Help me understand

Economics Political Theory
1

Alright before I tell you what I need help understanding let me give you a little context. In another forum we were discussing the possibility of market anarchy. Now one person responded by saying market anarchy cannot possibly work because:

“Governments emerge and exist within societies. They’re expressions of society’s “will.” Infinite ways for society to express its will is the corollary of societies’ systemic, temporal, subjective nature.”

I responded with:

“If the state truly was an expression of “societies will” then why do we pay taxes and not dues? In other words if “society” desires a state that bad why must the state expropriate its funds instead of receiving them voluntarily like any other legitimate business has to?”

and

“How can society have a “will” anyways if society is just an abstraction, a concept used in speech to help others better grasp what we are talking about. If only individuals have wills and in a particular geographical location the individuals who made up a society truly wanted a state would the state not emerge voluntarily? In other words in actual government based on consent and not force?”

Now the person who I posed the question to hasn’t responded yet but someone else has and he seems to be on the same page with the first person i quoted. He wrote:

"Leaving aside the whole possibility of material culture as an integral part of our mind, or a social subjective conciousness, and hence will and agency, beyond the corporeal individual (because it’s mostly metaphysical and barely pertinent. Not because I don’t think the assertion can be made)…

There are plenty of things which are a function of society, it’s historical development and subjective nature, which aren’t a conscious, consenual production of the individual constituents.
For instance, social hierarchy, segregation and taboo."

What does this person mean by the bolded? And does he have a point? Sorry but Im just totally lost.

2

The first fallacy is that you fell into the trap of “Society’s Will”. There are no ends beyond the individuals ends. There is no such thing as a “Societal Will”. I didn’t read past that. I’m not sure how you would salvage the conversation after that mistake.

3

"Leaving aside the whole possibility of material culture as an integral part of our mind, or a social subjective conciousness, and hence will and agency, beyond the corporeal individual (because it’s mostly metaphysical and barely pertinent. Not because I don’t think the assertion can be made)…

(Essentially: “Nevermind about the notions of being materialistic by nature, or the ideas of social consciousness.” They’re just saying that their argument to follow has nothing to do with those ideas, and that they do not think such notions really matter in the discussion. He has a point there. You can’t just argue against someone’s logic by claiming a collective ghost. It’s a Devil’s Proof. Not valid argument. It means that I can claim there is a devil, and I can prove it by showing you a devil, but no one can disprove it if there are no devils, because there is no way to prove the nonexistence of something. Nonetheless, many people argue on such a ludicrous basis constantly, even on debate teams.)

There are plenty of things which are a function of society, it’s historical development and subjective nature, which aren’t a conscious, consenual production of the individual constituents.
For instance, social hierarchy, segregation and taboo."

(Here, however, he has no valid point. He’s making an assertion himself, and a very unfounded one. He’s arguing the devil, as discussed above, by saying that these functions of society exist. But his examples are clearly individualistic notions. He confuses the subjectiveness of the people in society with a society that objectively exists. There is nothing inherently subjective about society itself, as a whole. Only the notions of the individuals give society any subjective values. He also makes the assertion that these subjective ideas aren’t conscious, which is totally true in regards to society but totally false with regards to its members. Or, rather, he would have to prove that society is a result of the unconscious actions of individuals, which is patently impossible. He confuses those last three ideas (social hierarchy, segregation, and taboo) with some higher function of society at large, rather than ideas enforced by the traditions and laws of individuals who, at times, may either hold a majority to enforce such things, or are not up against a majority that will revolt. Segregation was not a result of some unconscious decision by society. It was the result of the ability to use force in order to pursue the ends of segregation. So, basically, this is a person who uses big words to compensate for lack in other areas. Witlings, I believe, is the word for them.

What does this person mean by the bolded? And does he have a point? Sorry but Im just totally lost.

4

He’s talking about the superorganism.

5

The response states that the “corporeal individual” is “barely pertinent” in the argument for or against Government.

As filc said, following the fundamental axiom of praxeology that humans act. All means are individual means and all ends are individual ends (human action is purposeful action). So, in fact, the “corporeal society” is “barely pretinent” since it is just an abstraction from subjective individual values.

“Liberalism is a political doctrine… As a political doctrine liberalism (in contrast to economic science) is not neutral with regard to values and ultimate ends sought by action. It assumes that all men or at least the majority of people are intent upon attaining certain goals. It give them information about the means suitable to the realization of their plans. The champions of liberal doctrines are fully aware of the fact that their teachings are valid only for people who are committed to their valuational principles. While praxeology, and therefore economics too, uses the terms happiness and removal of uneasiness in a purely formal sense, liberalism attaches to them a concrete meaning. It presupposes that people prefer life to death, health to sickness … abundance to poverty. It teaches men how to act in accordance with these valuations.” - Mises