Political Theory

Re: How to make the pin stand?

Sieben — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:54:50 GMT

z1235:
You can always unplug your computer from the network or push the power button off.

So? You can always avoid crime by moving to the middle of the desert. You shouldn't have to forfeit your private property to avoid aggression; that itself would be aggression.

z1235:
Or in the case with private security working today, you can always call the state when/if things get out of hand.

Haaaaah. The opposite. The state won't put men outside your store or outside your apartments cus it doesn't care. Its the failure of the state to provide security that private agencies have arisen. The whole point that there are more private security agencies and more cases settled in private courts was that the State doesn't even do most of the work as far as social order is concerned.

z1235:
But what about merchant M4 sitting at your dinner table with an "offer you can't refuse" -- his men with guns getting antsy in the truck out in front? Who are you going to call then?

I wouldn't be able to call anyone, not even the state. Look this is an idiotic and childish example. ANARCHY WON'T WORK CUS WHAT IF YOU WERE SURROUNDED BY TERRORIST KILLERS. derp.

But let me indulge you: You're just saying I need to be in a group to defend myself against gangs like this. Anarchy doesn't say you can't organize, it just says you can't force people to join your cause. So, say for example, the landlord at my apartment complex takes part of our rent and uses it to protect us from baddies. This is exactly analogous to a tax, so anything a state can do, my apartment complex can do. The difference is that the landlord has legitimate ownership over the complex, and our rights are defined in voluntary contracts.

z1235:
What are you going to do? Ostracize him into shame, or slap him into submission with your copy of "Ethics of Liberty"? Or go ahead and "voluntarily" sign the "protection" contract under your nose? Yes, exactly the same way it works with apples and carpet-cleaning.

Actually it does. You can die if someone somehow monopolizes penicillin, or food, or electricity. Someone could threaten you by cutting off any one of these resources, exactly like an M4. Except its going to be insanely hard to do so, because monopolizing these industries is near impossible.

Look: We have free will. Anything could happen at any time. Its just that the incentive structure of the state is towards despotism and war. The incentive structures of anarchy are towards cooperation and compromise. This is why we prefer anarchy to the state. Anarchy is not a Utopia. Shit happens. But it is far superior to the idea that we should cede our power to a central authority.

Re: How to make the pin stand?

Knight_of_BAAWA — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:46:30 GMT

z1235:
But what about merchant M4 sitting at your dinner table with an "offer you can't refuse"

But you can refuse it. Stop trying to justify theft.

Re: How to make the pin stand?

z1235 — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:38:56 GMT

Snowflake:
Indeed you haven't really addressed my example of the internet as a stable anarchy

You can always unplug your computer from the network or push the power button off. You get up from your chair with merely a "Wow, that didn't work out as expected." Or in the case with private security working today, you can always call the state when/if things get out of hand. You know it, they know it, and everyone knows it. Examples of stable anarchies abound under the uncontestable power of a "night watchman" incentivising every agent's behavior in a profound way -- and you get to live another day, to give it another go, even if your risk/reward model was wrong. But what about merchant M4 sitting at your dinner table with an "offer you can't refuse" -- his men with guns getting antsy in the truck out in front? Who are you going to call then? What are you going to do? Ostracize him into shame, or slap him into submission with your copy of "Ethics of Liberty"? Or go ahead and "voluntarily" sign the "protection" contract under your nose? Yes, exactly the same way it works with apples and carpet-cleaning.

Re: How to make the pin stand?

filc — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:47:10 GMT

Stranger:

Snowflake:
And before democracy, Monarchy was the only setup that had worked. When America got started as a democracy, people were predicting that it would fall apart in total chaos within a matter of months; they were wrong. It is one thing to use evidence to come to conclusions, but when you have no experience with proper democracy or anarchy, you cannot condemn them.

America wasn't started as a democracy.

I think what Snowflake's point is, and a valid one for Z135, is that large scale change has happen and resistance to that change have always had the same arguments. Destruction, chaos, turmoil. meanwhile ignoring the destruction and chaos of their existing system. Mises states it well in human action.

Mises:

The main objective of praxeology and economics is to substitute consistent correct ideologies for the contradictory tenets of popular eclecticism.

Mises:

Some authors try to justify the contradictions of generally accepted ideologies by pointing out the alleged advantages of a compromise, however

unsatisfactory from the logical point of view, for the smooth functioning of interhuman relations. They refer to the popular fallacy that life and reality are “not logical”; they contend that a contradictory system may prove its expediency or even its truth by working satisfactorily while a logically consistent system would result in disaster. There is no need to refute anew such popular errors. Logical thinking and real life are not two separate orbits. Logic is for man the only means to master the problems of reality. What is contradictory in theory, is no less contradictory in reality. No ideological inconsistency can provide a satisfactory, i.e., working, solution for the problems offered by the facts of the world. The only effect of contradictory ideologies is to conceal the real problems and thus to prevent people from finding in time an appropriate policy for solving them. Inconsistent ideologies may sometimes postpone the emergence of a manifest conflict. But they certainly aggravate the evils which they mask and render a final solution more difficult. They multiply the agonies, they intensify the hatreds, and make peaceful settlement impossible. It is a serious blunder to consider ideological contradictions harmless or even beneficial.

z1235:

The question we are discussing is merely about the TYPE (nature, size, predictability, volatility, and all other aspects) of the forces around you. I prefer a stable and predictable force -- one whose whim changes at glacial speed due to the checks/balances of the democratic process. You prefer a dynamic and volatile one -- driven by the "free" market in POWER.

You reveal to us that your entire arguments are backed by nothing more than opinions. You like the freemarket only sometimes. The distinction of when you do and do and do not wish to use the market is entirely arbitrary and based on unsubstantiated fears.

You need to pull your emotion out of this and do your historical and economic research with a clear head. Don't be scared of the truth bud. :)

Re: How to make the pin stand?

Stranger — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:25:22 GMT

Snowflake:
And before democracy, Monarchy was the only setup that had worked. When America got started as a democracy, people were predicting that it would fall apart in total chaos within a matter of months; they were wrong. It is one thing to use evidence to come to conclusions, but when you have no experience with proper democracy or anarchy, you cannot condemn them.

America wasn't started as a democracy.

Re: How to make the pin stand?

Knight_of_BAAWA — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:12:20 GMT

z1235:
With or without a state, there is not ONE human being that has ever lived on this planet toward whom force hasn't been initiated.

So what? Why don't you try again--this time, a measure of thought before you post would help.

Re: How to make the pin stand?

wilderness — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 02:47:04 GMT

z1235:

With or without a state, there is not ONE human being that has ever lived on this planet toward whom force hasn't been initiated. Force/aggression WILL be initiated, period. Take it as an axiom, if you prefer.

so you advocate initiating physical aggression and say you "WILL" do it. thanks for letting us know you just flew off the handle. i hope you aren't making bombs in your attic.

edit: dude you really need to start explaining yourself. you don't sound too good.

Re: How to make the pin stand?

z1235 — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 02:43:45 GMT

Knight_of_BAAWA:
No, you have to prove that it is.

z1235:
Sorry, but no. YOU have to prove that your proposed change is better than (or at worst equal to) the status-quo.

Knight_of_BAAWA:
Sorry, but no. YOU Have to prove that the status quo of institutionalized monopoly is the right way. You have to prove that initiating force is proper.

With or without a state, there is not ONE human being that has ever lived on this planet toward whom force hasn't been initiated. Force/aggression WILL be initiated, period. Take it as an axiom, if you prefer. If you don't, we may as well argue the superiority of the HP (Happiness Principle) by which the only proper behavior is the one which makes the most people around you happy -- and other such fairy tales.

The question we are discussing is merely about the TYPE (nature, size, predictability, volatility, and all other aspects) of the forces around you. I prefer a stable and predictable force -- one whose whim changes at glacial speed due to the checks/balances of the democratic process. You prefer a dynamic and volatile one -- driven by the "free" market in POWER. This difference is not unlike the difference between a conservative and an aggressive investor or a mortgage buyer -- the former preferring fixed and predictable income/payments over the long term vs. the latter who's willing to take (MUCH) more risk for (presumably) higher returns. Except the risks and returns of the riskier strategy are nothing more than a conjecture on your part since there's no data to perform a back-test.

So no, I don't have to prove anything to you as we're both living the sustainable REALITY that I claim. It is YOU who has to prove that your sand castle model is in fact transferable into reality if you want people to subscribe to the concept. So far, after this thread, I am equally (perhaps even a bit less) convinced that your model holds water.

And FYI, I prefer losing to winning my arguments. I am merely a curious skeptic before anything else, and am not married to any ideology (life is too short for commitments of such sort). This allows me to especially look forward to losing an argument. Sadly, it hasn't happened here yet.

Re: How to make the pin stand?

AJ — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:27:06 GMT

We already have a would-be free market in power and law, it's just that one "company" is monopolizing it in each territory.

Re: How to make the pin stand?

nirgrahamUK — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:27:22 GMT

AJ:
We already have a free market in power and law, it's just that one "company" is monopolizing it in each territory:

we already have a delicious meal, its just that the main course is disgusting.

Re: How to make the pin stand?

AJ — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:16:46 GMT

z1235:

Snowflake:
Why on earth did you think this analysis would work? If the market cannot provide POWER and LAW then by what twist of logic does the state do it?

Voting and laws reflecting the will and values of a critical majority of the population is the ONLY stabilizing (and counter balancing) force -- the "goo" that keeps the pin standing.

What population? The country's population? The state's? The county's? The city's? The neighborhood's? The family's? The individual? Please consider these options, and also consider why in the first place voting should be territorial at all. Why does the population have to all be in one place?

z1235:
The number of games of chess played (deals done) in a society is proportional to the level of agreement as to what the chess rules are. Without uniform chess rules our game of chess would be over before it has even started.

This is a strawman. Lack of monopoly on force does not mean lack of standards.

z1235:
Free markets in POWER and LAW are too violent for the former, and plain oxymoronic for the latter.

We already have a free market in power and law, it's just that one "company" is monopolizing it in each territory: the State. The question is not whether we want to have a free market in power and law, because strictly speaking there's really no way to escape a free market in power and law. The question is that, given we will always have a free market in power and law, do we want one group to have a perennial monopoly on it?

Re: How to make the pin stand?

Knight_of_BAAWA — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:59:32 GMT

z1235:
There's no politics in anarchy. Your reply constituted of merely renaming "power" into "defense".

No, it didn't. Now either address your problems or concede. It's time you grew up.

Re: How to make the pin stand?

DD5 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 19:03:49 GMT

z1235:

Knight_of_BAAWA:
z1235:
Good, you're half-way there. What's your money being exchanged for when you enter into a contract to use the other trading party's men and guns? The product you're buying is POWER
But it's not. You're confusing politics with defense. Don't do that.

There's no politics in anarchy. Your reply constituted of merely renaming "power" into "defense". Don't do that.

Z

So If I buy a hammer, does this mean I acquire "power" equivalent to political power since I can misuse the hammer and cause injury or death to someone?

Do you not see the absence of coercion in the process of acquiring "defense" services on a voluntary basis? The fact that the defense agency can theoretically turn criminal does not somehow make it more "powerful" then then anybody else in the free society. Any group of individuals can come together, buy firearms, and attempt to commit criminal acts against others. But "criminal" is the key term here! Misusing my hammer to inflict injury is criminal, just as it would be to misuse a defense agency.

Re: How to make the pin stand?

Sieben — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:41:36 GMT

z1235:
each side is free to conjecture whether correlation, in fact, represents CAUSATION. I could as easily state (which I do) that "terrible terrible situations" (being highly correlated with stateless conditions) are in fact CAUSED by statelessness.

So argue about it. Logic and evidence determine the winner. It is a cop-out if you're going to bail on all empirical arguments just b/c some people might have different interpretations.

z1235:
That's all fine and good. It's still a "Trust me, this time it will be different" argument.

Well we have good arguments as to why it would be, we're not asking for blind faith. In fact its all about who can make the most convincing case so as to reduce the amount of trust involved.

z1235:
There's nothing dumb and imaginary about power's self-reinforcing tendency to grow toward a monopoly.

And this was possible at one time in history. You're thinking that Power is the kind of thing that one person can have all of. If one person has all the power and uses it abusively, this is called a state. All you're talking about is that you think the state is inevitable. There are many responses to this that have been covered in other threads. Simply do a search of "state inevitable" and you'll pull them up...

z1235:
They profit MUCH more by joining forces with the stronger.

Well by cooperating with the stronger. It costs a lot of money to build up armaments especially if you're not going to use them. Sure PDAs could join together and do battle with competing PDAs but they have to bear the costs of their conflicts. The State on the other hand can externalize its costs so it is much more likely to engage in warfare.

Human beings have free will. There are no guarantees in anarchy or the state; we can only say that the incentive strucuters tend to promote certian types of behavior. The state structure promotes abuse.

z1235:
This majority is usually of critical size as to be able to rein in the power if it gets too much out of hand. So far, that has been the ONLY set-up that has worked.

And before democracy, Monarchy was the only setup that had worked. When America got started as a democracy, people were predicting that it would fall apart in total chaos within a matter of months; they were wrong. It is one thing to use evidence to come to conclusions, but when you have no experience with proper democracy or anarchy, you cannot condemn them.

Indeed you haven't really addressed my example of the internet as a stable anarchy... and I would go further to say that the internet could not be a stable anarchy without the affordability of personal security on the internet. Imagine that there were no antivirus or firewall programs, and that everyone was vulnerable to attacks from everyone else. It would be chaos, and then restrictions on what you can and can't send over the internet might be justified. For example, make it so that terminals can only send basic information through secure channels or something draconian like that. But instead, the internet has evolved cheaper and cheaper means of consumer protection spontaneously on its own, so that we don't need a state to regulate our interactions on the internet. Innovation, competition, and private property rights have made it a revolution for all of mankind.

Can you imagine if the internet were run by the government? Mises.org probably wouldn't exist.

z1235:
Voting and laws reflecting the will and values of a critical majority of the population is the ONLY stabilizing (and counter balancing) force -- the "goo" that keeps the pin standing.

Bull. There are many historical examples of unpopular laws and wars. You keep using this analogy of a pin standing; that if the pin were to fall over we would have chaos and everyone would shoot everyone. The deterioration into a hobbesian state of nature occurs very quickly under a state because the state will never give up control peacefully. You have to fight it, usually with guerrilla tactics. So in this way, the State itself is a pin, but this does not mean that all social arrangements are pins.

On the market, if one PDA went out of business it would be because another had taken its place or that demand had fallen too low. There is no pin here in the provision of security any more than there is a pin in any other industry. If the vegetable industry collapsed, everyone would not run into their backyards and start farming vegetables, so why do you think that if the security industry collapsed everyone would run into the streets a start shooting. If an industry were somehow to die when demand was still high, new companies would arise to meet the demand.

z1235:
The number of games of chess played (deals done) in a society is proportional to the level of agreement as to what the chess rules are. Without uniform chess rules our game of chess would be over before it has even started.

Even if this were true, it would simply mean that the market was self regulating and could solve this problem easily. Because if there is profit to be had by trading, and trading can only occur under a certain set of rules, then the market will tend to uphold whatever rules these are.

I hope you realize that people play by the rules in chess without government intervention.

Re: How to make the pin stand?

filc — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:27:56 GMT

z1235:
Humanity as a whole has also flourished and prospered in nothing BUT a state form.

filc:
Your narrowminded statement seems to advocate things like socialism and fascism. Had I read no other statement from you the quote above would leave me to believe that you were a collectivist and believed that more state would equate to a wealthier economy.

z1235:
That's why you shouldn't have even addressed it outside of the discussed context.

I'm not discussing it outside of the discussions context. Your using a collectivist argument. Also you accused me of speculating, but your entire accusation was founded on one big logical fallacy.

Furthermore back to my point, it was no conjecture. You nicely evaded the punchline. I'll re-state it for your convenience. The success of humanity has not been so because of the existence of the state. The statement is non-sequitur. Additionally, states have formed violently you call the victims of that violence 'failures' and 'unstable'. Historical impiricism on the other hand shows that countries that allowed the most anarchy equally prospered the most. Countries that allowed the least anarchy or no anarchy, and total state control, gained the least economic prosperity. Anarchy is the market.

filc:
Slaves flourished and prospered under the control of a benevolent slaveowner. Therefore slavery is acceptable. Is that what your arguing?

This is not punching at a ghost. It's hitting your problem on the head. Stop evading.