The evolution towards freedom: thoughts on panarchy and minarchy

Reply

gotlucky replied on Sun, Jan 15 2012 7:47 PM

rated by 0 users

Centinel:

The AMerican [sic] Constitutional Federal Republic has been responsible for creating more freedom, wealth, and peace then any society in history.   Indeed, our political and civil freedoms have improved markedly since 1776.  In addition, our example to the world has been copied resulting in an increase from 1 liberal democracy in 1776 -- to over 100 today.

You still have not clarified what you  believe to be the difference between economic and civil rights.  I will repost my question to you:

gotlucky:

I'm sorry, but I do not know what you consider to be a civil right versus an economic right.  So I really cannot debate with you on this point until I understand the distinction you are trying to make.  Do you consider eminent domain to be civil or economic?  Do you consider the violations of the TSA to be civil or economic?  Are marriage licenses civil or economic?  Do you consider gun control to be civil or economic?  Do you consider anti-discrimination laws (these are bad) to be civil or economic?  Etc.

In addition to these questions.  Is conscription a violation of economic or civil rights?  Which is worse?  To live 60 years as a slave on a plantation, or to live 18 years free and die at 19 as a slave to the state?  They are both so horrible I can't imagine which is worse.

Centinel:

Why would I want to dismantle that in favor of an ancap fantasy that would quickly devolve into territorial monopolies of armed force and despotism -- which has always been the case with anarchism.

So why do you keep bringing it up?

Centinel:

But under no circumstances do I advocate armed force to undermine our Constitutional system since it is a net positive to political and civil freedoms.  Indeed, we still have more economic freedoms than virtually all other peoples throughout history.  INdeed, coercion or soft tyranny is used to plunder my wealth and labor -- but it is done via the shortcomings in our system.   Importantly, we have the means to correct these shortcomings by leveraging the system itself --- as proof our political and civil BIll of Rights has resulted in improvements in these rights over time.  Hence, we need to amend the COnstitution through peaceful means to protect our economic rights as vigorously as our political and civil rights have been protected.

See above.

Centinel:

Lastly, it is an amusing paradox that you claim on one hand that liberal democracy and coercive means are a failure, yet at the same time you acknowledge that it has power over you.  

False and dishonest.  I have never stated that liberal democracy and coercive means are a failure.  A failure at what?  Are you trying to trick me into saying they are a success?  A success at what?

Reply

DarylLloydDavis replied on Sun, Jan 15 2012 8:27 PM

rated by 0 users

Centinel 

I disagree on your emphasis on govenment bureaucrats and regulatory powers based on my  argument that government is always self-serving.

I disagree with your disagreement, Sir.  Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress, which in many cases are indispensable to the operations of any government.  Because Congress and its 535 members could not possibly handle all of these functions themselves, they delegated them to bureaucratic agencies. But perhaps you could devise a means of handing these functions over to the private sector without chaos ensuing. 

 Also,  elected representatives are more accountable to the people then appointed bureaucrats in the departments of state, homeland security, defense, et al.

This is due to their having to seek eventual re-election--to their fearing for their jobs at the hands of voters.  And yet I have added even more fear to the lives of appointed bureaucrats; as they may now be voted out of their jobs every year, along with elected politicians.

  Indeed, can you name a government department or agency that solved the problem it was created to solve and close-up shop a success?

They aren't entrusted with solving, so much as regulating.  How does one solve the national forest problem; or the international trade/monetary problem?  And I believe you previously criticized a provision of mine for effectively ending most regulation by making regulators liable for their decisions.  That reflected your correct grasp of my inclination toward freeing the markets to operate more efficiently.

SImilarly, can you name a government managed enterprise that is more efficient and productive than a private sector enterprise in the same industry ?

It does very little more efficiently.  But some things it does because the private market, with its private interests, would have no incentive to be fair to all--like investigating other businesses' safety standards. Then there's the military, law enforcement, infrastructure, etc.   

 the more power government has  to regulate and collect taxes  the more  it is susciptable to corruption from cronies in the private and public sector.   Indeed, much or our wealth is wasted in political machinations designed to curry favor from government officials instead of satisfying consumer preferences with increased productivity.

I agree.  Every step I took, every provision, particularly abolishing Congress, was a step toward making government smaller and more accountable to the People.  Reread the first part of the provision about regulations, and ask yourself how one could justify favoritism for cronies.  I suspect that you would prefer a document establishing nothing but a military and police force, little else; but I knew that such a work would be too radical too soon.  The People have to learn to govern.

 Then these corrupt and inefficient cronies would have to gain wealth and power by satisfying consumer preferences in a free, voluntary,  and competitive marketplace.

In a direct democracy, where the People make the laws, lobbyists must convince them, not politicians, that this or that law must be passed.  How do they bribe the voters?  And for every misleading info campaign there will be an equal and opposite one.  So the People will just have to learn enough to decide for themselves.  

Remember the flipside of giving a Treasury Secretary unique responsibility for government regulation of the money supply is that if the right one gets in there--like a Ron Paul--then he has the power to single-handedly make major changes in the system, shrinking it, reforming it, etc.--if he can convince the President, the Attorney General, and 3/5 of the Governors to stand by and let him.  What if the opposite happens?  At some point you have to roll the dice.  But a treasury department is necessary, if funding government is necessary. And right now we're all losing our shirts.

 I'll check out your book.  I think that coming to the table with a plan for substantive change is half the battle.

Thank you.  Let me know what questions you have.  Some of it requires explanation; but everything is there for a reason.

6) nail our Constitution to the  front door of the white house, supreme court, and capital.

See you there.

Reply

gotlucky replied on Tue, Jan 17 2012 1:42 PM

rated by 0 users

Centinel:

 

Are you kidding dude !!!

You bastardize a quote I cited from Mises by cutting and pasting in your version and you call my posts dishonest and false?!

Moreover, not all of the quotes I cited were critical of anarchism (either Left or Right),  indeed several quotes spoke of government positively:

What I did was not dishonest nor false.  I will explain my methodology so that it is clear, though it should have been clear to anyone who read my post.  The term "anarchist" for a very long time was a synonym for "communist".  This is one of the reasons that Murray Rothbard initially did not call himself an anarchist but a "nonarchist".  I will provide the link to his article "Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'?" again.  Indeed, this was written during the 1950's, so that should give you a timeframe for when the term "anarchist" was still not yet used for "anarcho-capitalism".

So, since you kept insisting that Mises spoke out against anarcho-capitalism, I decided to show you what those quotes really said.  I replaced the term "anarchist" with the term "communist".  After all, if Mises used them as synonyms (which at the time they were), then it would show you the meaning of his statements.

I will provide you with another example that is not in politics so that you can see the neutrality of what I did.  Here is a passge from Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain:

Then he shot the arrow and fell back and would have died, but he lit on a nettle and sprang up too gaily for a corpse.

The term "gay" used to mean "happy" or "joyful".  Let's look at the passage again:

Then he shot the arrow and fell back and would have died, but he lit on a nettle and sprang up too joyfully for a corpse.

Currently, however, "gay" is used to mean "homosexual".  Let's look at the passage again:

Then he shot the arrow and fell back and would have died, but he lit on a nettle and sprang up too homosexually for a corpse.

You were reading Mises' quotes with the modern definition of "anarchy", but during Mises' day the term was used to mean something else.  All I did was demonstrate this fact.  However, if you still dispute this, then the burden of proof is upon you to prove that I am wrong.  I provided my evidence already as to why I think I am reading his quotes correctly.  I may be wrong, but you have yet to offer any proof.

The speech by Roderick Long addresses your questions about war, and I feel he answers it better than I can.  If you still have these same questions after you read it, feel free to ask again.

Centinel:

If a despotic Marxist regime is removed from power and control over vast resources by force then in virtually all cases this would benefit the aggressor and society at large.   No objective, rational and independent thinking analyst would assert that removing the absolutists from power in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Cuba, et al and replacing them with a capitalist system is damaging or results in a net loss in peace, prosperity stability and freedom. 

Interesting that you would say this.  I was under the impression from your original question that you were talking about within anarcho-capitalist societies.  My mistake.  I see no reason why an anarcho-capitalist society should never fight despotic regimes.  After all, the military doing the fighting would be doing so voluntarily without using stolen funds or slave soldiers.  I don't see anything in this particular scenario that conflicts with libertarian theory.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Wed, Jan 18 2012 10:22 AM

rated by 0 users

Centinel:

Lets take a look at how these responsibilities are being managed by government that private industry would be far better suited to perform:

To borrow money on the credit of the United States; -- this is an abject failure since government borrows money recklessly to fund politically motivated activities at the expense of economic realities thereby bankrupting the nation to the tune of over $100 trillion in unfunded debt.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes -- abject failure since government engages in protectionist policies to protect inefficient, greedy, corrupt politically connected firms from foreign competition.

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; abject failure since government prints money to fund enterprises and policies that otherwise would be rejected by the citizenry.  INdeed, this responsibilty of government creates unstable cyclical markets and inflationary pressures on the most vulnerable in society

Removing those powers from the federal government would make your much-vaunted military force much more inefficient, which goes expressly against your goal of a "nimble" military force for the US. The government would have less power to obtain things for the military.

Centinel:

My point is that all of this would be irrelevent if power was turned over to the citizenry in a voluntary and competitive free market.   What I seek to achieve is to make government irrelevent in the economic arena by dramatically reducing the power of government to tax and regulate the economy.   Hence, firms and individuals would no longer waste resources lobbying politicians who had no power -- instead they would be forced to satisfy consumer preferences with increased productivity, quality, lower prices, et al.

The government and the military are part of the economic arena. The economic arena isn't separate from these organizations/institutions.

If there's an imputed monopoly over legitimate coercion (i.e. a government), then people will "waste" (i.e. spend) resources pushing their agendas to those who operate this monopoly, if the former see an economic advantage likely arising from doing so.

Centinel:

You must remember that government is self-serving. It is a market for corrupt, inefficient, greedy and uncompetitive firms and special interest go to lobbying for favors that they couldn't get in a free and voluntary market.

So you already understand that the government is part of the economic arena? By that, I don't mean a free and voluntary market - I just mean the "realm" of economic behavior (which is really just the "realm" of human action).

Centinel:

The military would be given a budget based on GDP.  INdeed, the greater the growth in GDP, the more wealth the nation retains and hence the greater the need to expand the defense since the country would be richer.   IN contrast, a decline in GDP would represent a loss of value and hence less of a need to fund defense.

No dept or treasury is needed as a middle man to dispense funds.

Who do you think would (or should) be in charge of setting the military's budget, as a percentage of GDP? Or would the ratio be part of constitutional law?

If there's no treasury department, then presumably the military has its own treasury with which it distributes funds internally. Would you require it to directly tax people as well?

Reply

gotlucky replied on Wed, Jan 18 2012 10:31 AM

rated by 0 users

Centinel:

For the 3^rd time, I provided more than one quote for you to bastardize, including several in which Mises was supportive of government.   Hence, you took one quote, bastardized it by cutting and pasting than anarchist version, and conveniently ignored the rest of the quotes I cited.

How's your blood pressure.  It seems your brain might be hurting you too.  I explained my methodology, and you have yet to attack my methodology.  Well, technically you called it bastardized, but insulting without logical refutation really doesn't do much to help your case.

The burdon of proof rests with you at the moment.  I have provided my case as to why I believe it is a mistake to read how Mises uses "anarchist" as "anarcho-capitalist".  I demonstrated that at the time "anarchist" was a term used to refer to "communists".  Providing more quotes using the terms involved does not a refutation make.  What you need to do is provide sources where Mises either is specifically talking about "anarcho-capitalism" or where you can show that "anarchist" does not actually refer to "communist".

That is the kind of proof you need.  I noticed how you ignored my Mark Twain example and have fallen back onto this corpse nonsense.  Show me how my Mark Twain example is not accurate.

Until you show proof that I am mistaken about the term "anarchist" during that time period (or in how Mises actually used it), I will not engage you further in this particular point.

Centinel:

In addition, you engaged in the incredibly fallacious argument that Mises is about as close to being an anarchist as you can get  without being an anarchist ??!!!

It is not an argument.  It is a statement.  I provided my reasoning before, but I will summarize it once more:

Mises supported unlimited secession.

So, while technically he is not an anarchist, the belief that people should be able to leave their government at any time is pretty damn close to anarchism.  Hence the statement: Mises was about as close to being an anarchist without actually being one.

However, your entire refutation so far has rested on his use of the word "anarchist".  I have responded to this above.  So, you need to respond to the above before you can begin to call my statement fallacious.

Until you have done so, I will not engage you further on this point.

Centinel:

With respect to Long – he is equally clueless.

It is you who is clueless.  You did not address any of his points, and even more impressive, you fail to address his most important at all!  War is expensive.  These PDAs do not have the tax base that a monopolist government has.  It is extremely unlikely that a PDA would be able to secure the funds (peacefully and legally) required to make war against other PDAs.

You did not address this point.

I won't hold my breath.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Wed, Jan 18 2012 10:34 AM

rated by 0 users

Centinel:

For the 3rd time, I provided more than one quote for you to bastardize, including several in which Mises was supportive of government.   Hence, you took one quote, bastardized it by cutting and pasting than anarchist version, and conveniently ignored the rest of the quotes I cited.

Then it should be no problem for you to explicitly show exactly how he bastardized the quotes you provided - instead of just asserting that he did.

Centinel:

In addition, you engaged in the incredibly fallacious argument that Mises is about as close to being an anarchist as you can get  without being an anarchist ??!!!

Similarly, a warm corpse is about as close to being alive as you can get without being alive. Yet no rational, independent thinking, or objective source would consider one an anarchist and the other living.

You're actually supporting (if not proving) GotLucky's point. He wasn't arguing that Mises was an anarchist - he was arguing that Mises was as close as one can come to an anarchist without actually being one. Indeed, a warm corpse is about as close to being alive as one can get without being alive. The analogy holds.

Centinel:

With respect to Long - he is equally clueless.

Indeed, this anarchist concedes that cartels of armed force would form within ancap society, yet he makes the ridiculous claim that these cartels would be unstable because they are coercive.

This is absurd because every single nation-state in history has gained and maintained power by coercive monopoly and most have survived for decades, and some for centuries, without serious challenge.

Every single nation-state in history has gained and maintained monopoly power over coercion because the vast majority of its members approved of this. That doesn't mean everyone in that vast majority approved of everything "his" nation-state did with that monopoly, but he still approved of the principle itself.

Relying purely on force seems to typically breed resentment and resistance. Take a look at gangs - how much approval do they have from people who aren't themselves gang members? Governments are just gangs that most people approve of.

Reply

DarylLloydDavis replied on Wed, Jan 18 2012 2:02 PM

rated by 0 users

Centinel 

you have not provided any data on how much revenue your government requires and how much revenue each of the following rents, royalties, fees and taxes would net

I'm afraid I'm not succeeding well at explaining the concept.  I can't project in advance many of the revenue amounts, because they are entirely dependent upon the level of use of government services:  If the military isn't drawn into conflict, for example, at the request of another government, then it will receive less revenue, but it will also require less revenue.  The underlying idea is to discourage government intervention altogether, and to shrink government, as people come to covet the freedom to keep their own money, by handling their own problems, without the services of government--as they newly appreciate the direct relationship between a need for its intervention and the unwelcome financial requirements of larger government.

But the linchpin of this system of government financing is the following provision:

All fees shall reflect the actual duration and costs of use or misuse

No matter what government service is required, government is authorized to collect in exact proportion to the actual cost of providing the service--directly from those who make government intervention necessary.  There can be no revenue shortfall, by definition. As an example:

1) A citizen gets stuck on the side of a mountain, climbing without appropriate gear: now he must pay for the emergency services, not taxpayers. (Personal accountability)

2) A woman sues a firm for one million dollars over a false accusation of fraud:  now she must pay all court costs. (Personal accountability)

And, of course, I added the revenue from the labor of prisoners, who pay their own cost for imprisonment, courts, emergency services, restitution, etc.  

Finally, the usage fee upon land-use affords the government the power to collect the actual costs to the government of protecting everyone's right to private property, either through the maintenance of the military, or through law enforcement.  And the provision:

Any fiscal-program income deduction annually re-authorized by electoral initiative

This allows the government to continue to take out paycheck deductions to fund any social programs that the People decide every year to continue.  Remember, my goal is to provide a teaching tool through direct democracy, a hands-on direct reminder of the need for personal accountability, and of the direct cost for a lack of it--not to simply impose a new system with new tax rates, and hope that the People are OK with far less government all at once.

Your formula for central governance is vague and not supported by specific data that shows how much money you expect to acquire and how much money you need to fund your bureaucracy.

My formula for decentralized governance is quite specific, much more so than our current Constitution. I take it, then, that you haven't read through the preview of it?  

 you have provided no explaination on how the bureaucrats that act as arbitrators for your many usage fees would be deterred from corruption and bribery.  Indeed, with tremendous sources of money changing hands, do you discount the possibility of massive fraud and poltiical patronage ?

Centinel, we already have a fully-functioning, surprisingly-uncorrupt, system of revenue collection in place now.  The same agencies that currently collect court fees, traffic ticket fines, property taxes, etc., will still be authorized to fund the government.  The simple beauty of my plan is its relatively-seamless transition from what we have now.  The only jarring change will be the abolition of Congress.  And I'll repeat for the last time that my system places individual accountability at the forefront on every level, public and private.  Each Secretary in every Adminstration is himself charged with the duties and responsibilities of his department, and may be voted out of his position every year.  Even lesser bureaucrats, if appointed by an elected officer, may be fired by the People.  

But I sense that I will be unable to persuade you of the merit of such a system, judging by your previous post.  So be it.  I'm sure you spent a great deal of time and effort on your Economic Bill of Rights; and you're understandably sticking with it.  Frankly, I think we have different goals anyway.  I'm primarily concerned with making people more moral, more personally accountable; I care much less about unleashing the full forces of a free market upon the world, letting private, profit-maximizing firms do as they wish, only paying for the consequences after the fact.  I worry about a-hole CEO's just as much as I do corrupt bureaucrats.  Human nature has to be changed--before any system has a chance.

Reply

DarylLloydDavis replied on Wed, Jan 18 2012 7:50 PM

rated by 0 users

Centinel

 I believe that an unfettered free market is the best framework to insure accountability.  If a firm or individual engages in irresponsible behavior in the free market - their wealth and reputation are immediately in decline

I may be mistaken, but I thought that you supported state law enforcement as a necessary evil.  Is it now only the "bottom line" that a company imperils, and not their freedom, when their cost/benefit analyses indicate that the private lawsuits that will result from a faulty safety device won't outpace the potential profits--so start production immediately?  And has BP suffered much business loss, except what fines and clean-up costs the government imposed?  Do you think that China can't sell any more toys because a few were poisonous?  Tip of the iceberg without government sanctions.

Moreover, without a government safety net motivated by  a quid pro quo scheme of votes for welfare, unemployment, and retirement benefits -- - citizens will exercise far more due diligence in making financial decisions.  Hence, a decrease in government, results in an increase in personal freedoms and responsibilty, and a decrease in moral hazard which equates in a more dynamic, productive, and prosperous society.

That's why I support ending the safety net, or at least forcing a yearly national vote to continue it.  And my system will be far less government--just not 60 to 0 government in two seconds.

 By definition, corporations cannot make money in a free market unfettered by government cronism by screwing their customers.

It's not just their customers I'm thinking of.  I'm also concerned about the preservation of a natural environment.  But to each his own.   

 They become a problem when they form a duopoly with government for preferential tax and regulatory policies that enables them to gain market share and protection from competition

If they're willing to collude with government, then they're surely willing to collude with each other, especially after government steps out of the way. 

I guarantee that every single line in the tax code is put there by self-interested politicians catering for votes and campaign contributions from special interests and uncompetitive firms.

No corporate or personal income taxes under my system.

 it is based on who you know in Washington and how much your willing to bribe them in a quid pro quo scheme of votes and/or campaign contributions for tax and regulatory favors.  

Your broken-record, anti-bribery dogma doesn't apply to a system without any campaigns but President--and he doesn't make regulations--which are strictly curtailed anyway--or exercise any power to tax.  

ANd the most dangerous of all of the duopolies of government and special interests is that of direct democracy.  Indeed, it is when 50.1% of the citizenry decide to plunder the remaining 49.9%

Once again, mine isn't that simple.  But I'll face the decisions made by 51% more readily than by 535 Congress members.

Thanks for your input, Centinel.  I see where you're coming from. 

Reply

eliotn replied on Thu, Jan 19 2012 3:20 PM

rated by 0 users

"

Anarchists are of the deluded opinion that ancap society would be peaceful when nothing could be further from the truth for the following reasons:

1)  security is required in ancap society -- indeed no ancap denies this fact."

Actually, there exist scenarios where security is not required.  A person who is permanently outside of contact of other people is without government, yet he has no need of security because he will not be attacked by other men.  Also, in an ancap society, people may decide to not purchace anything that falls under security.  By "security is required" do you mean that some people must have goods to secure themselves, or everyone must have goods to secure themselves, or something else.  Also, many different goods can fall under the definition of security, can you describe exactly what you mean by security?

"2) if security is required in ancap society then the level of security is critical, so logically ...."

This is a non sequitor.  If some good is required, then the amount of that good may or may not be critical.  What do you mean by level, and how can the "level" be determined?

"

• a decrease in the level or funding of security increases the likelihood of predation
• an increase in the level of security decreases the likelihood of precation.
• hence, the economic profitability of a given resource (whether land, capital, labor, et al) will determine the level of security and hence the risk of attack

"

First two bullet points aren't necessarily true, there could be no change in the likelihood.  The third bullet point is another assertion that you haven't proven.  In actuality, people determine how they will be secure, which isn't always based on the economic profitability of their resources.

"3) profit seeking actors in society will use armed force to acquire valued resources under the following conditions:

• peaceful exchange is not possible
• peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of force to acquire the resource
• acquisition of the resource by coercive means  results in a net gain in profit"

People will use coercion if they expect to benefit from it.  They don't necessarily follow these bullet points.

"4)  society will generally approve of and benefit by coercive action to acquire valued resources if the following occurs:

• efficient economic managers who acquire valued resources will better manage, market, utilize  these resources thereby increasing growth and standards of living.
• the citizenry will  approve of this action if heretofore mismanaged and denied resources are made available to the markets thereby increasing supply, reducing scarcity and  lowering prices"

Society cannot approve of a coercive action.  Only people can.  And why would people approve of the coercion from a claim of efficiency?  What about morality?

"5) and the fallacy from ancaps that military defense agencies will not wage war because they directly bear the costs of war is debunked because they similarly benefit from the plunder of war."

It does not debunk this unless it can be shown that the plunder will outweigh the costs.  The problem is that the costs will outweigh the benefits in an ancap society, because people will not trust the warring defense agencies.

 "Hence,  MDA will actually be more aggressive in utilizing their capital investment in warmaking equipment and personnel.  Indeed, they will be forced to use these resources otherwise they will have been wasted.  It is like spending billions on production machinery, yet not turning on the power in the manufacturing plant."

A good isn't necessarily wasted if it isn't used.  Examples include the "just in case" gun in the back pocket, or "just in case" savings.

Reply

eliotn replied on Thu, Jan 19 2012 3:40 PM

rated by 0 users

"

Moreover, supporting secession doesn’t mean someone is an anarchist – indeed, this is another ridiculous strawman argument. 

Hence.....

Support for unlimited secession doesn't make one an anarchist, duh. "

Unless you limit succession to a particular level, say, that a state can break away but not a county.  Although this begs the question of why a state but why not a smaller locality like a county.

The point of this argument is that if you support the right of individuals to succeed from the state, in effect you would not be opposed to anarchism, if people wanted to break away from the state.  You might have an opinon that it would be foolish for people to seccede like that, if thats what you mean

"Amusingly, you have just parroted a fallacy frequently issued by brain dead statists.  Namely, that government is the only entity that can fund large scale enterprises."

Strawman.  The argument was that it would be costly for a PDA to do war, not that it couldn't have a large scale enterprise.  You need to establish that large scale enterprise as a PDA implies the ability to wage war.

" Indeed, there is no logical, empirical, or factual argument that says free market enterprises like a private military agency cannot grow as large as a statist military."

This misses the point.  The point is not how big the military can grow, but how costly the warring will be.  The argument is that a state can pass the costs onto a third party, a PDA can't.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Thu, Jan 19 2012 9:04 PM

rated by 0 users

Centinel:

This is a non sequitor.  If some good is required, then the amount of that good may or may not be critical.  What do you mean by level, and how can the "level" be determined? -- eliotn

Defense expands from one tank to two tanks -- that represents an increase in the level of security.

Moreover, with this increase, the likelihood of predation is decreased.

In sum, your assertion that expanded defense DOES NOT reduce the likelihood of predation is manifestly illogical thinking.

Certainly, then, you can explain exactly how much the increase in the level of security is, and exactly how much the likelihood of predation is decreased, by expanding from one tank to two tanks. Simply saying that doing so increases the level of security and decreases the likelihood of predation means nothing, as those are "increase" and "decrease" are quantitative terms.

Reply

Autolykos replied on Thu, Jan 19 2012 9:37 PM

rated by 0 users

Centinel:

People will use coercion if they expect to benefit from it.  They don't necessarily follow these bullet points.-- eliotn

Economic profit seeking actors will always use coercion under the following conditions:

• peaceful exchange is not possible
• peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of force to acquire the resource
• acquisition of the resource by coercive means  results in a net gain in profit

To do otherwise under these conditions would be irrational for an economic profit seeking actor.

Note that the tenets outlined above do not represent irrational actors or those societal actors who place subjective moral value judgments ahead of economic profit.

I'm going to repost my counter-argument to this from another thread:

It seems that the first proposition is really just a sub-case of the second proposition. However, there can be no objectivity attributed to the phrase "more costly". Whether a person thinks peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of armed force is up to him - that is, it's his subjective judgement. The same applies to the third proposition. So Retopper's Centinel's position can be restated as the following: at all times, there exists at least one person and at least one resource for which 1) the person considers peaceful exchange to be more costly than the use of physical force to take the resource, and 2) the person's perceived/expected benefits from possessing the resource exceed the perceived/expected costs of acquiring it by using physical force.

The only problem I have with about the above is that it's impossible to prove that at least one such person and resource exist at all times. If one simply treats the proposition as a premise, however, proof is unnecessary. Even then, however, it's impossible to predict just which people and which resources the proposition holds true for at any given time.

Essentially, Retopper's Centinel's argument is that, because men aren't angels (or, at the very least, not all men are angels), a monopoly over the legitimate use of coercion is necessary. I fail to see how this follows. As I've stated before, I think coercion (here defined as "the use or threat of violence") is sometimes legitimate. However, that in no way means to me that such legitimate coercion must be monopolized - as it's done, by definition, by the state.