Stranger: Then this is neither an apriori argument nor a historicist argument, so why are you still complaining? You've admitted you know nothing about the facts.
Then this is neither an apriori argument nor a historicist argument, so why are you still complaining? You've admitted you know nothing about the facts.
I'm not complaining, I just think it's silly to talk about privatizing the military. This is obviously not a discussion of fact, it's an argument about predictions. No one is willing to test this little hypothesis to prove that it would actually work but then it's supposed to be taken as fact because some philosophical or economic theory says it must be so. Some people might buy it, but I don't.
bloomj31: I'm not complaining, I just think it's silly to talk about privatizing the military. This is obviously not a discussion of fact, it's an argument about predictions. No one is willing to test this little hypothesis to prove that it would actually work but then it's supposed to be taken as fact because some philosophical or economic theory says it must be so. Some people might buy it, but I don't.
This is an opinion, not an argument, and it is of even lesser value than a historicist argument.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: This is an opinion, not an argument, and it is of even lesser value than a historicist argument.
Yours is as much an opinion as mine is except more people are likely to agree with my opinion than yours. This doesn't make me right but it does mean that the political will to see the disbandment of the military and the institution of a private exchange for military services just isn't there.
bloomj31:They ARE drones, they take orders and don't ask questions.
bloomj31:I guess so. To be honest, I don't know exactly what the procedure would be for disbanding the military. But maybe an amendment
bloomj31: Stranger: This is an opinion, not an argument, and it is of even lesser value than a historicist argument. Yours is as much an opinion as mine is except more people are likely to agree with my opinion than yours. This doesn't make me right but it does mean that the political will to see the disbandment of the military and the institution of a private exchange for military services just isn't there.
That is irrelevant. We are not pursuing a transformation of the political system, but its abolition.
Knight_of_BAAWA: But they do ask questions sometimes, and they don't always follow orders. Further, why would they follow the order to attack a place for which there was no justification, manufactured or otherwise? And if we go with your definition of a mercenary and expand it some, we find that carpet cleaners and auto mechanics are mercenaries.
But they do ask questions sometimes, and they don't always follow orders. Further, why would they follow the order to attack a place for which there was no justification, manufactured or otherwise? And if we go with your definition of a mercenary and expand it some, we find that carpet cleaners and auto mechanics are mercenaries.
Let's say for a little saturday afternoon mental exercise that we imagine that I have lots of money and I'm trying to build a massive military force on the private military exchange to take over Washington DC. Now, am I going to hire soldiers that disobey me? No. Am I going to hire soldiers who ask questions other than "what do you need us to do?" No. The military is a weapon, it doesn't look for justification, it just gets pointed at people like a gun and then fired when the person behind the trigger decides to fire.
Also, carpet cleaners and auto mechanics are not soldiers. A mercenary is a soldier who works for private gain.
Stranger: That is irrelevant. We are not pursuing a transformation of the political system, but its abolition.
Ok, well then you're talking about revolution. And that still requires political will. You'll need a better argument to convince people like me. Or you'll avoid trying to convince people like me and instead talk to other people who want to see a private military. And then you'll wage a coup. Or whatever.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Constitutionally, I believe it must be.
Constitutionally, I believe it must be.
Well, I think you're gonna need like 218 votes in the house and 60 in the senate to get it passed. Could happen I suppose.
Knight_of_BAAWA:But they do ask questions sometimes, and they don't always follow orders. Further, why would they follow the order to attack a place for which there was no justification, manufactured or otherwise? And if we go with your definition of a mercenary and expand it some, we find that carpet cleaners and auto mechanics are mercenaries.
bloomj31:Let's say for a little saturday afternoon mental exercise that we imagine that I have lots of money and I'm trying to build a massive military force on the private military exchange to take over Washington DC.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Why do you persist in your wrong-headed thinking that private military = mercenaries? Do you not understand the parallel between private military and carpet cleaners? Hint: private military DOES NOT MEAN "only one person gets to use it".
Why do you persist in your wrong-headed thinking that private military = mercenaries? Do you not understand the parallel between private military and carpet cleaners? Hint: private military DOES NOT MEAN "only one person gets to use it".
I agree, some people will be able to buy protection. But some people will be able to buy a LOT more than others. Herein lies the problem. From a strategic point of view, numbers matter. If one individual can arm themselves with 100,000 men while others can only purchase 5, you're gonna have a problem.
Also, it should be pointed out that carpet cleaners do not get paid to carry guns, they get paid to clean carpets.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Why do you persist in your wrong-headed thinking that private military = mercenaries? Do you not understand the parallel between private military and carpet cleaners? Hint: private military DOES NOT MEAN "only one person gets to use it".
bloomj31:I agree, some people will be able to buy protection. But some people will be able to buy a LOT more than others. Herein lies the problem. From a strategic point of view, numbers matter.
It should be noted that carpet cleaners are contracted with at times. So where is the difference?
Knight_of_BAAWA: And only you have this idiotic notion that it would be Person A has 10 soldiers and Person B has 10,000. A much more logical standpoint would be insurance-based and/or contract with an agency itself. It should be noted that carpet cleaners are contracted with at times. So where is the difference?
And only you have this idiotic notion that it would be Person A has 10 soldiers and Person B has 10,000. A much more logical standpoint would be insurance-based and/or contract with an agency itself.
I think it would make more sense for private military contractors to go to the richest men in the world and offer their services. I don't understand why they'd go through the trouble of setting up an insurance company or even a private agency when they can just get everything paid for by a few very wealthy men.
I mean that's what I'd do.
Carpet cleaners are not paid to kill people.
bloomj31:I think it would make more sense for private military contractors to go to the richest men in the world and offer their services.
Knight_of_BAAWA: I think it makes more sense to offer it to everyone. And it's irrelevant that carpet cleaners aren't paid to kill people. Kill your Hollywood view.
I think it makes more sense to offer it to everyone. And it's irrelevant that carpet cleaners aren't paid to kill people. Kill your Hollywood view.
Well, this is why we need an experiment to find out what would really happen. Otherwise, we'll be arguing forever over nothing. I want to see this experiment done.
bloomj31:Well, this is why we need an experiment to find out what would really happen. Otherwise, we'll be arguing forever over nothing. I want to see this experiment done.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Consider the praxeological component.
Consider the praxeological component.
I understand there's a philosophical argument to be made for privatizing military. And I'm sure it's a good one. But ultimately, the goal is to privatize the military and to do that there will have to be a political action taken. In my opinion, that will take a better argument than "well, this philosophy says it will work." We need real data to show people.
bloomj31: If one individual can arm themselves with 100,000 men while others can only purchase 5, you're gonna have a problem.
Can we admit this is a "worst case" outcome? If so, it's qualitatively no different than the current set-up.
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
There is no reason to believe this would ever be possible.
It's logically possible, but metaphysically improbable.
Regardless, there is no reason to believe predatory action against people who can't afford to defend themselves would ever be economically viable.
In capitalism does it make sense for an enterprise to sell it's goods or services to one man? Does it make sense to sell oranges only to your neighbor? Or would it make mroe sense to maximize your clientel.
Not even today's biggest corporations could employee 100,000 people without offering a serious product to the market place. A belief that a single man will privately own and maintain 100,000 'mercenaries' is an entirely mad max style fictitious notion.
bloomj31: Machiavelli said...
Machiavelli said...
deja vu, or is the Matrix gliching again.
Alright guys, well hopefully you'll get to prove that the military can be privatized without too many ill effects one day.
I, for one, will always vote against such measures but I'm just one man.
Knight_of_BAAWA: z1235:Many examples have been given about (almost state-less) communities organizing beneficial structures on their own. How many of those people would NOT apply for a citizenship lottery slot offered by Sweden or USA?I fail to see a point in your question.
z1235:Many examples have been given about (almost state-less) communities organizing beneficial structures on their own. How many of those people would NOT apply for a citizenship lottery slot offered by Sweden or USA?
The point is that every entrepreneurial and productive member of a pseudo-state-less environment on this planet today would trade that "freedom" to the "tyranny" of a well organized (and "gooey") state like Sweden or USA. One could even make the argument that those environments remain backward EXACTLY because the productive elements have, in fact, abandoned them -- making someone here argue that I'm making an "apples to oranges" comparison. Well, what if the non-existence of a well organized state has something to do with those apples being (and remaining to be) apples?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Praxeology, being the logic of human action, does actually work. In practice. Because we're living proof of it.
In that case, I would propose that this planet -- with societal structures regularly converging to "gooey" standing pins (vs no free-standing ones) -- is a living proof of something, as well. Mises proposes that markets (free agents acting) -- instead of theoretical models -- decide on optimal (best) solutions, prices, and organization of their environment. Unless you are suggesting that some planet-wide statist conspiracy is promulgating some statist myth in a coordinated fashion by secretly training and sending politicians across the globe to brainwash the masses (productive ones and otherwise), there is at least SOME evidence for what I am proposing versus pretty much none for your theoretical model.
Stranger: Let me ask you this question. Why would the people who live right next door to you be more reliable than people with whom you share closer bonds, such as family members, friends, business partners, cultural associates, but who live spread out all over the world, when it comes time to provide for your protection and security? Simply by the fact that they live close to you, you can trust them? Because that is the entire principle of a democratic state.
Let me ask you this question. Why would the people who live right next door to you be more reliable than people with whom you share closer bonds, such as family members, friends, business partners, cultural associates, but who live spread out all over the world, when it comes time to provide for your protection and security?
Simply by the fact that they live close to you, you can trust them? Because that is the entire principle of a democratic state.
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point.
AJ: z1235: Structures grow/exist/sustain by SOME limitation of constituent's degrees of freedom This part shows a lack of understanding of the theory. Study a little more and this should come clear.
z1235: Structures grow/exist/sustain by SOME limitation of constituent's degrees of freedom
This part shows a lack of understanding of the theory. Study a little more and this should come clear.
I saw that list couple of weeks ago. I read the Long write-up (last on the list) and I will make sure to check out the rest. I wasn't impressed by Long's arguments (shoes and triangular ATM cards as analogies for law and enforcement), the same way I found Rothbard's logic and reasoning lacking. If the "theory" was any good in reflecting/describing reality it would not be that hard to understand. I mean, this theory is supposed to explain MY actions and motives, after all, and I think it does a pretty bad job at doing that -- that much I DO know. Finally, basing the sustainability of a structure on the condition that EVERY agent in it understands the theory upon which it was built is Utopian, by definition.
AJ: z1235: Gates/Buffett/etc.: Why don't most productive/successful/rich agents in society (that I know of and that I have met) prefer anarcho-capitalism? Could one honestly say that they are ignorant about human nature/action and about societal systems that encourage prosperity? Absolutely they are ignorant: how would they find out? The "top" schools in the world don't teach Austrian economics. Besides, they got rich primarily by being shrewd businessmen, which is a far narrower category of knowledge. Moreover, even if they learned the answers, there are good reasons for keeping quiet about it.
z1235: Gates/Buffett/etc.: Why don't most productive/successful/rich agents in society (that I know of and that I have met) prefer anarcho-capitalism? Could one honestly say that they are ignorant about human nature/action and about societal systems that encourage prosperity?
Gates/Buffett/etc.:
Why don't most productive/successful/rich agents in society (that I know of and that I have met) prefer anarcho-capitalism? Could one honestly say that they are ignorant about human nature/action and about societal systems that encourage prosperity?
Absolutely they are ignorant: how would they find out? The "top" schools in the world don't teach Austrian economics. Besides, they got rich primarily by being shrewd businessmen, which is a far narrower category of knowledge. Moreover, even if they learned the answers, there are good reasons for keeping quiet about it.
So you propose they're all ignorant, and/or the ones that aren't have more to gain by keeping quiet. I find that very hard to accept. I have friends who are doing pretty good for themselves in countries where they hardly pay ANY taxes. They would all KILL for a USA citizenship and for the "privilege" to pay 50% of their income every year. In fact, I have one visiting me right now, and cannot believe that I am actually having this discussion with someone who refers to this privilege as a "tyranny". Perhaps, I can broker a trade? No charge.
AJ: Mises seems to technically be a panarchist, not strictly a minarchist.
Mises seems to technically be a panarchist, not strictly a minarchist.
What's a panarchist? Either way, he stopped well short of suggesting anarchy. I would trust his intellect before any one's after him and on this forum -- especially when his instinct about human agents overlaps nicely with mine.
AJ: Apples to oranges. The exigent examples of "almost-stateless" societies are so far from anarchy as to be useless to look at. For a more complete answer, see this.
Apples to oranges. The exigent examples of "almost-stateless" societies are so far from anarchy as to be useless to look at. For a more complete answer, see this.
I liked your write-up ( http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/12341.aspx?PageIndex=1 ). Thanks for the link. You do seem to be acknowledging the repeated failures of state-less structures but as the reason you are proposing that there had been something wrong (or defective) with human nature in the past. If only those deficiencies are corrected THEN anarchy could flourish. I would tend to agree with you on this one, but that's one large IF, you must admit. We live here, with humans as they are NOW, I'm afraid.
AJ: There may be a point here somewhere: the idea that a State is so slow and gridlocked that it cannot do much harm. Except that history seems to refute this. However, you could perhaps develop an argument along these lines. Still, if you're going to base the argument on chaos theory you'll need to look at the details of how societies and incentive structures actually work. Just saying that minarchy is like honey is not enough. You'd have to elucidate why, and before that even why the needle analogy is valid. Basically, I think you're thinking in vague generalities and would benefit from the articles I linked to above.
There may be a point here somewhere: the idea that a State is so slow and gridlocked that it cannot do much harm. Except that history seems to refute this. However, you could perhaps develop an argument along these lines. Still, if you're going to base the argument on chaos theory you'll need to look at the details of how societies and incentive structures actually work. Just saying that minarchy is like honey is not enough. You'd have to elucidate why, and before that even why the needle analogy is valid. Basically, I think you're thinking in vague generalities and would benefit from the articles I linked to above.
The history seems to actually repeatedly confirm (instead of refute) my "needle in honey" analogy. Both, physically (literally) and as a societal analogy there are no needles (unsupported by "goo") standing on any tables anywhere.
Sage: Haven't you read Adam Smith? Capitalists are often the enemies of capitalism.
Haven't you read Adam Smith? Capitalists are often the enemies of capitalism.
I have, actually. I didn't see how the statement follows. I don't know how you define capitalists, and I didn't even use the word so it's besides the point. I was talking about productive members of society, in general. You cannot be suggesting that they too are enemies of capitalism.
Z.
Knight_of_BAAWA:I fail to see a point in your question.
z1235:The point is that every entrepreneurial and productive member of a pseudo-state-less environment on this planet today would trade that "freedom" to the "tyranny" of a well organized (and "gooey") state like Sweden or USA.
z1235:In that case, I would propose that this planet -- with societal structures regularly converging to "gooey" standing pins (vs no free-standing ones) -- is a living proof of something, as well. Mises proposes that markets (free agents acting) -- instead of theoretical models -- decide on optimal (best) solutions, prices, and organization of their environment. Unless you are suggesting that some planet-wide statist conspiracy is promulgating some statist myth in a coordinated fashion by secretly training and sending politicians across the globe to brainwash the masses (productive ones and otherwise), there is at least SOME evidence for what I am proposing versus pretty much none for your theoretical model.
bloomj31: I, for one, will always vote against such measures but I'm just one man.
And you vote without a non-contradictory theory. The intellect usurped by the unreasoned will. Advocation of brute force has no reason to argue and thus no reason in need of rebuttal.
good night
wilderness: And you vote without a non-contradictory theory. The intellect usurped by the unreasoned will. Advocation of brute force has no reason to argue and thus no reason in need of rebuttal. good night
Lol ok.
z1235: Stranger: Let me ask you this question. Why would the people who live right next door to you be more reliable than people with whom you share closer bonds, such as family members, friends, business partners, cultural associates, but who live spread out all over the world, when it comes time to provide for your protection and security? Simply by the fact that they live close to you, you can trust them? Because that is the entire principle of a democratic state. I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point.
It's not a point, it's a question. Why would the state protect you?
bloomj31:I just can't see how, given what I see as human nature (rational and neither good nor evil) how a private military system would lead to anything other than a few people with lots of mercs and a lot of people without any protection (or at least very little).
Ok. I can't see how, given what I see as human nature (rational and neither good nor evil) how a government military system would lead to anything other than a few people controlling far more power than they could ever acquire on the market, and lot of people not only without any real protection, but with lots of "feel-good" fake protection and lots of aggression carried out in their names, making them far less safe. What's worse, I even have an experiment to back up my intuition - see the US.
JAlanKatz: Ok. I can't see how, given what I see as human nature (rational and neither good nor evil) how a government military system would lead to anything other than a few people controlling far more power than they could ever acquire on the market, and lot of people not only without any real protection, but with lots of "feel-good" fake protection and lots of aggression carried out in their names, making them far less safe. What's worse, I even have an experiment to back up my intuition - see the US.
Well, that's your own personal feelings about the US.
Knight_of_BAAWA: z1235:The point is that every entrepreneurial and productive member of a pseudo-state-less environment on this planet today would trade that "freedom" to the "tyranny" of a well organized (and "gooey") state like Sweden or USA.Proof, please. Make it praxeological, too.
I'm merely informing you of my experiences -- not proposing a theorem in need of proof. Your experiences may differ, and I would love to hear about them if that's the case. If you know of successful producers that thrive in pseudo-state-less environments and would rather NOT live in the USA, then I'd like to hear more about them, as that would enhance/enrich my experience, as well.
Knight_of_BAAWA: z1235:Unless you are suggesting that some planet-wide statist conspiracy is promulgating some statist myth in a coordinated fashion by secretly training and sending politicians across the globe to brainwash the masses (productive ones and otherwise), there is at least SOME evidence for what I am proposing versus pretty much none for your theoretical model.No, there isn't, actually.
z1235:Unless you are suggesting that some planet-wide statist conspiracy is promulgating some statist myth in a coordinated fashion by secretly training and sending politicians across the globe to brainwash the masses (productive ones and otherwise), there is at least SOME evidence for what I am proposing versus pretty much none for your theoretical model.
I'm sorry, what isn't there?
Knight_of_BAAWA:Please do learn what a non sequitur is and what argument from popular belief is. As an example: just because most people believe that there is a god means neither that there is one, nor that it is correct, nor that it provides any goods.
The FACT that pretty much ALL societal structures have converged to a "needle in goo" model (as opposed to a free-standing one) -- without any concerted conspiracy or plan -- may merely be "popular belief" in your book. It's not in mine. Let me know if I've learned anything about non-sequitur: Your god example is one. I wasn't addressing beliefs but mere facts.
z1235:I'm merely informing you of my experiences
Knight_of_BAAWA:No, there isn't, actually.
z1235:I'm sorry, what isn't there?
z1235:The FACT that pretty much ALL societal structures have converged to a "needle in goo" model (as opposed to a free-standing one) -- without any concerted conspiracy or plan -- may merely be "popular belief" in your book.
Sigh - is that Jacob again?
Stranger:It's not a point, it's a question. Why would the state protect you?
It "protects" me by making the societal structure in which I produce and prosper more sustainable and less likely to collapse. In other words, I prefer a needle that is ACTUALLY standing straight in goo, to a THEORY that says it OUGHT to be able to stay straight unsupported.
JAlanKatz: Sigh - is that Jacob again?
You talkin to me?
z1235:It "protects" me by making the societal structure in which I produce and prosper more sustainable and less likely to collapse.
That's not the question I ask. Why would it do this?
bloomj31:You talkin to me?
Yes, I thought I recognized a debating strategy from an old debating partner on this board.
JAlanKatz: bloomj31:You talkin to me? Yes, I thought I recognized a debating strategy from an old debating partner on this board.
I see. Well yes, it's me.
bloomj31:I see. Well yes, it's me.
Welcome back.