Are there any links where there is a good list of some of the best books on Anarcho-Capitalism books?
Here you go, sir:
Any recent ground breaking ideas on how things would work in a stateless society?
Personally, I think ratings and reputation services would by far be the most important (wanted, needed, and effective). Second to that, business requires dispute resolution for interpreting contracts (becomes a standard industry for lawyers and field specialists; nothing special about this). Thirdly, there would be so much job and market opportunities and a strong rate of growth, and coupled with how cheap and simple security really is, the problem of crime becomes very uninteresting.
So I think that only leaves how land titles would be dealt with.
This.
Seriously, he’s right.
Anyone really trying to claim that they know how a stateless society would function either a priori or with the evidence at our disposal is a charlatan who does not understand the empirical nature of social institutions. Ergo, no.
Anyone really trying to claim that they know how a stateless society would function either a priori or with the evidence at our disposal is a charlatan who does not understand the empirical nature of social institutions. Ergo, no.
I think this is a bit strong. While I completely agree that nobody knows how a stateless society would function for sure, I don’t know why somebody theorizing on how it would work is a charlatan. I think this is what the opening post was asking for: “Any recent ground breaking ideas on how things would work in a stateless society?”
A “ground breaking idea” must stand on an epistemologically sound foundations, yet it is impossible that any fantasy (e.g. the one that assumes PDAs will emerge to follow the NAP) about how a certain society would function and how certain certain institutions would emerge. Any such knowledge is denied to man before empirical observation of that specific society. To deny that is simply lowering the bar of epistemological soundness.
So now, my original statement was not too strong, rather it was just as strong as it needed to defend the proper use of human reason and preventing charlatans from trying to apply it beyond its boundries resulting in not sound knowledge but only the pervesion of reason.
Gee, I wonder how those entrepreneurs do it then, in areas where they do not have legal barriers blocking their paths ofc. I guess Steve jobs was a charlatan when he thought people would buy his ipad, silly conspiring fool.
The truth is the “Empirical nature of social institutions” is irrelevant in these situations. All thats happening is a healthy level of entrepreneurial brainstorming theorizing over an area that they are legally prevented from exploring. There is a reason why most empiricists do not understand in the least bit the phenomena that is, entrepreneurship.
Sigh…
Entrepreneurs are not individuals trying to find theories that are based upon epistemologically sound foundations. Indeed, the entire idea of such a foundation is in many ways meaningless to the entrepreneurs for all that he needs is a confidence in his idea. Not so with theories, I don’t care about how confident you are in the NAP, the idea that anarcho-capitalist PDAs would base their decisions upon it is still a judgment that has no epistemological soundness.
Furthermore, Steve Job’s predicition, as does that of all entrepreneurs, does not involve the complete reworking of a civilization’s social institutions.
Entrepreneurship has absolutely nothing to do with the topic I am speaking about. What? Can I write a depicition of the world according my own metaphysical judgments of value, then defend its relevence by calling it “entrepreneurship”? Of course not! Such theories must rest upon epistemological sound foundations (yes, that is going to be my buzz word for this conversation because it is that important) thus the empirical nature of social institutions is of absolute importance, and must take the center of this entire conversation.
As Hayek has so wisely pointed out, the entire concept that man can design social institutions according to his metaphysical judgments of value (which is essentially what you are saying is possible) is impossible due to their empirical nature, they emerge from the real conditions of their environment, and due to the fact that the knowledge it would take to know what form an instution would take is simply too dispersed, in the extended order, to be accessed by the intellectual.
__
I am not sure if you missed the point or not. The task of speculating how to best provide security on the market is an entrepreneurial one. The fact that you deny this can only be a healthy denial and disbelief that the worlds fruits are finite and must be rationed to a certain extent, and that you believe such rationing should not be done on the market. All speculations of market activities are as such, entrepreneurial activities and in the spirit of human creativity, this is what you take issue with. These topics are only subject to your scrutiny in so far as your willingness to employ them as a services, you playing the role of consumer. Any scrutiny beyond that is entirely superficial.
So I maintain. The task of how best to provide security on the market is a task up to entrepreneurs. Whether you like it or not, it’s reality. It is not the task of a social committee or any other superficial body of authority as you hold.
So this point has everything to do with entrepreneurship and your lack of understanding of that point, either that or your bias against markets, clouds your judgment on the matter.
Take the quote in context of my statement in its entirety and it is obvious you are attacking a strawman here. Entreprenuership has nothing to do with the topic I am speaking about because I am not speaking about a hypothetical world in which entrepreneurs provide security on the market, but rather what intellectuals can know about that hypothetical world. My point is not about entrepreneurship, but rather the stark limits of human knowledge and reason.
So, if you want to continue this discussion, feel free to reply to my statement rather than a strawman.
In a hypothetical world in which entrepreneurs provide security on the market I already know the following things:
there are entrepreneurs , there are markets, security is provided on the market, and its provided by entrepeneurs.
how am i doing so far?
You have no respect for reason and its limits. There are currently entrepreneurs, there are currently markets, but look security is not provided by entrepreneurs!
The true question that you should be asking: What social institution would have to be in place so that security would be provided by entrepreneurs working on a market.
How very disingenuous and circular of you. Again the answer will be provided by the most successful entrepreneurs. Sorry this is so difficult for you. It’s akin to asking who will provide apples to us once the state lets go of their apple monopoly. It’s a frivolous comment at best.
Oh how ironic of a statement.
In response to your earlier comment at me, all I have to say is that your repeating yourself, and that you still have not provided an argument.
FYI appeals to authority will not grant your argument any more merit. We can spend all day naming names of historical figures who state opposite things. All you have at your disposal is reason and logic.
You have no respect for reason and its limits.
hyperbole.
There are currently entrepreneurs, there are currently markets, but look security is not provided by entrepreneurs!
bodyguards…the lock on my door…etc. etc. says different.
Anyhow, I thought you were pushing the humble angle? not so humble that you see fit to tell me what questions I should ask…
Not even going to argue against my supporting evidence before dismissing my thesis?
And yet the fact that the police and military are provided as public goods speak even louder.
Again, not going to argue with the supporting evidence?
You have no respect for reason and its limits. There are currently entrepreneurs, there are currently markets, but look security is not provided by entrepreneurs!
That’s funny.
The true question that you should be asking: What social institution would have to be in place so that security would be provided by entrepreneurs working on a market.
Hangmen’s scaffolds, with politicians’ names on it.
And yet the fact that the police and military are provided as public goods speak even louder.
Appeal to tradition.
Your thesis that I have no respect for reason and its limits is nothing to be proud of, and is not supported by evidence.
Your thesis that supposing a hypothetical world in which entrepreneurs provide security one might not know that it was entrepreneurs providing the security, is also not something you have provided evidence for that i can see.