Regardless, there is no reason to believe predatory action against people who can’t afford to defend themselves would ever be economically viable.
In capitalism does it make sense for an enterprise to sell it’s goods or services to one man? Does it make sense to sell oranges only to your neighbor? Or would it make mroe sense to maximize your clientel.
Not even today’s biggest corporations could employee 100,000 people without offering a serious product to the market place. A belief that a single man will privately own and maintain 100,000 ‘mercenaries’ is an entirely mad max style fictitious notion.
deja vu, or is the Matrix gliching again.
Alright guys, well hopefully you’ll get to prove that the military can be privatized without too many ill effects one day.
I, for one, will always vote against such measures but I’m just one man.
The point is that every entrepreneurial and productive member of a pseudo-state-less environment on this planet today would trade that “freedom” to the “tyranny” of a well organized (and “gooey”) state like Sweden or USA. One could even make the argument that those environments remain backward EXACTLY because the productive elements have, in fact, abandoned them – making someone here argue that I’m making an “apples to oranges” comparison. Well, what if the non-existence of a well organized state has something to do with those apples being (and remaining to be) apples?
In that case, I would propose that this planet – with societal structures regularly converging to “gooey” standing pins (vs no free-standing ones) – is a living proof of something, as well. Mises proposes that markets (free agents acting) – instead of theoretical models – decide on optimal (best) solutions, prices, and organization of their environment. Unless you are suggesting that some planet-wide statist conspiracy is promulgating some statist myth in a coordinated fashion by secretly training and sending politicians across the globe to brainwash the masses (productive ones and otherwise), there is at least SOME evidence for what I am proposing versus pretty much none for your theoretical model.
I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your point.
I saw that list couple of weeks ago. I read the Long write-up (last on the list) and I will make sure to check out the rest. I wasn’t impressed by Long’s arguments (shoes and triangular ATM cards as analogies for law and enforcement), the same way I found Rothbard’s logic and reasoning lacking. If the “theory” was any good in reflecting/describing reality it would not be that hard to understand. I mean, this theory is supposed to explain MY actions and motives, after all, and I think it does a pretty bad job at doing that – that much I DO know. Finally, basing the sustainability of a structure on the condition that EVERY agent in it understands the theory upon which it was built is Utopian, by definition.
So you propose they’re all ignorant, and/or the ones that aren’t have more to gain by keeping quiet. I find that very hard to accept. I have friends who are doing pretty good for themselves in countries where they hardly pay ANY taxes. They would all KILL for a USA citizenship and for the “privilege” to pay 50% of their income every year. In fact, I have one visiting me right now, and cannot believe that I am actually having this discussion with someone who refers to this privilege as a “tyranny”. Perhaps, I can broker a trade? No charge. [:)]
What’s a panarchist? Either way, he stopped well short of suggesting anarchy. I would trust his intellect before any one’s after him and on this forum – especially when his instinct about human agents overlaps nicely with mine.
I liked your write-up ( https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/how-to-make-the-pin-stand/9400 ). Thanks for the link. You do seem to be acknowledging the repeated failures of state-less structures but as the reason you are proposing that there had been something wrong (or defective) with human nature in the past. If only those deficiencies are corrected THEN anarchy could flourish. I would tend to agree with you on this one, but that’s one large IF, you must admit. We live here, with humans as they are NOW, I’m afraid.
The history seems to actually repeatedly confirm (instead of refute) my “needle in honey” analogy. Both, physically (literally) and as a societal analogy there are no needles (unsupported by “goo”) standing on any tables anywhere.
I have, actually. I didn’t see how the statement follows. I don’t know how you define capitalists, and I didn’t even use the word so it’s besides the point. I was talking about productive members of society, in general. You cannot be suggesting that they too are enemies of capitalism.
Z.
Proof, please. Make it praxeological, too.
No, there isn’t, actually. Please do learn what a non sequitur is and what argument from popular belief is. As an example: just because most people believe that there is a god means neither that there is one, nor that it is correct, nor that it provides any goods.
And you vote without a non-contradictory theory. The intellect usurped by the unreasoned will. Advocation of brute force has no reason to argue and thus no reason in need of rebuttal.
good night
Lol ok.
It’s not a point, it’s a question. Why would the state protect you?
Ok. I can’t see how, given what I see as human nature (rational and neither good nor evil) how a government military system would lead to anything other than a few people controlling far more power than they could ever acquire on the market, and lot of people not only without any real protection, but with lots of “feel-good” fake protection and lots of aggression carried out in their names, making them far less safe. What’s worse, I even have an experiment to back up my intuition - see the US.
Well, that’s your own personal feelings about the US.
I’m merely informing you of my experiences – not proposing a theorem in need of proof. Your experiences may differ, and I would love to hear about them if that’s the case. If you know of successful producers that thrive in pseudo-state-less environments and would rather NOT live in the USA, then I’d like to hear more about them, as that would enhance/enrich my experience, as well.
I’m sorry, what isn’t there?
The FACT that pretty much ALL societal structures have converged to a “needle in goo” model (as opposed to a free-standing one) – without any concerted conspiracy or plan – may merely be “popular belief” in your book. It’s not in mine. Let me know if I’ve learned anything about non-sequitur: Your god example is one. I wasn’t addressing beliefs but mere facts.
Z.
Eeyah, I’m gonna hafta go ahead and point out your cop-out, mmkay.
Evidence. For your proposal. Which you just claimed wasn’t a proposal. So which is it?
In any logical book. Perhaps you just haven’t taken the time to learn how to reason properly. And you were addressing beliefs, so please: don’t play some little game.
Sigh - is that Jacob again?
It “protects” me by making the societal structure in which I produce and prosper more sustainable and less likely to collapse. In other words, I prefer a needle that is ACTUALLY standing straight in goo, to a THEORY that says it OUGHT to be able to stay straight unsupported.
Z.
You talkin to me?
That’s not the question I ask. Why would it do this?
Yes, I thought I recognized a debating strategy from an old debating partner on this board.
I see. Well yes, it’s me.
Welcome back.