The French Revolution never ended with an anarcho-capitalist society. Wait, never mind; you said scaffolds and not guillotines, my mistake.
You mean an appeal to reality?
Round and round the merry-go-round we go. Circular!
Better add cars as a list of things the market is incapable of providing as well.
You can download a free copy!
You mean an appeal to reality?
No, I mean an appeal to tradition, the logical fallacy you seem to be committing here. You’re either saying that because things have and are generally a certain way that an alternative is impossible, or you are trying to pointlessly tell me the state of and history of the world.
Reading my posts carefully will result in greater comprehension. Notice I said: “served as public goods” and not “are public goods”. So, I now must ask: where is the circularity in my statement?
money is provided as a public good… so i can’t know that in a hypothetical world where entrepreneurs provide the money supply it will be entrepreneurs that provide the money supply?
perhaps you should consider that we have not deigned to reflect upon what entrepreneurs do or do not do in all possible worlds, but we restrict our domain to those worlds wherein entrepeneurs will be doing certain sorts of things …
Yea I went back and read it. Still seems like your making some assumptions to me considering the context. You have yet to prove logically that the market cannot provide the service called security, you have only proven that it currently does not. There is a reason for that however and it does not side with the assumption I think you are making(Though that may be presumptuous of me). Unless I have not read something I don’t feel that you have presented any sort of an argument, all you’ve provided are a plethoral of various logical fallacies, appealing to various things, no offense.
I’m assuming you think that society has voluntarily chosen security as a public good(which is logically incoherent). You would have an argument if it wasn’t forced upon them. An inconvenient fact you will never be able to get around. If I am wrong feel free to clarify yourself,(At which case I apologize).
At any rate this is a side rant, do you offer an argument of substance for us? Or is it more verbose rhetoric for us to chew on? As I said above, appeals to authority will get us nowhere, likewise appeals to traditionalism will also get us know where. You yourself said that logic and reason must be employed here. We await.
What one cannot know is the institutions and organizations that would form when entrepreneurs provide money in this hypothetical world, or even whether those institutions would be successful .
what knowledge are you going to gain constructing hypothetical worlds in which you assume: entrepreneurs do x and then just continue saying entrepreneurs do x. What sound knowledge is gained from this?
Am I trying to prove that the market cannot prove security, or is it just the fact that because I am not an anarcho-capitalist, every conversation I have about it must be me refuting it?
In this context, hypotheses non fingo for it does not matter how they emerged, it only matters that they did.
Alas, you seemed to have been deaf to my entire point, which is primarily epistemological regarding the limits of human reason;s ability to comprehend the extended order that is society, and yet you have not addressed that once in this entire time.
By the way, tradition must have both the first and last words because tradition is what have emerged from the past through trial and error in the pursuit to find that which best serves human needs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an appeal to tradition.
They don’t need to. You have a fixation on what is irrelevant. Steve Jobs didn’t know how apple would operate years before he introduced the iphone, he didn’t need to.
We are not constructing grandiose “hypothetical worlds”. We are discussing scenarios in which there would be a change in the way services of security are provided to consumers. We do not live in a static world, things change and are dynamic. This knowledge gained by speculating could be the knowledge that allows someone to offer a valuable service to the community around them, then again it may not the consumers will decide.
You sound as if you are attacking all forms of forcasting, predicting, and speculating. That alone is sheer folly.
I am not quiet sure what your trying to prove TBH, like most of your posts your points are hidden behind a cloud of un-necessary verbosity. It seems to me your poking fun at people who enjoy speculating, an entirely harmless pass time. My point is this behavior, and the creative nature of man, is one of the most important tenants we have and we should not be in such haste to discredit it, as you do. Now if their speculation is wrong the market can answer for it.
You on the other hand believe in a type of whig-theory, where things must be better now than before as destined simply because it has arrived to be so. The same argument could have been said about other various forms of serfdom established throughout human history.
It is because of this I maintain that you have no real argument here. I have nothing really to argue against with you, as you have yet to present a logical case worth discussing.
I understand you quite simply. You have repeated yourself to me 3 times now. So I maintain again that it is you who has missed the point. Entrepreneurial speculation does not mandate that one have the omniscient ability of knowing how society will be organized in the future.
Steve Jobs did not need to know how his organization would be managed 10 years in advance, for him to know that an iphone, with an app store may be an attractive feature for end users. Society instead molded itself around an attractive model created by his, and others, business’s creativity. They did not need see into the future and know the structure of society. The structure of society molds itself around past action which have been deemed desireable. It’s a fundamental premise of human action, we make predictions and forcasts in everything we do.
It is true that those entrepreneurs who best forcast social trends of the future will reap rewards, however this is still a function of the market that is all. It simply makes future progression that much better off.
So in short, these people are not envisioning a society framework necessarily in all cases. They would be silly to claim to know how it would work. What most are saying is, here is a possible of providing XYZ service to people. Whether that system actually would work out would have to be tested on an un-coerced market, since thats the only way of detirmining whether a service is shown to be valuable or not. In that case economic calculation does it’s job, again assuming no coercion.
If you don’t mind your argument resting on a logical fallacy, I guess.
Traditionally, people believed that the sun revolved around the Earth. To suggest otherwise was then as scandalous as it is now to question the 21st century’s god, Democracy.
He’s done this before, and I agree totally.
From here.
I guess Steve jobs was a charlatan when he thought people would buy his ipad, silly conspiring fool.
Thing is, your average entrepreneur isn’t Steve Jobs, or even close. Your average entrepreneur is now working for somebody else after his business was forced to shut down, his idea just wasn’t as desirable as he had thought it to be. And that’s the point, we see plenty of extremely successful entrepreneurs out there, because the unsuccessful ones are being weeded out. But largely it’s not due to any rationality of their own that entrepreneurs succeed, it’s because the institutional context forces them to use resources rationally if they want to stay in business. In other institutional contexts their entrepreneurship would have had extremely different results, which is why, politics ends up often creating perverse results.
Which is exactly the problem with this sort of idle speculation, you guys have no idea about how things will turn out if you ever successful manage to “implement” anarchy, because in the chance that it turns out successful the results will be highly culturally dependant and will depend on all the different circumstances that are at play. See Leeson’s work, he shows that pirates developed very intricate ways of doing things, but their institutions might not make any sense in the context of modern day America.
So if you guys want to stay relevant the utopian crap isn’t going to help. Abolishing the state (once again, whatever that actually means) isn’t an option, and doing so would lead to chaos. Currently millions of people coordinate around any given state, abolishing said states would disrupt countless plans and lead to significantly worse outcomes.
So if you guys want to stay relevant
..
Abolishing the state (once again, whatever that actually means) isn’t an option, and doing so would lead to chaos.
Nice outdated conception of anarchy. Thanks so much for your opinion.
Amen.
Like it or not, you can’t just redefine common words in the english language in order to suit your own judgments of value.
Anarchy = lack of rulers
Anarchy != lack of the rule of law
GGUL
So good hayekianxyz was using the proper use of the word “anarchy”. Alas, you disagreed with his conclusions so instead of attacking his premises (can’t let a traditional modus operandi by changed), you decided to make it a semantics debate. And yet you attack me for my posts having no content…
You seem to be having some reading comprehension problems. It isn’t my fault that your whole argument is based on the logical fallacy of an appeal to tradition.
Non of this is relevant to the fact that the collapse of the state will lead to social breakdown never seen before in Amerika.
If you destroy tradition, you destroy society.
This is really too much, it sound like hayekianxyz just created a rhetorical parallel to my pro-market argument, replacing the word markets with “institutional context forces”. Amazing. The “Institutional context” is nothing more then the current playing field of the market. It’s just another way of looking at “Markets” as a whole.
I never dreamed that in such a short period of time you gents would take my side and defend me with such great rhetoric!! Thanks guys!
Jokes aside, ultimately you two are trying to describe the process of X(X being problems at the level of society) without first explaining the process of A to W. Your trying to come at things from the top down, making broad sweeping generalizations about everyone and everything when you do so. I come at it from the ground up(Praxeologicaly you see), looking at A through W before I consider X. Coming at it from a high cultural level is naive at best, society and cultures are nothing beyond the collective summation of individual subjective valuation. Long story short, AKA consumer sovereignty. It is true that the valuation of individuals can influence the products of society, however it is equally true that the products of society influence the subjective valuations of the individuals. 20 years ago many people did not think twice about saving their money to buy a Tablet PC, now they do. 20 years that demand or desire did not exist, now it does.
Markets are just as responsible for creating societal trends as anything else. I am sorry if you find that truth so inconvenient.
So your also arguing against speculating just as Lam is? I simply maintain that this argument alone need not be given attention, it stands alone as sheer folly. But let just kindly remind you…
Speaking for myself, I am not interested in attempting to “Plan Anarchy and or Society”. What I do is simply speculating how best to provide a specific service, just as a shoe salesmen speculates how best to move his products, or what new line of shoes to carry. Nothing beyond that.
The fact that your argument rests on the premise that you think “Anarchists” are trying to plan the society of the future is quiet remarkable considering the context.
You are ofcoarse entitled to your opinion and your concerns have been noted. . [:)]