Has Anarchism been Disproved by History?: A Debate between Rettoper and Lilburne

Economics Political Theory
61

And again, we’re not going to gain ground on particulars, until we get methodological issues sorted out. So, again, “given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?”

"In response, this is the short list:

(1) Pie-in-the-sky “praexological” rhetoric notwithstanding, maximal capitalists are and have always been a fringe minority among both elitists and the masses.

For example, irrespective of whatever methodology is used to sell its precepts, leaders in business, arts, science, politics, and the free market (including von Mises and Hayek) overwhelmingly reject it. "

First of all it is curious that at the beginning of the debate you voiced an acceptance of the excellence of the methodology of von Mises and the Austrians. Remember this?

"I was incorrect to label anything related to the austrian school as based on examination of the past.

from what little I have learned about von mises in the short time I have been peruse this site is that he was not focused on past history — quite the opposite, I believe he formed his ideas for logic.

at least that explains why you are adopting that framework to defend your position.

I accept that, and I stand corrected on this point.

for example, if logic was good enough for the austrians, then it is good enough for me since I agree with virtually all of the tenets I have read so far within this site."

And yet now you refer to praxeology, THE method of von Mises and the Austrians, with scare quotes!

Well which is it? Do you accept the methodology of von Mises and the Austrians or not?

Secondly, you try to evade my questioning your inductive methodology by making the proposition, “People won’t accept your ideas, no matter what methodology underlies them”. Yet the very BASIS of that proposition itself IS the inductive methodology that is at issue!

In essence it’s like this:

Retopper: Anarchism is a pipe dream

Lilburne: How do you know that?

Retopper: Because it hasn’t happened yet.

Lilburne: But, that doesn’t prove anything. You’re using a methodology that is invalid for human affairs.

Retopper: It doesn’t matter what methodology you use, because it will never happen that society’s leaders will accept your ideas.

Lilburne: How do you know that?

Retopper: Because it hasn’t happened yet.

You see the problem here?

My friend, you have very evidently experienced a lot of experiences and thought a lot of thoughts in your years, and that is admirable, but you are in acute need of some methodological clarity. (Which isn’t a terrible thing, since most other people are too.) The best place to start is Theory and History by Ludwig von Mises.

Yet, even before you read that, it would still be fruitful to reflect upon and answer this question, which is so important, I’ll ask it a third time: “given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?”

62

First of all it is curious that at the beginning of the debate you voiced an acceptance of the excellence of the methodology of von Mises and the Austrians.

Irrespective of what methodology you use, if you put garbage in, you get garbage out.

I applaud the methology of von mises, indeed I accept his conclusions. Namely the necessity of some measure of government to avoid the trappings of societal threats that I have continually outlined above that remains unchallenged by you, save the mantra — “just because anarchism has never existed, doesnt mean that it isnt viable” and baseless attacks on my “methodology”)

Moreover, I have presented by the arguments, the causal factors to support the arguments, and the causal mechanism and indicators to prove the arguments.

while you have refused to challenge all but a cherry-picked fraction of these arguments in detail — for example, I responded to your rebut of that rising property values on and near strategically vital terrain could be exploited by land speculators to reap enormous profits at the expense of defense firms seeking to maximize their defensive posture, yet when your arguments are rejected as illogical, unsustainable – you move to the next cherry picked point or continue asking the same question that I have answered succinctly numerous times unchallenged.

Importantly, if your methodology proves anarchism is viable, why did von mises and hayek reject your assertion using the same methodology?

for example, “garbage in, garbage out” it doesnt matter how elegant the system or methodology.

moreover, if my “methodology” is flawed, it should be easy to deconstruct it. However, you have continued to fillibuster, while I have posted substantive and lengthy responses that remain unchallenged.

On a broader societal scale, anarchic societies are subject to the same devious and destructive machinations that have afflicted all governing systems since the dawn of civilization, namely "envy, jealousy, ambition, greed, et al into the system — envy, jealousy, ambition, greed, et al output from the system.

in the absence of checks, balances, decentralization, and negative freedoms on government, indeed anarchism is probably more vulnerable to these afflications they a Constitutional Federal REpublic, albeit one considerably less powerful then the one now in the USA.

However, I believe we have the dynamism and the mechanisms intuit to correct these shortcomings without violent destabilizing disruptions.

63

In essence it’s like this:

Retopper: Anarchism is a pipe dream

Lilburne: How do you know that?

Retopper: Because it hasn’t happened yet.

Lilburne: But, that doesn’t prove anything. You’re using a methodology that is invalid for human affairs.

Retopper: It doesn’t matter what methodology you use, because it will never happen that society’s leaders will accept your ideas.

Lilburne: How do you know that?

Retopper: Because it hasn’t happened yet.

You see the problem here?

The following is my “short” response to why anarchism is a pipe dream. Note that I have offered more than just “because it hasnt happened yet” and “because it will never happen that society’s leaders accept your ideas”

Indeed, these important considerations are not the bulk of the response. The primary argument for anarchism fragility is that it is fatally vulnerable to external threats from statist regimes.

MOreover, your cavialer rejection of ten thousand years of historical precedent is more an indictment of YOUR faulty adherence and dependence on a single methodology in the absence of other scientific tools, historical analysis. In addition, since anarchism is a societal system, my argument thoughtfully considering the opinions of societies citizenry who happen to abhor anarchism as a system of choice is both valid and reliable.

observe the following response, and note that I have not confined my arguments to simply “because it hasnt happened yet” and “because it will never happen that society’s leaders accept your ideas”. However, feel free to challenge the balance of the argument.

enjoy:

(1) Pie-in-the-sky “praexological” rhetoric notwithstanding, maximal capitalists are and have always been a fringe minority among both elitists and the masses.

For example, irrespective of whatever methodology is used to sell its precepts, leaders in business, arts, science, politics, and the free market (including von Mises and Hayek) overwhelmingly reject it.

Moreover, anarchism has a “genetic defect” that renders it prostrate in the face of competing systems:

“anarchists are loath to use force to gain power, yet they cant gain power in the absence of force”

In summary, if you cant sell your product to entrepreneurs, how in the hell do you convince the masses?

(2) anarcho-capitalism cannot defend itself from external threats.

Defense assets too decentralized and absent a unified command

Easily infiltrated and destroyed from within by sappers, spys, and saboteurs.

No common bond among people, hence disparate enclaves could be isolated and destroyed in detail since neighboring anarchic enclaves without shared values, experiences, and culture would be less likely to intervene on behalf of the beleaguered enclave.

Defense expenditures would be restricted by market principles, while statist regimes have no restrictions on defense spending.

Anarchists adhere to unrealistic, naïve, and utopian views regarding warmaking, while statist regimes have no such restrictions. For example, statist regimes would use whatever means were available to reduce anarchic enemies including WMD.

Anarchic regimes would loath to use pre-emptive and preventative attacks to defend themselves despite the demonstrated utility of these strategies.

In turn, anarchic regimes would be vulnerable to pre-emptive strikes, since their society could be easily infiltrated and sabotaged.

Due to the lack of common culture, government, and heritage – anarcho enclaves in the interior would be loath to support enclaves on the periphery in the event of an attack.

anachro-capitalism discounts the necessity of force to gain power. Moreover, anarchism discounts the necessity of force to preserve power. Naïve and dangerous utopian precepts in a anarchic geopolitic dominated by aggressive statist regimes would lead to its ultimate downfall.

(3) anarcho-capitalism cannot defend itself from internal threats.

No substantive checks or balances exist to prevent defense establishment monopolies or cartels from establishing statist rule through coercion.

An society which condoned the practice of infanticide and considered children a “commodity” would be universally vilified abroad, easily infiltrated by religious zealots, and subject to constant isolation, siege, and subversion.

Mankind has an inherent propensity to establish hierarchical social structures that is anathema to anarchic society.

The egalitarian model, no matter how flawed, has inspired and dominated contemporary human social evolution. Moreover, the richer society becomes, the more likely the shift toward greater egalitarian structures and policies. Anarchic society would be unable to address this disturbing yet undeniable paradigm.

(4) minarchism bestows virtually all of the benefits of anarchism without the uncertainty and risk associated with anarchism. Moreover, minarchism provides established checks, balances, decentralization of power, and negative rights on government while not undermining the ability of society to defend itself from external threats that have existed since time immemorial.

Various forms of minarchism, which has been in ascendancy since 1776, have been the preferred system of governance among both elitist and the masses. Moreover, one of its strengths is the peace and stability it provides — for example, it is utterly peaceful to like minded societies while still providing the most prosperous, stable, and free societies – never in history have higher order representative governments waged war against each other.

64

“I applaud the methology of von mises, indeed I accept his conclusions.”

Yes, Mises thought it was optimal to have a night-watchman state, but not because anarchism was unprecedented. He also thought it was optimal to have an otherwise completely unhampered market. And that too was unprecedented. Yet that didn’t stop him from calling it optimal. You demonstrate that you do NOT highly regard the methodology of von Mises, if you’re general agreement with certain of his conclusions is based on a methodology he rejects.

attacks on my “methodology”

The very notion of questioning methodology elicits scare quotes from you! Not promising. This is a place for advancing scholarship. Scholars are careful about method.

moreover, if my “methodology” is flawed, it should be easy to deconstruct it

It is indeed easy to deconstruct, and I implicitly have already when I asked you the question, which I shall ask a fourth time, and continue asking until you answer it: “given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?”

Furthermore…

"The experience with which the sciences of human action have to deal is always an experience of complex phenomena. No laboratory experiments can be performed with regard to human action. We are never in a position to observe the change in one element only, all other conditions of the event remaining unchanged. Historical experience as an experience of complex phenomena does not provide us with facts in the sense in which the natural sciences employ this term to signify isolated events tested in experiments. The information conveyed by historical experience cannot be used as building material for the construction of theories and the prediction of future events. Every historical experience is open to various interpretations, and is in fact interpreted in different ways.

The postulates of positivism and kindred schools of metaphysics are therefore illusory. It is impossible to reform the sciences of human action according to the pattern of physics and the other natural sciences. There is no means to establish an a posteriori theory of human conduct and social events. History can neither prove nor disprove any general statement in the manner in which the natural sciences accept or reject a hypothesis on the ground of laboratory experiments. Neither experimental verification nor experimental falsification of a general proposition is possible in its field.

Complex phenomena in the production of which various causal chains are interlaced cannot test any theory. Such phenomena, on the contrary, become intelligible only through an interpretation in terms of theories previously developed from other sources. In the case of natural phenomena the interpretation of an event must not be at variance with the theories satisfactorily verified by experiments. In the case of historical events there is no such restriction. Commentators would be free to resort to quite arbitrary explanations. Where there is something to explain, the human mind has never been at a loss to [p. 32] invent ad hoc some imaginary theories, lacking any logical justification.

In the field of human history a limitation similar to that which the experimentally tested theories enjoin upon the attempts to interpret and elucidate individual physical, chemical, and physiological events is provided by praxeology. Praxeology is a theoretical and systematic, not a historical, science. Its scope is human action as such, irrespective of all environmental, accidental, and individual circumstances of the concrete acts. Its cognition is purely formal and general without reference to the material content and the particular features of the actual case. It aims at knowledge valid for all instances in which the conditions exactly correspond to those implied in its assumptions and inferences. Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts. They are a necessary requirement of any intellectual grasp of historical events. Without them we should not be able to see in the course of events anything else than kaleidoscopic change and chaotic muddle." (Mises, Human Action)

65

are you here to defend a methodology (praxeology), a system (anarchism), or an ego (yours) ??

For example, I will acknowledge that examination of the human condition from a theroretical framework is desirable, while not discounting the natural laws and precepts of physics, math, biology, et al. In addition, I do not discount historical analysis. Indeed, a large segment of the commentary and analysis on mises.org involves historical analysis, yet you cavialery discount my use of it to support a few of my arguments.

when are you going to get around to correct this use of a faulty methodology?

Moreover, would praxeologists burn all of the history books or place them in the fiction section since the analysis of history has no practical benefit or ability to predict whether untried systems will succeed or fail?

why does the mises institute provide a derth of history lessons when human action is not subject to historical, environmental, accidental, and individual circumstances?

AGAIN, how can you reconcile the difference between your position that anarchism is preferable to minarchism and von mises which is the opposite since he advocates a small measure of government?

for example, if a methodology produces valid and reliable results, the results must be always be the same irrespective of who uses the methodology.

a.) mises use of the praxeological model was flawed

b.) your use of praxeology was flawed

c.) praxeology is a vague methodology that doesnt produce reliable and verifiable conclusions of any practical significance in the real world.

Or is this debate simply a cheerleading exercise of the praxeological method. for example, you really dont believe in the efficacy of anarchism, indeed you favor the minarchical system, but you are challenging my use of historical analysis to support a position.

Indeed, you could defend a society using “human sacrifice”, cannibalism, or chattel slavery in the same manner.

66

I’ll ask it a third time: “given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?”–grayson

Anarchism has no natural right to exist.

Indeed as a parasite it has no rights whatsoever. It was created in the womb of statism and it exists through the benevolence of statism.

For example, it was statism that conceived anarchism, and statism can do with it as it pleases. The notion proposed by petulant anarchists that they have a “right” to exist in the absence of any will or means to do so is absurd.

Anarchism has no legitimate claim to any property save that in which it is leased by the statist landlord. For example, by what natural law is the statist entitled to surrender hard earned land to the parasite simply because the parasite exists and squats on the land ?

In summary, anarchism is a parasite whose survival is dependent on the good graces of the statist, it has no natural rights or even the right to exist because it was conceived from the statist, it is a parasite dependent on the statist, and it can be aborted by the statist.

67

I’ll ask it a third time: “given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?”–grayson

Because statism exists and has natural rights does not give anarchism the same rights.

Indeed, anarchism is an offspring of statism. Moreover, it is utterly dependent on statism.

Anarchism has no natural rights.

To lay claim to anything that statism has spawned, including the right to exist, is a form of societal “copyright violation” since anarchism has had no contribution of any kind without the consent of the master.

For example, by what logic or natural right can the fetus (anarcho-capitalism) lay claim to all of the property of the parent (statism) including the right to exist?

Or by what logic or natural law is the statist “parent” required to serve the parastic “fetus” against his will? Or accept his right to exist and surrender his private property.

for example, a natural right is not a right that can only be attained by the benevolence of a statist master, then it is not a natural right.

because the “anarchic embryo” exists only by the statist mother exercising her natural right, and because the statist mother has allowed some “embryo” to reach term (marxism, fascism, et al) does not give the anarcho-capitalist embryo a right to exist — that is determined by the mother (statism)

Indeed, if the anarchic child reaches term and the statist mother decides that she no longer wants to care for the child, the anarchic child can be allowed to die since it has become a parasite and the mother is under no obligation to surrender her freedoms to care for it.

in summary, something that has no natural rights cannot claim to have the right to exist simply because its master has those rights.

68

are you here to defend a methodology (praxeology), a system (anarchism), or an ego (yours) ??

I’m here to debate your contention that anarcho-capitalism is a pipe dream.

Indeed, a large segment of the commentary and analysis on mises.org involves historical analysis, yet you cavialery discount my use of it to support a few of my arguments.

Austrian historical analysis tries to decide which praxeological laws best describe what has happened in the past. It does not use historical episodes to derive praxeological laws.

AGAIN, how can you reconcile the difference between your position that anarchism is preferable to minarchism and von mises which is the opposite since he advocates a small measure of government?

There is no need to “reconcile” our positions, being that I disagree with his, on this matter.

for example, if a methodology produces valid and reliable results, the results must be always be the same irrespective of who uses the methodology.

A methodology is necessary, but not sufficient, in preventing errors in reasoning.

69

I’ll ask it a third time: “given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?”–grayson

"Anarchism has no natural right to exist.

Indeed as a parasite it has no rights whatsoever. It was created in the womb of statism and it exists through the benevolence of statism.

For example, it was statism that conceived anarchism, and statism can do with it as it pleases. The notion proposed by petulant anarchists that they have a “right” to exist in the absence of any will or means to do so is absurd.

Anarchism has no legitimate claim to any property save that in which it is leased by the statist landlord. For example, by what natural law is the statist entitled to surrender hard earned land to the parasite simply because the parasite exists and squats on the land ?

In summary, anarchism is a parasite whose survival is dependent on the good graces of the statist, it has no natural rights or even the right to exist because it was conceived from the statist, it is a parasite dependent on the statist, and it can be aborted by the statist."

How did the response above have anything to do with the question at the top? Please answer the question.

70

"Because statism exists and has natural rights does not give anarchism the same rights. "

How does statism have “natural rights”?

for example, a natural right is not a right that can only be attained by the benevolence of a statist master, then it is not a natural right.

I do not argue that anarcho-capitalism has “natural rights”; to do so would be nonsense. I argue that it is the best means to nearly everyone’s ends.

You still have not answered the question:

“given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?”

71

“given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?”–grayson

Yuur question is a fillibuster and irrelevent to the debate and my original thread that “anarchism is a pipe dream” and with the original premise of this debate “has anarchism been disproved by history”

for example, history has indeed disproven maximal capitalism since none have existed since the dawn of man. Moreover, I have provided the causal factors for Why maximal capitalism cannot exist.

Lastly, your thinly veiled attempt to restrict the manner of my argument doesn’t hold water since It is absurd that I cant site historical fact to support my position on the original premise of the debate, which is “has history disproven anarchism”

IN summary, of course history has debunked anarchism, your fillibustering notewithstanding.

72

“given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?”–grayson

Because “huge events” have occurred throughout history doesnt legimitize failed ideological constructs. For example, no rational, independent thinking, and objective analyst would seriously argue that a society of child molesters or cannibals would be sustainable simply because none have existed.

By your logic, a society of flying elephants cant be disproven. INdeed, based on the logic of your question anything is possible, and cant be challenged.

Indeed, it is this theoretical “why is there air?” pondering that distinguishes anarchists from viable practical systems.

anarchist are no practioners, they are simply pseudo-intellectual academics who may be incapable of “putting rubber to asphalt” unlike their classical liberal counterparts who now dominate the globe.

anarchists reject force, yet they cannot achieve power in its absence.

anarchists reject statism, yet they lick it’s boot daily.

anarchists reject despotism and bureaucracy, yet their system is rife with both.

For example, within anarchic society are millions of despotic enclaves in which free speech and free markets are subject to the whim of these despots or landlords. Moreover, the immensity of bureaucracy required to adjudicate the machinations of trillions of interactions confirm that these societies are unsustainable, a pipe dream.

For example, a myriad contracts would be required for every citizen to simply walk to the corner store. MOre threatening to this utopian society is the vulnerability of sapper sleeper cells that could populate its ranks by the millions.

anarchic society would see thousands of babies starved to death by disinterested parents without any consequences. This would ignite the ire of tens millions of christians, moslems, et al world wide. They would descend covertly on your utopia like a tsumani, leither committing endless terrorist attacks, or laying in weight for a single thrust supported by conventional means from an adjacent statist regime.

Moreover, the society would stagnate due to no copyright laws. No innovation or technological advancements would be forthcoming in these utopians since there would be no protections or just rewards for the edison’s, bell’s, wright’s, ford’s, watson’s, gates’ et al.

In summary,

of course “huge events” have occurred throughout history, and of course flying elephants havent existed and probably wont exist. Indeed, neither will an anachro-capitalist society.

however, feel free to fillibuster either flying elephants and anarchism.

I will join in:

“given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on flying elephants and unicorns being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?”– anarchist’s “logic”

73

Yuur question is a fillibuster and irrelevent to the debate and my original thread that “anarchism is a pipe dream” and with the original premise of this debate “has anarchism been disproved by history”

Filibusters are lengthy disquisitions. My question is not lengthy; you should be able to answer it. Moreover, it is entirely relevant, because your inability to answer it shows the inherent invalidity of your argument.

for example, history has indeed disproven maximal capitalism since none have existed since the dawn of man.

Ah I see. And I suppose 20,000 years ago, anyone who came up with the notion of widespread agricultural civilization ought to have thought of the notion as disproved, since none, at that point, had existed since the dawn of man.

The ridiculous implications of your propositions stem from your unwillingness to grapple with this essential question:

“given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on anarcho-capitalism being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?”

Moreover, I have provided the causal factors for Why maximal capitalism cannot exist.

Your insistence that certain causal factors will be the causal factors, and not any of innumerable other causal factors, that will predominate in the course of human affairs, is based on nothing more than hunches.

It is absurd that I cant site historical fact to support my position on the original premise of the debate, which is “has history disproven anarchism”

There is nothing absurd in simply answering that question: “No, history cannot disprove any general principle.”

Human Action: The history of the natural sciences is a record of theories and hypotheses discarded because they were disproved by experience. Remember for instance the fallacies of older mechanics disproved by Galileo or the fate of the phlogiston theory. No such case is recorded by the history of economics. The champions of logically incompatible theories claim the same events as the proof that their point of view has been tested by experience. The truth is that the experience of a complex phenomenon–and there is no other experience in the realm of human action–can always be interpreted on the ground of various antithetic theories. Whether the interpretation is considered satisfactory or unsatisfactory depends on the appreciation of the theories in question established beforehand on the ground of aprioristic reasoning [13].

History cannot teach us any general rule, principle, or law. There is no means to abstract from a historical experience a posteriori any theories or theorems concerning human conduct and policies. The data of history would be nothing but a clumsy accumulation of disconnected occurrences, a heap of confusion, if they could not be clarified, arranged, and interpreted by systematic praxeological knowledge.

74

Because “huge events” have occurred throughout history doesnt legimitize failed ideological constructs. For example, no rational, independent thinking, and objective analyst would seriously argue that a society of child molesters or cannibals would be sustainable simply because none have existed.

I’m not saying it positively legitimates anarcho-capitalism. I’m saying it delegitimates your argument against the possibility of anarcho-capitalism.

By your logic, a society of flying elephants cant be disproven.

Whether elephants can fly is a question for the natural sciences, for which empirical methods of deriving general principles are entirely valid.

anarchist are no practioners, they are simply pseudo-intellectual academics who may be incapable of “putting rubber to asphalt” unlike their classical liberal counterparts who now dominate the globe.

This whole line of argument which you’ve resorted to throughout the debate is entirely specious, as I’ve already pointed out. Using your line of reasoning, you could say to the 19th century free-trader, “you haven’t put rubber to the road, yet the mercantalist-hampered 18th century-style liberals have actually gained widespread influence. Therefore you are impractical”. Yet the 19th century free-traders eventually came to dominate.

anarchists reject force, yet they cannot achieve power in its absence.

Anarchists reject aggression; not force.

anarchists reject statism, yet they lick it’s boot daily.

Anarcho-capitalists submit to force. They do not pretend to like it, or praise those who apply the force, as “bootlicking” implies.

anarchists reject despotism and bureaucracy, yet their system is rife with both.

If they reject despotism and bureaucracy, that means they exclude it from their system. Your sentence contradicts itself.

For example, within anarchic society are millions of despotic enclaves in which free speech and free markets are subject to the whim of these despots or landlords.

That is only true if you define despotism to include the owning of property.

Moreover, the immensity of bureaucracy required to adjudicate the machinations of trillions of interactions confirm that these societies are unsustainable, a pipe dream.

If there were such a bureaucracy, then it wouldn’t be anarcho-capitalism. The market adjudicates the machinations of trillions of interactions.

For example, a myriad contracts would be required for every citizen to simply walk to the corner store.

Hunchism.

MOre threatening to this utopian society is the vulnerability of sapper sleeper cells that could populate its ranks by the millions.

More hunchism.

anarchic society would see thousands of babies starved to death by disinterested parents without any consequences. This would ignite the ire of tens millions of christians, moslems, et al world wide. They would descend covertly on your utopia like a tsumani, leither committing endless terrorist attacks, or laying in weight for a single thrust supported by conventional means from an adjacent statist regime.

Hunchism-run-riot. What else do you see in your crystal ball?

75

Filibusters are lengthy disquisitions. My question is not lengthy; you should be able to answer it. Moreover, it is entirely relevant, because your inability to answer it shows the inherent invalidity of your argument.–grayson

it is a fillbuster if you continually site it in the absence of a single substantive rebut on any of my valid assertions regarding the unsustainablity of anarchism. And it is about as relevent as this question:

"given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on unicorns being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"

morever, your inability to answer the preceding question shows the inherent invalidity of your argument that unicorns are unsustainable.

Or do you believe in unicorns grayson ???

Otherwise, I challenge you to rebut the preceding question, or be done with this ridiculous fillibustering and return 20 posts hence and answer my myriad logical, historical, and empirical challenges to anarchism that have remained unchallenged saved by your repeated diversion.

Your insistence that certain causal factors will be the causal factors, and not any of innumerable other causal factors, that will predominate in the course of human affairs, is based on nothing more than hunches.–grayson

that anarcho-capitalism has never existed is not a hunch.

that ancap rejects the use of force is not a hunch

that force is required to obtain and preserve power is not a hunch

that decentralized force is easily defeated in detail is not a hunch

that anarchism has no defended borders that are easily exploited by hostile elements is not a hunch

that sapper sleeper cells could infiltrate anarchic society by the millions laying in wait to commit survival level attacks is not a hunch,

that individual private property owners holding strategically vital terrian could be bought off by statist military forces is not a hunch,

that anarchism rejects copyright protections that would lead to an exodus of innovation and technological advancement is not a hunch

that anarchism is rejected by virtually every leader in business, politics, arts, academia, et al is not a hunch,

that anarchism’s “daddy” is statism and statism can do with it what it pleases is not a hunch,

that anarchism has no natural right to a square inch of statist property is not a hunch,

that the masses utterly reject anarchism of any kind is not a hunch,

that anarchism would allow a parent to starve his child without penalty is not a hunch,

the list goes on and on… and all of these shortcomings are substantive survival level threats to anarchism.

There is nothing absurd in simply answering that question: “No, history cannot disprove any general principle.”–grayson

your statement proves my earlier assertion that anarchism and its adherents are not practioners. They cant put “rubber to the road” . FOr example, this “why is there air?” pondering is counter-productive to any substantive real-world objectives.

History cannot teach us any general rule, principle, or law. There is no means to abstract from a historical experience a posteriori any theories or theorems concerning human conduct and policies. The data of history would be nothing but a clumsy accumulation of disconnected occurrences, a heap of confusion, if they could not be clarified, arranged, and interpreted by systematic praxeological knowledge.

you are manifestly wrong.

do you discount electricity ? or better yet, I am challenging you to use your precious praxeological methodology to prove that electricity exists or doesnt exist !!!

good luck with that grayson.

Indeed, the machinations of something as practical and definitive as electricity is incomprehensible to man, yet it’s utility is unquestioned.

like history, electricity is NOT “a clumsy accumulation of disconnected occurances, a heap of confusion”, it provides practical and beneficial advantages to those who understand it and use it, anarchists notwithstanding.

Indeed, that is why it is so prominently studied on the mises.org — your rejection of it notwithstanding.

nonetheless, you have still not answered my question:

“given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on pink unicorns being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?”

76

I’m not saying it positively legitimates anarcho-capitalism. I’m saying it delegitimates your argument against the possibility of anarcho-capitalism.–grayson

Lets get down to brass tacks,

In your opinion, which is more sustainable Minarchism or anarchism ??

Note that the point of my original thread was that anarchism is a pipe dream, indeed if it was the only system available to mankind, it would be viable. but my original intent was to promote minarchism as the more desirable and sustainable system.

Do you agree?

Whether elephants can fly is a question for the natural sciences, for which empirical methods of deriving general principles are entirely valid.

doesnt man operate within the limits of natural science? and if so, isnt political machinations guided by these tenets ? so why do you reject all science, history, et al when discussing social issues?

That is only true if you define despotism to include the owning of property.–grayson

by its very nature, the private property owner would be the despot of his land. Nothing save his absolutism could intervene in his domain. Indeed, a sapper from a statist enemy could purchase property, fabricate a biological terror weapon of mass destruction and end your utopian in short order. and his neighbor wouldnt have a clue even as he choked out his last breath. Indeed, thousands of chemical biological engineering sappers could infiltrate the anarchist enclave with impunity and destroy it from within.

If there were such a bureaucracy, then it wouldn’t be anarcho-capitalism. The market adjudicates the machinations of trillions of interactions.-- grayson

you are telling me that in an anarchic society I could trespass ?? for example, every path an anarchist traveled would be private property, that would require a contract to pass. Indeed, I could buy the property around your house and charge you $1000 everytime you passed over my land. or conspire with your neighbors to do the same. The law of unintended consequences, namely that your anarcho-capitalism was no doubt contemplated before and easily debunked as untenable without some measure of common law that has benefitted mankind since the magna carta.

Here is a hunchism, I challenged you to debunk it earlier and that challenge remains unanswered:

Note that hunchism is another name for “real life scenario” or “the law of unintended consequences” that anarchists cant even in turn debunk with a bad hunchism of their own.

  1. statist operative buys land on the cheap on the anarchic side of the border with his statist nation

  2. operative informs his co-conspirators in the statist military high command when the real estate deal closes.

  3. Statist military forces stage monthly military exercises directly opposite the recently purchased land

  4. “efficient” anarchic private defense forces rush to meet potential threat

  5. undercover statist landowner refuses to grant anarchic forces access to his land unless he is paid an exorbidant fees, rents, and royalties.

  6. In the name of national defense, the rich anarchic forces grudgingly accede to the landowner’s demand for payment.

  7. Anarchic forces expertly deploy forces in an impenetrable defense

  8. Undercover statist land owner cashes checks, dispenses cut to military co-conspirators, we in turn use a small fraction of the proceeds for a beer and steak cookout on the border.

  9. After cookout, hung-over statist troops “Moon” anarchic forces and withdraw

  10. Anarchic forces withdraw

  11. Undercover statist landowner sells land, tripling his original investment by touting the value of “strategically vital” terrain contemplated as a staging ground for a possible statist attack.

  12. Repeat steps 1-11 until:

a. Anarchist society collapses and institutes a Federal republic to provide for defense against external threats

b. Anarchist society collapses by forming statist bureaucracy to oversee border with statist provocateur.

c. Anarchists society calls statist’s “bluff” by refusing to deploy forces for an attack that never materializes – and statist take opportunity to mount a devastating blitzkrieg penetration deep into anarchic land supported by hundreds of sapper sleeper cells resulting in a quick and decisive victory.

Repeat steps 1-12 on the nearest adjacent surviving anarchic society and continue until they are all destroyed or until the surviving anarchic societies dissolve and establish more formidable minarchic states.

77

it is a fillbuster if you continually site it in the absence of a single substantive rebut on any of my valid assertions regarding the unsustainablity of anarchism.

I’ll continue to cite it until you answer it, because it gets at THE reason why history CANNOT show that anarchism has been disproved or is a pipe dream.

And it is about as relevent as this question:

"given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on unicorns being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?"

Again, the existence of unicorns is a question for the natural sciences, for which empirical methods are entirely valid.

answer my myriad logical, historical, and empirical challenges to anarchism that have remained unchallenged saved by your repeated diversion.

You have no logical challenges. And your historical/empirical challenges are invalid.

that anarcho-capitalism has never existed is not a hunch.

Nor does it prove anything about its future.

that ancap rejects the use of force is not a hunch

that force is required to obtain and preserve power is not a hunch

Again, ancap does not reject the use of force.

Just about every thing else you wrote in that list is a hunch.

your statement proves my earlier assertion that anarchism and its adherents are not practioners. They cant put “rubber to the road” . FOr example, this “why is there air?” pondering is counter-productive to any substantive real-world objectives.

How so?

History cannot teach us any general rule, principle, or law. There is no means to abstract from a historical experience a posteriori any theories or theorems concerning human conduct and policies. The data of history would be nothing but a clumsy accumulation of disconnected occurrences, a heap of confusion, if they could not be clarified, arranged, and interpreted by systematic praxeological knowledge.

you are manifestly wrong.

I didn’t write that. Ludwig von Mises did.

do you discount electricity ? or better yet, I am challenging you to use your precious praxeological methodology to prove that electricity exists or doesnt exist !!!

Praxeology is the science of human action. Electricity does not act, therefore praxeology has nothing to do with it.

like history, electricity is NOT “a clumsy accumulation of disconnected occurances, a heap of confusion”, it provides practical and beneficial advantages to those who understand it and use it, anarchists notwithstanding.

Indeed, that is why it is so prominently studied on the mises.org — your rejection of it notwithstanding.

Again, I did not write what you quote there; MIses did. And Mises.org, as you might imagine, uses the methodology of Mises. So the fact that you see an incongruence between that quote and what you perceive as the method of most of the writers on Mises.org betrays a fundamental misunderstanding on your part.

“given that throughout history innumerable huge events in human affairs have occurred for which there was no precedent at the time, how can you rely on pink unicorns being unprecedented as proof that it can never happen in the future?”

Again, the existence of pink unicorns is a matter for the natural sciences, for which empirical methods are entirely valid.

78

it has been fun, good night.

79

i missed your last post, i will extend you the courtesy of responding to it before checking out. primarily, your praexology has no utility for either debunking anything I posted, or predicting any future events. Like anyother social science methodology it is a patchwork of hunches.

  1. you cherry picked responses to only selective points I made, for example –

why are you afraid to answer a simple question, namely in your opinion which system do you subscribe to: anarchism or minarchism — or are you hamstrung by praexology from answering that question?

  1. I challenged you to explain how you can reject natural science in an argument on a social science issue when mankind is beholden by its laws? for example, you cannot invoke natural law or history to predict human actions.

  2. I challenged you to explain why mises.org has myriad historical commentaries, yet you reject it. For example, are these folks ignorant of praexology (sic). Moreover, if mises rejected history, why did he cite it so often?

4)I challenge you to prove that praexology is nothing more than a theoretical “hunchism”, for example, if it is equivilent to math, then it is exact. I challenge you to provide some substantive practical example of its efficacy.

  1. electricity does indeed act, and its action leads to practical benefits to man.

predict something that will happen in economics or geopolitics that bests the predictions of those that employ historical, technical, or empirical analysis

in summary, it is just another methodology of guessworks or hunches. For example, garbage in, garbage out.

Indeed, the methodology cannot debunk a simple case study that I provided above, save repeating the mantra “hunch”

80

In your opinion, which is more sustainable Minarchism or anarchism ??

I don’t know which system, given the current state of human affairs, will be more persistent. I just know that the latter is better, and that if enough of society is convinced of that fact, it will be chosen.

doesnt man operate within the limits of natural science? and if so, isnt political machinations guided by these tenets ? so why do you reject all science, history, et al when discussing social issues?

Mises, Human Action: "Materialist monism contends that human thoughts and volitions are the product of the operation of bodily organs, the cells of the brain and the nerves. Human thought, will, and action are solely brought about by material processes which one day will be completely explained by the methods of physical and chemical inquiry. This too is a metaphysical hypothesis, although it supporters consider it as an unshakable and undeniable scientific truth.

Various doctrines have been advanced to explain the relation between [p. 18] mind and body. They are mere surmises without any reference to observed facts. All that can be said with certainty is that there are relations between mental and physiological processes. With regard to the nature and operation of this connection we know little if anything.

Concrete value judgments and definite human actions are not open to further analysis. We may fairly assume or believe that they are absolutely dependent upon and conditioned by their causes. But as long as we do not know how external facts–physical and physiological–produce in a human mind definite thoughts and volitions resulting in concrete acts, we have to face an insurmountablemethodological dualism. In the present state of our knowledge the fundamental statements of positivism, monism and panphysicalism are mere metaphysical postulates devoid of any scientific foundation and both meaningless and useless for scientific research. Reason and experience show us two separate realms: the external world of physical, chemical, and physiological phenomena and the internal world of thought, feeling, valuation, and purposeful action."

Mises, Theory and History: "Methodological dualism refrains from any proposition concerning essences and metaphysical constructs. It merely takes into account the fact that we do not know how external events – physical, chemical, and physiological – affect human thoughts, ideas, and judgments of value. This ignorance splits the realm of knowledge into two separate fields, the realm of external events, commonly called nature, and the realm of human thought and action. (…)

  1. Regularity and Prediction

Epistemologically the distinctive mark of what we call nature is to be seen in the ascertainable and inevitable regularity in the concatenation and sequence of phenomena. On the other hand the distinctive mark of what we call the human sphere or history or, better, the realm of human action is the absence of such a universally prevailing regularity. Under identical conditions stones always react to the same stimuli in the same way; we can learn something about these regular patterns of reacting, and we can make use of this knowledge in directing our actions toward definite goals. Our classification of natural objects and our assigning names to these classes is an outcome of this cognition. A stone is a thing that reacts in a definite way. Men react to the same stimuli in different ways, and the same man at different instants of time may react in ways different from his previous or later conduct. It is impossible to group men into classes whose members always react in the same way.

This is not to say that future human actions are totally unpredictable. They can, in a certain way, be anticipated to some extent. But the methods applied in such anticipations, and their scope, are logically and epistemologically entirely different from those applied in anticipating natural events, and from their scope.

by its very nature, the private property owner would be the despot of his land.

Again, that depends entirely on your expansive definition of the term “despot”.

“Indeed, a sapper from a statist enemy could purchase property, fabricate a biological terror weapon of mass destruction and end your utopian in short order. and his neighbor wouldnt have a clue even as he choked out his last breath. Indeed, thousands of chemical biological engineering sappers could infiltrate the anarchist enclave with impunity and destroy it from within”. (…) “Repeat steps 1-12” etc

You should apply your crystal ball to writing Michael Crichton-esque novels; it is of no use to social science.

you are telling me that in an anarchic society I could trespass ??

No, I’m saying trespassing need not be dealt with by any bureaucracy.

Note that hunchism is another name for “real life scenario” or “the law of unintended consequences”

No, “hunchism” is relying on hunches to establish general laws and principles.