However Smiling Dave also got it right. You are disputing the premises that are common sense to anyone but the most naive idealist of libertarian goodness. The rejection of those premises itself is the pitfall that so many accuse libertarianism of: the assumption of manhood being good. It is regrettable that the obsfuscated system of market production of security provided to cover up the issue never addresses the core problem i presented in the opening post. Neither does Ryan do this as I will demonstrate:
Ryan brings up the point of investment: giving up income now for income later in time. This can be true, however what does happen later in the progress of time? It is assumed that the would-be good PDA makes a speculation over higher income in future by providing retaliatory justice as a trade good at present. This is all correct, it is a solid business plan as it decreases the cost of production of security in the future due to decreasing number of bandits having to cope with.
It has happened in history and in fact is the precondition of formulation of state itself, as well as being the business plan of state’s income insurance. The key about this action however is that if successful, the fundamental premise of my OP does not go away. Though the pda has increased his popularity, made income by exchange, the fact remains that whatever income he can make in the future, will still be higher if he extorts it instead of exchanging for it. You cannot give more money to someone offering to protect you from theft than to the robber robbing you, the paradox of production of security is, as mgmcintyre argued in his thread The failure of Anarcho-Capitalism
Note that it can be argued for directly, ignoring my premises. I assumed opportunity cost of robbing a citizen being lower than that of robbing a bandit for the same income. The other way to argue is to assume that for equal opportunity cost robbing someone results in higher income than them paying you to rob someone else.
Aah yes the appeal to morals. A common response, also from the larger thread i linked to. Let me ask you this, what is the difference between offense and defense? Other than prescriptive morals that a large portion of this forum subscribes to, there is none.
The fact that one happens before the other implies nothing about the differences in profitability or even difference of either. It is first of all only a relative argument, saying nothing about the actions in the grander scale, appliable to all of its kind, but only in relation to one specific action that happened at a past date. Because of that, it is not even a descriptive definition.
I’m now also challenging the notion that the premises you put forth “are common sense to anyone but the most naive idealist of libertarian goodness”. Nowhere does any/all of the premises you put forth imply (as far as I can tell) that man is evil, or that man is not good. Furthermore, I am in no way assuming that man is inherently good. For the record, I believe that man is neither inherently good nor inherently evil.
With all that said, I once again ask you to support your premises against reality. I will note once again that you have unequivocally failed to do so thus far.
∃ action A :look at any crime statistics: people steal, rob, plunder
∃ demand for action A: people are payed to do the things above(any law enforcement agency, military, etc)
Action A ⇒ monetary income: when you steal something, you cab trade it for money
Opportunity Cost of action A < Opportunity Cost of supplying A (more difficult to conduct action A against other action A’ers): its easier to steal 50 bucks from an old lady than from a police man/swat team guy
As you can see, these premises can indeed exist in reality. It is quite dull that you have taken this direction with the argument, without even elaborating as to what about the statements is so counter to reality/perception, or indeed bring examples as to show the opposite to be true. As is, i have nothing to bite on, only an eternal sceptic ready to reject all premises.
what is this thread all about? surely not the trivial truth that criminal exploitation appears attractive to some and so such action occurs and may be expected to occur…
Its the very fact that there is the threat of criminal exploitation that demands the comparative analysis of institutions that must deal with it… it is the very fact that there is a threat of criminal exploitation that makes anarchists anarchists, it is not a naive utopianism
Basic idea is: its easier to steal 50 bucks from a citizen than be paid 50 bucks to rob from a police man/swat team guy Or alternative exposition: A would-be victim cant pay more to someone offering to beat up the robber than he can to the robber threatening to beat up the victim.
Compare what institutions? What is the difference between an institution that robs someone and that robs someone? It is the same thing. Also, im not claiming that state is a solution to exploitation of security, only that there exists NO SOLUTION to the problem of robbery, hence the domination of robber-organisations around the world(whether the states of most of the world or warlords of anarchist Somalia/Afganistan)
The argument is not about political philosophies or aims. It is about the industry providing the services(“criminal exploitation”, and those “institutions that must deal with it”). On that level, there indeed is no difference between the two. In fact Rothbard himself indirectly expressed that, or at least hinted at it, with his ideal of proportional punishment, which essentially by definition eliminates differences between the means of the two. And that is what describes the actions done, it is the means employed. Whether the end is to pay back the robber and get the stolen money from him, or to rob someone just for profit, the means have no differences.
Your text is incomprehensible. Yes, you are right that the using a hammer ‘the means’ to build a house is ‘no different’ than using a hammer ‘the means’ to hit someone over the head. in both cases its the same hammer, you are swinging it with such an arm movement etc. are you saying that if i pay someone to put his hammer to use building me a house to live in that is the same as if I have paid to have someone thwacked on the cranium?
Please elaborate which is incomprehensible so i can explain. Can you define robbery and retribution in a way that the most optimal(in regards to profit and opportunity cost) means employed for them are not the same? If yes, then youve proven your point. Or to take this example: “A would-be victim cant pay more to someone offering to beat up the robber than he can to the robber threatening to beat up the victim.” Can the most optimal course of action of the robber and person offering to beat up robber be described in a manner that the means employed for them are not the same?
You have to be able to steal it successfully. People also have a demand to be protected from theft, so they like, lock their doors and buy home defense systems.
Opportunity cost? Does not follow. You have to be wrong, because even if everyone were totally defenseless and I had the golden gun, you still don’t know what my alternatives are. Even if i can steal to make a living, I can also go to school and get a high paying job. You can’t say a priori that stealing will always be the least opportunity cost.
You also can’t say a priori that its automatically less lucrative to rob “other action A’ers”. Maybe other thieves have more money. Maybe police let their guard down at night because they think they’re tough. Maybe everyone would ostracize me if I robbed an old lady. Maybe the old lady has an awesome security system (all defense, no offense). Maybe value is subjective and the only way you can know cost/preferences is when they are demonstrated through action (after the fact).
Its weird because you’re dressing it up as formal logic by calling it “action A”, when in actual fact you know damn well this only applies to violence. Just try replacing “Action A” with “dancing”, and it all falls apart. You could have just said “its easier to use violence against people who aren’t armed”, but no, you had to flatter yourself the logician and dazzle us with your backwards E’s.
At the end of the day, this topic cannot be approached logically. It is empirical whether murdering murderers is easier or harder than non-murderers.
I wasn’t disputing this premise. The mere potential for violence is sufficient.
My dispute starts here. Are law enforcement agencies, militaries, etc. necessarily paid to engage in violence per se? If not, then I think you still need to clarify what you mean by “demand for [violence]”.
Also, in an economic context, demand for an action is really demand for a service to be provided directly to the one buying it. No one willingly pays to be aggressed against.
You can in theory, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you will be able to. Make sense?
In other words, you’re injecting determinism here where none seems applicable.
This premise is the most problematic IMO. Since opportunity cost is subjective, there is no way to claim that the opportunity cost of committing aggression is always and everywhere necessarily lower than the opportunity cost of defending against aggression.
As far as I can tell, I’ve said all this before. With all due respect, I expect you to miss my points once again.
I’ve disputed the claim that these premises are always and everywhere necessarily correlated with reality. I couldn’t care less whether you think this is “quite dull”. As for the rest of your paragraph, here’s a helpful link: Burden of Proof
Though I wanted to be convinced (taught) otherwise, this ^^^ has been my argument ever since I joined this forum. I think this is also why anarchy is utopian and why Mises didn’t venture beyond minarchy.
Opportunity cost? Does not follow. You have to be wrong, because even if everyone were totally defenseless and I had the golden gun, you still don’t know what my alternatives are. Even if i can steal to make a living, I can also go to school and get a high paying job. You can’t say a priori that stealing will always be the least opportunity cost. You also can’t say a priori that its automatically less lucrative to rob “other action A’ers”. Maybe other thieves have more money. Maybe police let their guard down at night because they think they’re tough. Maybe everyone would ostracize me if I robbed an old lady. Maybe the old lady has an awesome security system (all defense, no offense). Maybe value is subjective and the only way you can know cost/preferences is when they are demonstrated through action (after the fact).
Its weird because you’re dressing it up as formal logic by calling it “action A”, when in actual fact you know damn well this only applies to violence. Just try replacing “Action A” with “dancing”, and it all falls apart. You could have just said “its easier to use violence against people who aren’t armed”, but no, you had to flatter yourself the logician and dazzle us with your backwards E’s. At the end of the day, this topic cannot be approached logically. It is empirical whether murdering murderers is easier or harder than non-murderers.
Are you baiting? Because you have argued this with many people. You always “win” in your head, but you have convinced precious few of us. I guess your response is that we’re all ideologues? Hmmm…
You have been informed repeatedly that Mises was using a different definition of anarchy.
Sieben, please avoid using “we”, “us”, and putting words in my mouth. My response was to xarthaz as I felt that he shared the same concern/argument, and wanted to let him know that he wasn’t alone with those thoughts. As for “winning”, I’ve explained my debate motivations many times before, and winning is nowhere near the top of the list. Hopefully, I’ve also proven them in action as I’ve had no problems conceding or giving credit when new angles have been presented to me. On the contrary, that is when I find a debate most profitable.
Also note that Mises himself approved of the same idea, the ambiguousness of security and robbery, and hence the impossibility of anarchist production of the good:
“The main difference between a policeman and a kid-
naper and between a tax collector and a robber is that the
policeman and the tax collector obey and enforce the law,
while the kidnaper and robber violate it. Remove the law,
and society will be destroyed by anarchy.”