Political Theory

Re: can there be a free market and government?

Johnny Doe — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 11:26:28 GMT

Is it a free market if the most powerful individuals/groups of individuals, can do as they please, i.e. us force against others?

Re: can there be a free market and government?

John James — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 10:34:28 GMT

David B:
Perhaps it would've been better to say it's not just about definitions.

Oh you mean it would have been better to actually say what you mean? Yeah. Probably.

David B:
John James:
Defensive? Are you mistaking yourself for me? Who snapped at who here? You made a post, I responded in good faith, and bothered to provide some helpful resources links. You got offended and went on a self-congratulatory tirade of masturbation so as to showcase your lack of need for any input. And you're calling me defensive?
Yawn, ok get over it. Let's find some substantive comments from you... Demonstrate real knowledge, not echoing links of others.

Translation: I have no rebuttal to what you said because you're right, I was in fact the one who became snappy and defensive (because you bruised my ego by not realizing I've spent the last 15 years perfecting my experty expertise), and I was in fact projecting my own wrong onto you. So I'm just going to try to change the subject and again attempt to flip focus back on you while again still trying as best I can to come off as more of an experty expert, because I probably won't be able to forget about your mistaking me for a newbie for a long time.

Christ, get over yourself already. You deserved it. Evidently you didn't like it :).

There's that irony again.

Still waiting for something, substantive. And have you spent time in Mises?

I'm not entirely sure what this is supposed to mean, but it sounds gross.

He didn't leave a mess. Oh wait have you spent much time actually listening here? I read and listened to your links. Have you?

...and I need to get over myself? You're like a walking case of irony.

Hmm... I tend to link introductory articles for people asking for those things, otherwise I think it's more useful to spend the time directly discussing it with someone. Not sure what this means here.

It means you have an issue in which you cannot seem to avoid projecting your own ills onto others and accusing them of doing what it is that in fact you were doing.

You implied I'm not. Though of course it would've helped if I could spell intelligent. So we've bruised each other's egos. Tell me when you get over it and want to actually discuss something of substance, or you can keep running away with more of this juvenile crap.

None of this makes any sense. Where did my ego come into this? I replied to your post, directly addressed your points and offered you some links that I thought would help you. You got offended because I offered you those links and came back with a very snappy post, part of which was used to get your digs in, and the majority of which was evidently supposed to redeem your good name (among whom, I have no idea) and wow the forum with your amazing display of mental masturbation, which you keep seeming to think was actually a presentation of not only some profound insight that no one else has ever possibly come up with, but also some kind of argument that requires a response.

Once again, I broke down your post (regardless of its relevance or usefulness) and responded to it, addressing each piece accordingly.

I'm sorry if you don't feel like you got what you were looking for, but I simply responded to the things you said.

David B:
John James:
Geez you really are hurt by that post aren't you.
Maybe so, I'll be ok...

You say that, but the way all these posts of yours are going, I'm finding it really hard to believe.

David B:
John James:
Good for you! You keep at it, and don't let anyone mistaking you for a newbie get ya down! (But of course I don't have to tell an unphased seasoned expert like you that, now would I.)
still waiting for anything intelligent.

No I think you just have nothing else to say because all of your pedantic rambling — which was written out for no other reason than to serve your bruised ego — didn't really warrant any response, so you didn't get one, and were left with no satisfaction and no real way to win some intellectual sparring match you so desperately want so that you might by chance redeem yourself.

So now you're left in the hapless position of having to continue issuing responses to things that aren't even an argument (because an argument wasn't warranted)...for if you don't, you'll be left even more bruised than when you started. ...which is why the best you can come up with is this faux-challenge kind of language in which you attempt to make it seem as though there is some burden on me to make some case here, mixed in with some school yard "I can do X, can you?" nonsense (e.g. "I sure as hell wouldn't be ashamed to bring my own curiousity and intellect and ideas to the table. Would you?", "have you spent time in Mises?", "I read and listened to your links. Have you?") And of course all the meanwhile you make sure to call me juvenile. (Can't forget to include the projection, can we now.)

David B:
John James:
I don't know what this is supposed to be or where it's coming from or how it's relevant to anything.
Do you have anything that you write? Do you author any points of view? Do you respond to any arguments with substantive responses? Or do you just link spam?

Here we go again. What is the relevance of any of this? What is with this incessant focus on me? The only thing I can figure is that you've devolved this simple case of mistaken experience into some kind of personal contest, in which everything you're posting is either a brag on yourself or a direct/indirect challenge on me. You're like some sensitive guy who takes things extremely personally, so when someone insults your mother and walks away, you have a need to chase after them and insult their mother back. And when they don't care and just keep on walking, you sprint to catch up so you can get in their face and challenge them to a duel.

I'm sorry bro. I don't know what to say. I don't have anything to prove, certainly not to you, and I honestly just don't have any interest in any contests.

As for link spam though, you might talk to some other forum members and see how they feel about it. I provide links that I think people might find useful, and based on the all the responses I've gotten over the past year and a half (this one notwithstanding) they've been found to be helpful. If you don't have any use for them, don't click them.

Since the rest of your post is simply you agreeing with me and then rambling on again with more of the same I describe above, I'll just leave it at that.

Look dude, I'm sorry that you were so hurt by my post. Really I am. Normally I wouldn't care, but you're obviously just so affected by it that I kinda do actually feel bad. Not a lot, but kinda. I wish there was some way to make you feel better about yourself, but I'm not entirely sure how to accomplish that.

The best I can say is probably the phrase posted when you were projecting earlier in this post, and tell you to "get over yourself." But I realize that may not help and in fact may only hurt your feelings more, so feel free to call me some names if it would help. I'll make sure you don't get reprimanded. I'll even agree to not respond, so you can post whatever you want and feel vindicated.

I'm not sure what else I can do.

Re: can there be a free market and government?

cab21 — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 02:56:39 GMT

a free market mafia cannot exist, there are no gangs in the free market. a business cannot be free market if it violates the funtions and definitions of a free market.

property gets more property through free trade, not exploitation. people volunteer to trade with one another and each profit from the trade.

capitalism does not need or produce a state , contracts dont need a state.

business have their rules written on paper as well.

the state claims land that it does not rightfully own. if a person renounces citizenship, they are then deemed a illigal and the state will steal the property and remove them from the land that the state claims. a person can't be stateless if the state claims land it does not rightfully own. it's not free market for a entity to claim ownership where there is no rightful claim to ownership. as far as citizinship. some people are citizens and never even knew it and never lived in the country and then are told they owe taxes.

anyone can own property, anyone can own means of ownership.

if the bourgeoisie relie on a state, its not free market capitalism, but crony capitalism or other system of mixed market. only other privite firms can represent free market.

collective ownership is no more free market than individual ownership, and initiation of force is not free market, it's required for a collective , but not for individuals.

Re: can there be a free market and government?

David B — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 19:22:10 GMT

National Acrobat:

My thoughts are roughly along the same lines as David B.

What should be noted here is that the market requires preconditions which themselves cannot be a product of the market itself. The social/legal status of participants in the market, for instance, is not a matter for bargaining on the market. Another example of preconditions is the property regime in enforcement. These are the product of common understandings among actors that provide social context and meaning to actions which those actions themselves cannot produce, and their negotiation is an explicitly political exercise.

I appreciate the support. One of the reasons I'm arguing for a Praxeology of Political Action (as a peer of Praxeology of Economic Action) is based in the power that Austrian Economics brings in explaining and understanding how the economic phenomena arises from the categories of human action. Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, and Mises in particular built a system that starts in micro-economics with single actor, small level barter, individual production and exchange actions, and then (in Mises Theory of Money and Credit) constructed explanations of the macro-economic phenomena, money, markets, prices, interest, business cycles by building from the micro-economic environment.

My hope has been that a Praxeology of Conflict (Politics) would be able to achieve the same level of descriptive and constructive explanation, and do so with the same level of apodictic certainty. Start with the a priori categories of human action, explain the micro-level (2 party) conflict phenomena as an emergent condition of human action in reality, and from that build up to the macro-political level of nation states, war, diplomacy, propoganda, etc. Marx co-mingled the two realms in his work Das Kapital. While I firmly and emphatically reject his logical categories, I think he rightly understood that the two realms are both logically connected and are in fact incestuously intertwined in the real world we live in.

When one does in fact takes this approach of building the macro from the micro, it becomes obvious that some means of resolving conflicts is going to arise as a necessary response to individual conflict. How those solutions to conflict evolve through history is constrained by the categories of action. Historical social evolution has produced nation-states, that's a fact of reality. But this does not mean that they are the only possible solutions to the underlying phenomena that they emerge from.

Anarcho-capitalism rightly states that property is a necessary condition for economic action. In accepting this and arguing for DROs they have implicitly embraced the fact of property and conflict as necessary outcomes of scarcity in reality.

I've been using "right of use" as a descriptive term for the product of any social norm (no matter how informal or formal) which allows members of a social group to efficiently resolve conflict phenomena that arise in social groups around the use of scarce resources. If we were to trace back into pre-history through knowledge from archaeology and anthropology and then move forward through the history of civilization, we can be certain that we will find evidence of such norms in every social group at every level of organization, even if it's as simple as a dominance hierarchy like we see in wolves.

One would expect a gradual, non-linear increase in the complexity and sophistication of such social norms and in fact the rise of social institutions that are expected to actively participate in the formation and enforcement of such norms. Such institutions may take the form of father, tribal chief, respected elder, or more formal complex forms like legislatures and courts, noblens, etc. Again the point of such analysis is to explain how these things arise out of human action, not to judge them as "good" or "bad".

The value of Austrian Economics is in accurate explanation of the necessary consequences of economic action. Because of the tight interconnected nature of political action and economic action, Austrian Economics can also shed a very accurate and devastating light on the necessary economic effects of specific political interventions. A Praxeology of Conflict could only expand this ability to accurately explain the systems that exist, and more importantly potential systems that could replace existing political institutions with ones which men might value more because of the necessary consequences that different systems would have on the social life (in all its forms) of men.

DROs and anarcho-capitalism are considered by many to be an ideal social ecosystem for man. It actually makes a lot of sense to me. That doesn't mean we know how to build such a society. For example, just because someone has written a full technical paper describing the engineering requirements and a realistic design for a space elevator, doesn't mean man's science and technology are able to build such a technological device. I wonder the same thing about the anarcho-capitalist DRO society.

The fundamental social economic behavior is the exchange. Exchange presumes a transfer of some formal socially accepted "right of use". Even if one were to look at Native American tribes exchanging with early European settlers, we find that there are norms that both understood because they were common in both cultures (naturally emergent) and other norms that were not shared in common. The classic example of a mismatch in social norms is the sale of Long Island. In this case "owning land" meant one thing to the European, and another thing to the Native American, who scoffed at the very idea. However, exchanges of tools and weapons for agricultural products (meat, furs, corn, etc.) happened and were not dissonant because each social group had a substantially equivalent norm. A thing a man has can be exchanged for a thing I want.

I agree that the market presumes such a mechanism for discerning and legitimizing property claims. But the market also presumes other things to be in existence that are also produced using market phenomena. Money is an example, a complex catallactic economy requires money, and it arose as a precondition for market, but the market can also produce it. The same would be true for law. There's no reason a market can't produce such products and services. However, just because it's possible for the market to do so, isn't in an of itself sufficiently explanatory. We don't have a practical plan for transitioning from existing social institutions to DRO social institutions.

This is why I'm so fascinated by secession movements, and global availability of information. I'm wondering if a renaissance of city-state federations can once again become a viable solution as a bridging technology to the goal of private DRO's. Historically there were phenomena (political) that ended up crushing societies that implemented this political form. I'm hopeful that the global connectedness of the modern world can be used effecitvely as a political tool to counterbalance whatever it is that crushed these civilizations historically. As an example of some ideas in that vein, look up 4th Generation Warfare.

National Acrobat:
Government, the structure of which can take different forms, is always a part of the market and the “free market” is at most a theoretical heuristic, as defining a market as “free” involves a certain understanding of the legitimate use of force that defines away particular restriction on freedom of action by rendering them outside the legitimate scope of action and thus not a part of freedom at all.

This is again why I think it's so important to separate the real factors that require a social solution to conflict, from the specific social institutions (states) that implement solutions to conflict issues. Government is a specific form these solutions take, but just like men are a specific form of biological life, that doesn't preclude other forms (for example, there's no reason to believe that it isn't possible to design intelligent acting dolphins.) Just because we haven't seen another solution doesn't mean it isn't possible. This is why I'm not actually a supporter of the state, though I do think it serves a purpose, and that this purpose is essential.

Every social group has rules about "legtimate" and illegitimate use of force. They are always connected with some theory of property, in effect if not in the specific language. Meaning denying property rights, is actually a form of public ownership. In communist societies they had mechanisms for resolving two farmers arguing over where one's field started and another's ended. Someone took possession of the products of the fields, regardless of what they called this "legitimate claim of use".

All of these norms are socially constructed, but the their existence is based in the reality of acting man and scarcity. In the end, if the members of society support a claim by one member of the group, and reject the claim of another member of the group. No matter how capricious or unfair or illogical the support might be. It is a solution. That is I believe how one can accurately interpret the concept of "RealPolitik". You may feel that a theft by government is wrong, and you can have all the supporting logic, and ethical high-ground on your side, and it doesn't matter, in the end, if no one stands with you against it, you lose the conflict.

Now one potential, and I think realistically achievable political unit that we can achieve is the rise of free city-states. The city-state ecosystem would presumably allow the free movement of wealth and capital between polities. This natural competition would force interfering and oppressive political institutions to adapt or wither and die. DRO's are an extension of this concept, that discards the idea of state-level territorial boundaries. This allows virtual movement of wealth and capital between competing political solutions, without requiring physical movement of individuals. Again, there are logical efficiency or utilitarian advantages to each of these two stages of a potential revolution of political institutions.

Again, one has to understand and explain the social phenomena that crushed such experiments historically. I don't see how one can expect success on this path by simply bemoaning the inequities of the current state of society. We need to also, understand and digest, the real factors that interfere with such transitions.

The problem with John James and his ilk is that the framework they use to understand the world with prohibits the ability to understand the implication of these considerations and leads them to simply declare the problem to be one of definition without realizing the substantive consequences of differences in definition.

What anarcho-capitalists have yet to sufficiently explain, in my estimation, is the socially constitutive role of the state in the rise of capitalism and modernity. I believe the arguments for the privatization of the instrumental functions of the state are fairly convincing. The market provides a more efficient means for the provision services and thus the privatization of all functions of the state logically follows. However, the effects of the state in the construction of individuality and the resulting (very rough and proximate) tendency towards political equality and market parity of individuals is grossly neglected. And until that is corrected there will be a gaping hole in libertarian theory.

In Liberalism (Mises), makes the argument that the advances in science and technology and in the living conditions of man are a direct result of the extent to which men was able to implement the twin ideas of Liberalism and Capitalism. I don't think the massive state organizations ought to be viewed as a necessary component of this specific rise in man's condition. In other words, it might be a coincidental occurence, not a causal link. To contradict that however, we see the rise in formal society level institutions with the advent of agricultural societies. I think this is an obvious outcome of the scarcity issues that drive a hunter-gatherer society to agricultural societies, due to the ability of agriculture to sustain a higher population density within a specific geographic area.

In fact, in Hoppe and others, I've seen people make the argument that the city-state structure was the source of large sudden advancements in science, philosophy and technology. e.g. Greek City-States, Italy during the renaissance, europe later in the 2nd millenium AD, and continued into the US in the State level organization of political units. In between you find much slower levels of advancement.

I also wonder if the internet doesn't provide some of the "proximity" benefits of a relatively free city-state structure in the modern world, I don't have to move to a location in order to be around and share knowledge and ideas with people who share common interests.

Re: can there be a free market and government?

National Acrobat — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 17:36:21 GMT

My thoughts are roughly along the same lines as David B.

What should be noted here is that the market requires preconditions which themselves cannot be a product of the market itself. The social/legal status of participants in the market, for instance, is not a matter for bargaining on the market. Another example of preconditions is the property regime in enforcement. These are the product of common understandings among actors that provide social context and meaning to actions which those actions themselves cannot produce, and their negotiation is an explicitly political exercise.

Government, the structure of which can take different forms, is always a part of the market and the “free market” is at most a theoretical heuristic, as defining a market as “free” involves a certain understanding of the legitimate use of force that defines away particular restriction on freedom of action by rendering them outside the legitimate scope of action and thus not a part of freedom at all.

The problem with John James and his ilk is that the framework they use to understand the world with prohibits the ability to understand the implication of these considerations and leads them to simply declare the problem to be one of definition without realizing the substantive consequences of differences in definition.

What anarcho-capitalists have yet to sufficiently explain, in my estimation, is the socially constitutive role of the state in the rise of capitalism and modernity. I believe the arguments for the privatization of the instrumental functions of the state are fairly convincing. The market provides a more efficient means for the provision services and thus the privatization of all functions of the state logically follows. However, the effects of the state in the construction of individuality and the resulting (very rough and proximate) tendency towards political equality and market parity of individuals is grossly neglected. And until that is corrected there will be a gaping hole in libertarian theory.

Re: can there be a free market and government?

LibertarianMarxist — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 14:21:52 GMT

cab21:

if government creates the rules for a market, it is not just a participant in the market.

if government get's it's funding though taxes or even the government iself, it is not just another partipant in the market.

a market cannot be ruled over and free at the same time.

if people are forced to be part of government, it's not just another participant in the market.

pure communism is a utopia, pure capitalism is not a utopia.

do marxists love the current state of communism around the world

free market is not a tautology at all. free and regulated don't mean the same thing. voluntary and coercive don't mean the same thing, unanimous and majority don't mean the same thing

The state is just the representation of the interests of the most powerful market participants, the bourgeoisie. They have their power because of their private property. Where the state is weak other representations are strong. It does not make much difference whether you pay taxes to your government or pay protection money to your free market mafia. The only difference is that the government does not operate in secret because it does not need to. The government mafia is so strong that it has a monopoly of employing violence. It has managed to write down its rules (and establish them as laws by force) and to enforce them by somewhat more civilized means than the mafia. The difference is a difference of degree, not of kind. Private property presupposes violence and property accumulates more property by exploitation. So every capitalist system automatically arrives at a sharp class division between a ruling class and a dominated class. Capitalism produces and needs the state. In order to get rid of the state, one should try to overthrow capitalism.

"if people are forced to be part of government, it's not just another participant in the market."

You are not forced to. At least the USA grant you to renounce your citizenship and become a stateless person. If any anarcho-capitalist is still a subject of this state which he allegedly hates so much, he is it because he chose to. There you have your free market. I wonder why so few anarcho-capitalists become stateless. It seems they appreciate the tyranny of the state after all. In practice, they are more comfortable with the present society under a state than their stateless utopia.

Re: can there be a free market and government?

cab21 — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 13:06:32 GMT

if government creates the rules for a market, it is not just a participant in the market.

if government get's it's funding though taxes or even the government iself, it is not just another partipant in the market.

a market cannot be ruled over and free at the same time.

if people are forced to be part of government, it's not just another participant in the market.

pure communism is a utopia, pure capitalism is not a utopia.

do marxists love the current state of communism around the world

free market is not a tautology at all. free and regulated don't mean the same thing. voluntary and coercive don't mean the same thing, unanimous and majority don't mean the same thing

Re: can there be a free market and government?

LibertarianMarxist — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 11:54:09 GMT

"Free market" is a tautology. Of course, there is a free market and government. Government is a participant of the market. You just don't happen to like this participant. That's just too bad.

It's always funny how fans of capitalism don't like the present state of capitalism, but never get the idea to blame capitalism. No, it has to be something else to save the ideology of a utopian "pure" capitalism.

Re: can there be a free market and government?

David B — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 10:38:03 GMT

I guess we'll have to agree to not be very impressed with each other.

John James:

David B:
Do you have any response to the substance of my argument?

What argument? Again, for all your verbiage, the only relevant thing it seems you've possibly said here is it can be a problem when people don't properly define their terms.

I guess you'll have to excuse me while I formulate a response to that "argument". But I'm gonna warn you this may take me a while, as that is quite a doozy.

Yet again, do you get the difference between theory and technology? Science vs. engineering?

Perhaps it would've been better to say it's not just about definitions. It's more specifically how you arrive at a definition and the strength of the definiton for forming useful conclusions. I don't know how much time you've spent in Mises's and Hoppe's work in particular with regards to praxeology.

Defensive? Are you mistaking yourself for me? Who snapped at who here? You made a post, I responded in good faith, and bothered to provide some helpful resources links.

You got offended and went on a self-congratulatory tirade of masturbation so as to showcase your lack of need for any input. And you're calling me defensive?

Yawn, ok get over it. Let's find some substantive comments from you... Demonstrate real knowledge, not echoing links of others.

Well excuse me for trying to help, Sunshine. Perhaps if you didn't sound like such a newb...

Whenever you're done...

David B:
Respect and curiousity it gets you farther.

The irony is almost palpable.

And yeah, I bite back.

Back from what? Again, I provided you some links. You got offended that I would possibly not recognize you as the genius who cleaned up Mises' mess, and snapped at me.

Christ, get over yourself already. You deserved it. Evidently you didn't like it :).

Still waiting for something, substantive. And have you spent time in Mises? He didn't leave a mess. Oh wait have you spent much time actually listening here? I read and listened to your links. Have you?

For someone apparently so focused on human action you have a real problem with projection.

Hmm... I tend to link introductory articles for people asking for those things, otherwise I think it's more useful to spend the time directly discussing it with someone. Not sure what this means here.

Also, you're damn right I'm intellegent enough to handle a conversation with Mises, or Hoppe, or Rothbard.

I don't recall saying that. I'm not sure wher you got the idea I believed that. But hey, as long as you're still trying to recover that bruised ego I guess you might as well start agreeing with compliments no one ever paid you.

You implied I'm not. Though of course it would've helped if I could spell intelligent. So we've bruised each other's egos. Tell me when you get over it and want to actually discuss something of substance, or you can keep running away with more of this juvenile crap.

David B:
They are or were brilliant men, but I sure as hell wouldn't be ashamed to bring my own curiousity and intellect and ideas to the table. Would you? You aren't shy about it here.

Geez you really are hurt by that post aren't you.

Maybe so, I'll be ok...

Quite frankly, I'd love to have a conversation about Hoppe specifically. I do have an idea, I'm a bit perplexed that I can't find any Austrian papers about it. It seems a bit obvious to me, but that doesn't mean someone else didn't think about it and discard it already for other equally obvious reasons. If you'd care to help me find the obvious reason, thanks, if not, so be it. I'll keep thinking about it, and presenting it. It's how I look at the problem domain.

Good for you! You keep at it, and don't let anyone mistaking you for a newbie get ya down! (But of course I don't have to tell an unphased seasoned expert like you that, now would I.)

still waiting for anything intelligent.

Do you really get this individualist stuff you're spouting? We don't hero worship, we don't abdicate the intellectual responsiblity to do the work, and we don't back away from engaging in rational discussion. We don't run from presenting or facing and hearing criticism about our own ideas.

I don't know what this is supposed to be or where it's coming from or how it's relevant to anything.

Do you have anything that you write? Do you author any points of view? Do you respond to any arguments with substantive responses? Or do you just link spam?

David B:
If you think my point was simply ill-defined terms then you missed the point completely.

Oh forgive me. I must have been fooled by the first sentence of your post which read:

"The problem here is in how coercion, rights, and in particular property are defined."

Haha, nice catch, finally touche. Yes, you're right. Let me restate: "The problem here is how one arrives at definitions for such things as property, coercion and rights."

In laymans terms the property rules directly affect how the economic interaction occurs. The property rules in communist governments guaranteed the self-destruction of the system, as necessary side effects. The beauty of what Mises did was to demonstrate the necessary side-effects of certain political systems and economic policies, based on the economic effects. Value-free analysis based in praxeology. He didn't have to say socialism was bad, he had to demonstrate the inability to calculate prices, and the inevitable total destruction of any pre-existing capital accumulation. We aren't doing this in modern politics. Actually, libertarian circles are more than most, but that's because of Austrian Economics, more than it is due to Natural Property Rights, or NAP. NAP is idealist pie-in-the sky stuff that attracts young kids. The economics stuff is the logically irrefutable meat that gets the middle-aged and older people. I like NAP too, don't get me wrong. But you should know by now that you can argue around in circles about it, and you still end up with someone somewhere deciding whether or not someone's use of force is legitimate or not, and that's the linchpin for corruption.

What any of this has to do with the point of the thread, I have no idea.

Well, it's my support for the statement below ,which you consider to be the equivalent of stating the obvious. But if the stuff above doesn't make sense to you then explain to me in your own words, why the following is true?

So the answer I'd offer to the original question is, we can remove governments as we know them, but you can't discard having some solution for the property/dispute issues that politics arises from.

In other news, water is wet, the Sun is hot, and Pelosi's had work done.

He asked whether or not it's possible. That's an argument that explains that it's possible, but that it's not some anarchistic, unruled chaos. That the order can and in fact must arise as an emergent phenomena from the underlying facts of reality and human action. However, maybe what you're missing is that revolutions in politics don't necessarily lead to the imagined nirvanna that idealists imagine. As much as I like Rothbard, I love Hoppe for the fact that he engages in theorizing about how to get to a more libertarian reality. Intead of simpy pontificating about the moral superiority of Natural Rights and NAP.

The cautionary point of the discussion is that focus on practical application is necessary and important, and like any other "engineering" endeavor, Good theory is necessary.

I can't "fix Mises's mess", he didn't leave one. There are lots of people (including Hayek) and Rothbard who diverged from him. I agree with Rothbard in that he didn't view the state as an inevitable He pointed at work he wasn't doing in the field, and said there's something here. I think Hoppe's looked at it, but I don't think he ever really dove into that problem domain specifically.

I guess maybe you haven't gotten to the point where you dig more deeply into the fundamental issues and look behind the curtain. For example, there are disagreements that matter between Rothbard and Mises. Mises remained staunchly utilitarian, and believed the state served a necessary purpose. Rothbard carved out Natural Property Rights, and rejected a purely utilitarian view of the state. I've wondered if Natural Property Rights and voluntary association can't be recovered without throwing out the methodological individualism of Mises. Can we still maintain the value-free analysis of praxeology and extend it to cover a field, Politics, that Mises chose not to throw his immense intellectual effort at? He was a little busy in other areas, he was busy binding the micro and macro economic schools together through Theory of Money and Credit, and then in providing the Philosophical defense of a priori logical deductiion against the scientism of empiricism that had crept into modern economics.

But there are serious disconnects between authors of libertarian thought and much of the intellectual foundation on which it stakes it's claim. As we go down this path of learning economics and politics, especially as it relates to libertarianism, we must find ways, individually, to resolve these disagreements to our own satisfaction.

Liberalism and Capitalism, Mises rightly points out, are the social systems (one of economics, one of politics) by which man has risen so far and so fast, but they have still not ever reached the full expression that the authors of these ideas (in the 18th and 19th centuries) imagined they would one day reach. The modern versions are a far cry from the potential these social systems carry within them. Natural Property Rights and Common Law are the foundations of the Liberal social system. NAP is one of the fundamental principles, a normative principle, that sits underneath such a system. It's not however a fundamental given from reality... It's a technical solution, an ethical position from with which one evaluates a political system.

Re: can there be a free market and government?

David B — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 09:33:59 GMT

John James:

cab21:
one part of the second amendment video , at about 14 minutes, about the regulated militia confused me. it seemed to say that men were mandated to have guns and report to a miliatia commander, and this was supposedly separate from a government?

Separate from the Federal Government, for sure. The Constitution is what instituted the Federal Government in the first place, so obviously any "requirements" prior to that came from some smaller source. Notice right before the statement you're talking about, the narrator states "colonial militias had been in existence for over 150 years..."

Militias are generally considered a local thing, until they are called upon to band together for a larger threat.

Notice, at 8:50, the narrator states "...the founders opposed anything but a small national military."

If you look at the history, there doesn't seem to be any large scale legislation on the subject until after the Constitution. Note:

"[George Washington] experienced all the evils of insubordination among the troups, perverseness in the militia, inactivity in the officers, disregard of orders, and reluctance in the civil authorities to render a proper support. And what added to his mortification was, that the laws gave him no power to correct these evils, either by enforcing discipline, or compelling the indolent and refractory to their duty" ... "The militia system was suited for only to times of peace. It provided for calling out men to repel invasion; but the powers granted for effecting it were so limited, as to be almost inoperative."

what makes a citizen miltia different from a government if people are mandated to have guns and report?

Nothing. But that's irrelevant because no one is trying to differentiate them. The video is making the case for the 2nd Amendment and the meaning of the words at the time they were written. (Which is the only meaning that matters). Remember, the Constitution is a minarchist creation...which itself created the Federal Government. So none of the founders were trying to make an argument for a truly (i.e. literally) free society like what we're talking about here.

Notice I only linked the video in supplement to your point about "if there is a call for a monopoly on the use of force". That is a hypothetical that obviously assumes a not-free society, at least in the absolute terms you're seeing people speak of here.

The video seems to gloss over the battle in the formation of the constitution between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Bill of Rights was a victory of the Anti-Federalists. When they say the "Founders", we need to remember that it was actually very contentious. Libertarians tend to feel a kindred connection with the Anti-Federalists represented by men like Thomas Jefferson and George Mason. Even at the time, there was recognition that the northern more populous states had the potential to use the federal government as a coercive tool to override the rights of states which at the time were considered to take precedence over the federation which arises from the authority of the states.

Regardless of how we view the rights of the states vs. the rights of the individuals as libertarians, that was the political battlefield. This battle carried through until it finally got resolved, in the wrong way, through the civil war. The battle is still going on in some forms, in todays society. We still hear about state's rights in today's US political discussions, usually from conservatives. But it's much less vocal.

From a pragmatic point of view pushing decentralization of control can only help all of us in the long run. I've argued that the most effective political organiztion of society that we've ever seen was loose confederations of city-states. Good link here. One statement there, is that "such small political entities often survived only for short periods because they lacked the resources to defend themselves against incursions by larger states."

I wonder if in today's world the global access to information couldn't be used as a counterbalance the large state incursions in todays world that are offered as explanations of the failure of city states in that day and time. I think these loose confederations lead to rapid population and economic growth of some of the cities and it forces the other cities to compete for labor and capital investment. If we can find, test, and deploy social tactics that prevent large states from swallowing smaller city-states, that would significantly help the cause of liberty. In addition, finding ways to prevent the annexation of existing modern city-states would also be a pragmatic victory.

Hoppe has some really interesting analysis of this in one of his lectures that I got from itunes. He showed a connection between the populations of cities in the world throughout history shows a direct correlation to the political climate for the accumulation of wealth. If DROs are the ultimate anarcho-capitalist goal. We need to encourage secession and "self-determination" in all it's forms, sooner or later we'll get there. But it's going to take a circuitous path. We won't snap our fingers and wake up in a tomorrow where the NAP and Natural Property Rights are the "law of the land".

Some examples of secession are the breakups of Yugoslavia, USSR, Czechoslovakia, Congo. Some examples of existing city states : Vatican, Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau, Morocco.

So, one metric for the prospects of liberty would be whether or not Hong Kong can maintain it's autonomy from mainland China. Additional successful secessions would be interesting. and of course there's the UAE. Privately owned government in it's only visible form.

Re: can there be a free market and government?

John James — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 08:55:31 GMT

David B:
Oh yeah, and thanks, I like getting into a little contentious discussion every once in a while, get's the juices flowing.

I'm sure you did enjoy your masturbation. Most people do.

"Juices flowing." I'll have to remember that one.

Re: can there be a free market and government?

John James — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 08:53:14 GMT

David B:
Do you have any response to the substance of my argument?

What argument? Again, for all your verbiage, the only relevant thing it seems you've possibly said here is it can be a problem when people don't properly define their terms.

I guess you'll have to excuse me while I formulate a response to that "argument". But I'm gonna warn you this may take me a while, as that is quite a doozy.

You really didn't have to be so defensive about it, but it seems you got the point.

Defensive? Are you mistaking yourself for me? Who snapped at who here? You made a post, I responded in good faith, and bothered to provide some helpful resources links.

You got offended and went on a self-congratulatory tirade of masturbation so as to showcase your lack of need for any input. And you're calling me defensive?

You might not want to introduce yourself to people you haven't seen on the board, by assuming they're a newb.

Well excuse me for trying to help, Sunshine. Perhaps if you didn't sound like such a newb...

David B:
Respect and curiousity it gets you farther.

The irony is almost palpable.

And yeah, I bite back.

Back from what? Again, I provided you some links. You got offended that I would possibly not recognize you as the genius who cleaned up Mises' mess, and snapped at me.

For someone apparently so focused on human action you have a real problem with projection.

Also, you're damn right I'm intellegent enough to handle a conversation with Mises, or Hoppe, or Rothbard.

I don't recall saying that. I'm not sure wher you got the idea I believed that. But hey, as long as you're still trying to recover that bruised ego I guess you might as well start agreeing with compliments no one ever paid you.

David B:
They are or were brilliant men, but I sure as hell wouldn't be ashamed to bring my own curiousity and intellect and ideas to the table. Would you? You aren't shy about it here.

Geez you really are hurt by that post aren't you.

Quite frankly, I'd love to have a conversation about Hoppe specifically. I do have an idea, I'm a bit perplexed that I can't find any Austrian papers about it. It seems a bit obvious to me, but that doesn't mean someone else didn't think about it and discard it already for other equally obvious reasons. If you'd care to help me find the obvious reason, thanks, if not, so be it. I'll keep thinking about it, and presenting it. It's how I look at the problem domain.

Good for you! You keep at it, and don't let anyone mistaking you for a newbie get ya down! (But of course I don't have to tell an unphased seasoned expert like you that, now would I.)

Do you really get this individualist stuff you're spouting? We don't hero worship, we don't abdicate the intellectual responsiblity to do the work, and we don't back away from engaging in rational discussion. We don't run from presenting or facing and hearing criticism about our own ideas.

I don't know what this is supposed to be or where it's coming from or how it's relevant to anything.

David B:
If you think my point was simply ill-defined terms then you missed the point completely.

Oh forgive me. I must have been fooled by the first sentence of your post which read:

"The problem here is in how coercion, rights, and in particular property are defined."

In laymans terms the property rules directly affect how the economic interaction occurs. The property rules in communist governments guaranteed the self-destruction of the system, as necessary side effects. The beauty of what Mises did was to demonstrate the necessary side-effects of certain political systems and economic policies, based on the economic effects. Value-free analysis based in praxeology. He didn't have to say socialism was bad, he had to demonstrate the inability to calculate prices, and the inevitable total destruction of any pre-existing capital accumulation. We aren't doing this in modern politics. Actually, libertarian circles are more than most, but that's because of Austrian Economics, more than it is due to Natural Property Rights, or NAP. NAP is idealist pie-in-the sky stuff that attracts young kids. The economics stuff is the logically irrefutable meat that gets the middle-aged and older people. I like NAP too, don't get me wrong. But you should know by now that you can argue around in circles about it, and you still end up with someone somewhere deciding whether or not someone's use of force is legitimate or not, and that's the linchpin for corruption.

What any of this has to do with the point of the thread, I have no idea.

So the answer I'd offer to the original question is, we can remove governments as we know them, but you can't discard having some solution for the property/dispute issues that politics arises from.

In other news, water is wet, the Sun is hot, and Pelosi's had work done.

Re: can there be a free market and government?

David B — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 08:30:39 GMT

@John James,

Oh yeah, and thanks, I like getting into a little contentious discussion every once in a while, get's the juices flowing.

Re: can there be a free market and government?

David B — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 08:24:13 GMT

@John James,

Do you have any response to the substance of my argument?

You really didn't have to be so defensive about it, but it seems you got the point. You might not want to introduce yourself to people you haven't seen on the board, by assuming they're a newb. Respect and curiousity it gets you farther. And yeah, I bite back.

Also, you're damn right I'm intellegent enough to handle a conversation with Mises, or Hoppe, or Rothbard. They are or were brilliant men, but I sure as hell wouldn't be ashamed to bring my own curiousity and intellect and ideas to the table. Would you? You aren't shy about it here.

Quite frankly, I'd love to have a conversation about Hoppe specifically. I do have an idea, I'm a bit perplexed that I can't find any Austrian papers about it. It seems a bit obvious to me, but that doesn't mean someone else didn't think about it and discard it already for other equally obvious reasons. If you'd care to help me find the obvious reason, thanks, if not, so be it. I'll keep thinking about it, and presenting it. It's how I look at the problem domain.

Do you really get this individualist stuff you're spouting? We don't hero worship, we don't abdicate the intellectual responsiblity to do the work, and we don't back away from engaging in rational discussion. We don't run from presenting or facing and hearing criticism about our own ideas.

If you think my point was simply ill-defined terms then you missed the point completely. That's ok, I can try again. Feel free to ignore it again.

So back to my point I think the issue with modern libertarianism is that their's a co-mingling of theory and technology. They're not divided in modern political discussion as far as I can tell.

The point I was making specific to this thread is that the free market isn't "ungoverned". Even individual property rights under Natural Law assume some norms and social rules about what the boundary conditions are for establishing what constitutes a legitimate ownership claim, and what doesn't qualify. These are socially produced rules, NOT givens from the underlying reality, not given by God, not built into our nature. How they effect the social group IS governed by reality. It's part of the feedback loop. A science of Politics would provide the rules that explain what gives rise to these norms and laws, and would provide analysis that explained the feedback effects that specific rules would necessarily have on the social action within the group.

In laymans terms the property rules directly affect how the economic interaction occurs. The property rules in communist governments guaranteed the self-destruction of the system, as necessary side effects. The beauty of what Mises did was to demonstrate the necessary side-effects of certain political systems and economic policies, based on the economic effects. Value-free analysis based in praxeology. He didn't have to say socialism was bad, he had to demonstrate the inability to calculate prices, and the inevitable total destruction of any pre-existing capital accumulation. We aren't doing this in modern politics. Actually, libertarian circles are more than most, but that's because of Austrian Economics, more than it is due to Natural Property Rights, or NAP. NAP is idealist pie-in-the sky stuff that attracts young kids. The economics stuff is the logically irrefutable meat that gets the middle-aged and older people.

I like NAP too, don't get me wrong. But you should know by now that you can argue around in circles about it, and you still end up with someone somewhere deciding whether or not someone's use of force is legitimate or not, and that's the linchpin for corruption.

Currently governments are the social institutions that carry out the development, implementation and evolution of property law. They manage to maintain the monopoly by asserting and aggressively defending a monopoly on the use of force.

So the answer I'd offer to the original question is, we can remove governments as we know them, but you can't discard having some solution for the property/dispute issues that politics arises from.

The add-on point is, getting to some next gen political technology (like DROs, Private Defense organizations, even back to private city states and loose confederations) requires a practical path. Without understanding the technology we have, and understanding what's possible from where we are, how to we chart a path to where we'd like to go?

Do you think a revolution would result in anything better than what the Soviet Union got? They revolted, congrats "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Our Political theory has some growing up to do.

Re: can there be a free market and government?

John James — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 07:19:11 GMT

David B:
So having spent a lot of time for many years in the books of Rothbard and Mises, Spooner and Thoreau and Spencer, Rand, Nozick. Reading Walt Williams, Lew Rockwell, etc., etc. for at least 10+ years now, its a little demeaning to have someone suggest that I go watch some beginner's videos on politics.

You're right. You did sound like a newb. Not sure what that means, if all those "credentials" you list off are accurate.

*shrug*

Sorry?

In the end, in the Ethics of Liberty one thing sits wrong with me. To get there, you have to start however, with Praxeology and Mises. It all begins with the ought/is dichotomy. The source of IS statements (or truth) is Reality. Meaning to make statements of fact, is to say something that's true. But ought statements, the normative arises from man. It arises from intentionality, from purposeful behavior, from human action. Mises understood this, and got what it really means. Mises provided a value-free science of human action. He called it praxeology. He makes truth statements about the a priori categories that arise from the category of human action. Praxeology doesn't make Capitalism right. The "rightness" of Capitalism is a value judgment each man makes on his own. All praxeology gives us is value-free analysis of the consequences of private property and voluntary exchange, such a system is called the Free Market, or Capitalism.

But the science of Praxeology is incomplete. Mises recognized that he had a value-free science that was the mother science from which all social science flowed, but something was missing :

The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science - Up to now the only part of praxeology that has been developed into a scientific system is economics. A Polish philosopher, Tadeusz Kotarbinski, is trying to develop a new branch of praxeology, the praxeological theory of conflict and war as opposed to the theory of cooperation or economics.

Now, I can't read Polish, so I'm left to wonder what happened to this work. I've looked and I can't find a continuation. But when I found this line in my most recent reading of Mises work, I was left wondering if I hadn't hit on something in my previous article on ender's website.

There is a metaphysical real occurence of men acting with plans that cannot both be implemented in reality and both achieve their end.

Feeling I'd hit on something I wrote "All Human Science starts with Praxeology", I make this argument :

Praxeology is not only the basis of a science of Economics, but is also the foundation of epistemology, logic, geometry, arithmetic, all natural science, ethics, and politics. This is a wild claim, I know that. In The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, Ludwig von Mises constructs a philosophical argument that praxeology is not only the basis of a science of Economics, but also that human action is the foundation of epistemology, logic, geometry and arithmetic.  

I think he missed something else though. I believe that human action (intentional choice followed by physical change in the world, by intelligent, knowledge using humans), also provides a priori categories from which we can derive a logical foundation, or source, of the fields of Ethics and Politics.

He made it abundantly clear to me that one needs to be clear about dividing between value-free theory (or science) and purpose driven application of theory (or technology). And what's missing in modern political science, is science. In particular it's not a value-free science rooted in praxeology. Liberalism, Natural Property Rights, Voluntarism, Socialism, Communism, etc. are technology. In some cases people are able to get away with the political equivalent of divining rods (socialism, democracy, anarcho-communism), and it's because we don't have a value-free scientific theory of politics. We can't even give the boundaries of the problem domain.

Cool story bro.

So, newbie links... ummm... ok.

Oh I get it. That was supposed to be your knife throwing moment in which you bust out all your skills and wow the crowd into seeing you're not the novice they all thought you were. Slick snot right there.

David B:
Kokesh can be as eloquent as he'd like to be, and I happen to have been making these same argumetns and having these same discussions for years.

Yes, yes, we get it. You're an expert voluntaryist with many years of experience in voluntarying. May all due honors bestow upon thee.

That doesn't solve the problem I'm pointing out.

And what problem would that be exactly? It sounded to me like all you were talking about was a simple misunderstanding due to ill-defined terms:

"The problem here is in how coercion, rights, and in particular property are defined."

But hey, you're the expert here, so don't let me tell you how your post reads. I'm just a humble forum hobbiest. Nothing like you esteemed Blogspot bloggers.

David B:
John James:
Give some examples of where this relationship is not (or cannot be made to be) easily seen (or at least easily enough), and these conflicts that "must" arise. I don't see them being many, or that significant.
Then you fail to understand and recognize the enormous importance of the existence of law. Not that law is the right solution to the social phenomena which gives rise to it, but that it's existence in and of itself points to a significant and important social phenomena that bears analysis and explanation. Because the source of law is human action, praxeology is the starting point for understanding the entire political sphere, of which law is part.

I'm sorry were there some examples I missed in there somewhere?

David B:
John James:
"acting like states aren't one type of solution to that problem is ridiculous."

K. Acting like shooting you in the face isn't a solution for you looking at me funny is ridiculous. I mean, it solves the problem, does it not?
Good you get my point.

YAY! I got one!

There's nothing inherent in the action, or in our current definition of human action (Praxeology in Mises work) that explains or defines what makes any action right or wrong. In fact it can't, nor should it.

Ah but your definition can! After all, "[Mises] missed something"...something "[you] hit on"...human action actually provides a priori categories from which we can derive ethics!

I guess I can see why you were so offended now. I mean, you picked up the slack left by one of the greatest economists of all time...you saw what he didn't, and even published it on your Blogspot blog!...and here you are on a lame-o Internet forum and some lowly forum contributor completely missed your shimmering brilliance and mistook you for a newb. Womp womp womp.

I guess I'd be a little uppity too.

Praxeology explains why that's so. Praxeology doesn't say it's a wrong solution. It just has necessary side effects.

Did someone say otherwise? Why is this even relevant?

I hope I don't need to explain why I feel a little disrespected by the rest of that?

...as of course I'm so confused as to what you've been doing so far in this post...

For some more thoughts of mine on these issues look here, that's probably the best post I've participated in. In particular this, this, this, and this A Praxeological category of conflict is the necessary root of a praxeological science of Politics, here and here are some of posts on that topic.

Kickass. I'll be sure and get these to over to Kirzner and Hoppe right away.

So in interpreting what I have to say, understand I reject the normative content of liberalism as truth statements. I personally affirm as my own goals the goals and techniques of liberalism which is to me a technology for addressing the conflicts that arise in social human action.

And this makes you special, how exactly?

David B:
wth? My response just got held for moderator approval?

Yes, Ace. That happens. I'd link you to the newbie thread that explains all that, but I'm afraid of disgracing you and your family.