to tell you to eat. Merely by acting on your own, uncoordinated self-interest, you bought and installed the lock - which is the opposite of being naive.
trying to base economic decisions on moral issues like feelings
Without feelings (appetites, wants), no one would act. Action is prodded by feeling. When you act, you evince feeling.
the cream rises to the top
Cliches and adages are not a methodology, either.