An-caps, STOP lying to yourself!

Economics Political Theory
181

Hayek, from Why I am Not a Conservative:

""Only at first foes it seems paradoxical that the anti-internationalism of conservatism is so frequently associated with imperialism. But the more a person dislikes the strange and thinks his own ways superior, the more he tends to regard it as his mission to “civilize” other[10] - not by the voluntary and unhampered intercourse which the liberal favors, but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government. It is significant that here again we frequently find the conservatives joining hands with the socialists against the liberals - not only in England, where the Webbs and their Fabians were outspoken imperialists, or in Germany, where state socialism and colonial expansionism went together and found the support of the same group of “socialists of the chair,” but also in the United States, where even at the time of the first Roosevelt it could be observed: "the Jingoes and the Social Reformers have gotten together; and have formed a political party, which threatened to capture the Government and use it for their program of Caesaristic paternalism, a danger which now seems to have been averted only by the other parties having adopted their program in a somewhat milder degree and form.

Schumpeter:

http://www.panarchy.org/schumpeter/imperialism.html

von Mises:

http://mises.org/nsande/pt1iich2~c.asp

This i really just tip of the iceburg stuff, but I’m lazy and don’t want to get too much into this. So I’m done. Either way those are three of the biggest names you’ll encounter who are not a fan of colonizing / investing in war for profits, etc

Scientificaly, we are not Keynesians.

182

Oh right, and there was a book written a while back ago that was a pretty good refutation of mercantilism, maybe you have heard of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

183

Centinel, the same evidence you present can be used to argue that states would be in constant war, hence making them no better than anarchy, really.

Plus,

liberal democracy which is specifically designed to limit, balance, decentralize and make transparent the elements of armed force in society with this misrepresentation

This is a complete illusion. There is no “law of physics” that makes the government work. Remember, it’s made of people. You cannot “institutionalize” transparency and justice by decree. They can only exist if both your employees and people you govern hold them dear. And hey, if this is the case, why do you need a government?

The state is smoke and mirrors. In what way is power balanced in the government? Checks and balances? You mean to tell me that a 200-year old paper called the Constitution prevents the president from killing us all with his army? Oh please. Try more like “there would be a revolution.” There’s nothing inherent to the state that keeps things functioning. It’s all culture of the populace (Besides totalitarianism, I suppose, but that’s irrelevant).

184

Liberal democracy. Only Rettopper uses such contradicting terms. :slight_smile:

This is rettoper. Your using the same argument you’ve used for the past year! Tireless you are sir! Bravo!!!

185

The history here makes the title of this thread that much more LOL

Just search for his name in the archives. You will see that his argument has not matured one snidget. Considering its been over a year and his position is exactly the same I doubt we can expect anything more out of him.

If by some miracle this isn’t Rettoper than it must be his rhetorical and argumentation clone. Either way there is something to be gained by digging in reference to “Centinel’s” argument.

186

He seems to be copying a page from the government… whenever you wear out your reputation with one name, just change it. It’s like CSD (Child Services Division) here in Oregon … that acronym came to have the same element of terror associated with it as Freddy Kreuger… so they changed it to SCF (Services to Children and Families). Of course, changing your name from “Nazi” to “Schmazi” doesn’t change anything, so I’m sure they’ll have to change it again, soon enough.

Clayton -

187

I thought it obvious by his use of “In sum” and “Manifestly absurd.”

188

Haha! Manifestly absurd! That definately concludes it.

189

You can tell when you have completely stymied the illogic of the faith-based ideologue.

It is when these trolls start swarming with ad hominems devoid of fact, logic and empirical evidence.

Indeed, it is this juvenile mob mentality that undermines the credibility and efficacy of an otherwise beneficial organization like Mises.

190

This is a retopper phrase. Also what ad hominem?

191

@ vive la insurrection,

Unquestionably the political economy favored in varying degrees by Hayek, Schumpeter, and Mises is far superior to the statist model… yet

the statists have the upper hand, Why?

Of course, it is the means that they employ that gives them dominion over these libertarians.

Hence, as I have stated previously, those who gain power in society are those who most aggressively promoted their own self-interest – not those whose self-interest most benefits society.

192

Centinel, the same evidence you present can be used to argue that states would be in constant war, hence making them no better than anarchy, really.-- wheylous

No, go back and read my posts – I have stated that armed conflict will be on the margins of society. Only firms that are severely deficient in maximizing the utility of their resources would not be able to fund a level of security to deter prediation. This is similar to what occurs today in the current anarchic international community.

This is a complete illusion. There is no “law of physics” that makes the government work. — wheylous

The division of powers within the US Constitution is no illusion indeed. We have not had a military coup in 230 years, indeed civil and political freedoms have increased markedly since 1776. We have generally had increased economic growth for our entire history, increased life expectancy, increased standards of living, et al.

Of course, statists have found a way to sidestep many Constitutional protections by engaging in economic coecion, hence we need a new shot of anti-government vaccine in the form of an Economic Bill of Rights to complement our already sturdy civil and political BIll of Rights.

The state is smoke and mirrors. In what way is power balanced in the government? Checks and balances? You mean to tell me that a 200-year old paper called the Constitution prevents the president from killing us all with his army?–wheylous

Of course if your speaking in absolute terms — our Constitutional system is not perfect – no system is perfect. However, relative to any other system, including the anarchist fantasy that doesnt even function under any circumstances, our COnstitutional Federal Republic has protected civil and political freedoms relatively well. IN addition, capitalism has flourished more under the present system more than any other. Of course, government needs to be attenuated so our economic liberties are enhanced, I believe that this is at hand.

Moreover, you are unaware of the balance, decentralization, limits and tranparency of the elements of armed force in society.

Any conspiracy theorists can sound off without risk at anytime. There are vast communication networks that allow for the unencumbered transmission of ideas.

The individual states have a large degree of autonomy from the Federal government – more importantly they have the means to increase their power if they wish too.

WIthin the Federal government powers are divided considerably – Congress is the only entity to direct funding to the military and provide oversight, the President (and a civilian department of defense) can only command the military, the people fund the military, . The people can also dispatch any President or representative who engages in reckless wars – see LBJ and Bush most recently. Indeed, the military itself is divided into disparate branches with disparate and distinct capabilities that make a coup nearly impossible.

Predictably, the failed ideologue always deals in absolutes when criticising a superior system — you know liberal democracy is a failure because of some anecdotal incident or anomaly that always occurs when vast numbers of flawed humans are interacting.

In sum, if you have a better system then produce it – and note that systems that have never succeeded under any circumstances don’t count, hence if you are an advocate for a poltiical system it must be viable.

193

Hence, as I have stated previously, those who gain power in society are those who most aggressively promoted their own self-interest – not those whose self-interest most benefits society.

I don’tthink anyone disagrees with with, and anyone who does is in folly. This simply isn’t part of the issue and misses the point.

The point is when you say:

Moreover, the use of armed force will result in at least two beneficial outcomes:

  • The threat of armed force will force negligent owners of valued resources to improve productive capacity.
  • Armed force is an effective means to liberate heretofore underutlilized and mismanaged resources to the market

It is not in agreement with Austrian science, classical liberal trade/ social science theory, nor do I think it is in much agreement (?) with most “Chicago” styled economics.

I mean I don’t know how to calculate, conceptualize or distibute, or estimate the profit value of a public threat of force against another public body with resources. It is out of the realm of scientific or logical thought…all I have are speculations

194

@ vive la insurrection,

The costs of using armed force are as easily approximated as any capitalist endeavor. You have insurance costs, medical costs, fuel costs, equipment depreciation, equipment replacement costs, personnel costs, et al.

Moreover, the expected gains can be easily calculated from a captured resource, similar to if the resources was acquired by peaceful means.

What is the difference in determining the output of an oil field if I acquire it by force or voluntary trade ??? — It is the same.

Hence, the formula is Expected economic gain from resource that is annexed - expected costs of military exercise to take resources = net gain.

Where is the speculation in this ?

195

@ vive la insurrection,

If this coercion thing is incalculable. Then how does an anarchist firm determine the appropriate level of funding for security ?

196

note that systems that have never succeeded under any circumstances don’t count

If we’re to be guided by only what has already been tried, where would we be right now?

You have failed to explain how the state prevents the army from enslaving all of us.

197

If this coercion thing is incalculable. Then how does an anarchist firm determine the appropriate level of funding for security ?

I don’t know what an anarchist firm is - nor am I even capable of venturing a guess. However, a firm calculates like everthing else that is forming the engine of civilization - via entrpreneurial risk taking and looking at profit and loss. Governments can not operate in this way - they can only exist via subsidy and/or “wealth creation”. I’m not going to debate this, as you should be familiar with why that is being said now. If not I will direct to the economic texts that show what I am talking about.

And we don’t have to call it coersion, we can simply call it “government subsidy” and get rid of all pretenetious and confusing ethical arguments you may think about when you associate things from this site. No one should be interested in the “use of force” - it’s a red herring- just the functions of how things work and are allocated and why in a civilized society.

The fact is government at best could be seen as providing cultural expectations for externalities hence being able to maintain a general homeostasis in a content society. Liberal countries (NOT neccessarily democratic), by their nature create more content societies due to good customs on issues of property rights and wealth creation which is brought on through the market mechanism , that’s it.

Also:

If your definition of an anarchist is someone who wants anarchy “here, now, and with no compromises” one can sympathize with your distate for anarchists. However, any political theory / position that asks for such a thing in a fairly well functioning society is daft (and I do consider the West to be functioning fairly well) and we should all know better than that. When opponents of a socio-political position create such a pre conceived image they create carictures, and will be lead into a confusing world of bad arguments and missing far to many points due to the carictures they create.

198

As has been stated numerous times… A security agency does not derive it’s revenue from coercion. It does not break the fundamental principles of price calculation. Problem solved.

199

The costs of using armed force are as easily approximated as any capitalist endeavor. You have insurance costs, medical costs, fuel costs, equipment depreciation, equipment replacement costs, personnel costs, et al.

Moreover, the expected gains can be easily calculated from a captured resource, similar to if the resources was acquired by peaceful means.

What is the difference in determining the output of an oil field if I acquire it by force or voluntary trade ??? — It is the same.

Hence, the formula is Expected economic gain from resource that is annexed - expected costs of military exercise to take resources = net gain.

Where is the speculation in this ?

No one is denying people could just walk around and take stuff without a trade and barter system.

However liberal society / civilization as we know it is based off of trade and barter. And if you want to start doing that stuff “for society” some serious questions arise. You are still asking questions that even old Adam Smith recognized as fallacy. In the same way as you see this as an investment is the same way old imperialists, mercantilists or Keynesians who think “war is good for the economy” . This has nothing to do with anarchy vs democracy - but socio- economic science.

I think you are losing site as to what wealth is, what wealth creation is, and why the incentives are there to begin with

If you want that position, that is fine - but you are not a capitalist / free marketeer. Look into Friedrich List, J M Keynes, Paul Krugman, Kenneth Arrow, etc

200

@vive la insurrection,

I’ll update you since your replies are not related to my argument which is the following:

Anarchist society fails because corporate military agencies will form monopolies to eliminate competition thereby reducing costs to themselves and consumers. The next step is predictable, despotism. Unless, you discount the adage that ‘power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely’.

IN contrast, liberal democracies have intentionally established and institutionalized political and civil mechanisms to balance, deter, limit, decentralize and make transparent armed force . The 1st amendment, 2nd amendment, States rights, disparate military branches, civilian control of the military, funding, command, and oversight from different political entities, universal sufferage, regular and free elections to determine commander-in-chief of military, et al.

Another argument I make is that private military companies in an anarchist society will be violent under the following conditions:

  1. Peaceful exchange to acquire valued resources (elements of production) is not possible (the owner won’t sell).

  2. Peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of armed force to take the resource (the owner wants too much for the asset).

  3. The costs of using armed force to take the resource is less than the expected gain (the staple of capitalism, gaining a positive return on investment).

To reject this formula is illogical since your implication is that free market firms will reject the chance to make a profit. Indeed, there will be some firms that will subordinate economic profit for some subjective moral goal like egalitarianism, peaceful coexistence, status quo, et al. However, those military firms will eventually see their capital and market share decline relative to more profit driven military firms.

Indeed, I am a capitalist first and foremost and I agree with your statements regarding the inability of government to engage in economic calculation regarding armed force or any other economic endeavor. However, what I have described above is the actions of private firms operating within a free market system.