By all means, go ahead and point away. You asked me for a “proof” that EVERY successful producer in a pseudo-stateless society would prefer to move to the USA instead. The ridiculousness of even attempting to “prove” something like this notwithstanding, to me, this is a mere statement from experience and not a theory in need of proof. You can go ahead and make whatever you want of it.
So you need “evidence” that MOST (if not ALL) societal structures have now ACTUALLY converged to some form of a functioning state? Google “UN”. I’m sure there must be a table of member nations in there somewhere. Sum the sizes of their populations and divide that number with the total size of this planet’s population. If that fraction is higher than 90%, would that present strong enough evidence for your logic book?
I am not playing. If you’re not enjoying this little conversation we’re having I’d be perfectly OK if we stopped it. Just let me know.
You made the claim. I’m simply asking you for some sort of praxeological backing. Not my fault you made such a claim.
No, for your proposal above.
Oh, I’m enjoying it immensely. I’m loving watching you flail about with the standard refuted to death nonsense. “Oh, anarchism can’t work because all we have now are states, and I think it would just devolve into states”. Well it’s a good thing other people don’t have your lack of conceptual ability.
Answer 1: Because there are millions of minions (police, military, bureaucrats) in its hierarchy employed to provide the “goo to freedom” that I think keeps the societal needle standing. The inefficiencies and glacial pace of change in the mechanisms of voting and government bureaucracy may be exactly what makes the system sustainable, for all I know.
Answer 2: I may not know exactly, and I don’t care. As long as it’s been doing it consistently in the past, is doing it now, and is likely to be doing it in the future, I’m happy. I’ll make a leap of faith and prefer that to “freely” organized armed gangs dynamically and “efficiently” fighting over ephemeral “protection racket” monopolies.
Can I point out that there are more private security personnel than police? That more cases are settled in private courts than public courts? Read kinsella. We are not so far off of anarchy. The state is a parasite.
Thanks! The “something wrong” in the past was not about human nature, but these factors:
Interconnectedness of individuals and institutions (economic relationships, contractual agreements, etc.) Decentralization of power (the very definition of anarchy) Education and enlightenment of the people (especially in political economy) Advancement of economic prosperity and technology (in a word, civilization)
But I agree, humans as we are now, and society as it is now, will determine whether anarchy will work or not. There is the possibility that we are not ready yet, in light of where we are in these areas.
I recall Mises mentioning that people should be able to decide what kind of political system they live under, which is what panarchy is about. Under that view, suggesting anarchy (or minarchy) would be beside the point. The views espoused on the forums and in the other articles I linked by Long, Rothbard, etc. are frequently slightly off in focus or import (sometimes flat-out misguided), but I hope they would be the seeds for lines of thinking that would lead you to understand why the round of objections you’ve made in this thread are not necessary. All I can say is that the source of an idea does not determine it’s validity, and appeal to authority - no matter how great - is not a sound basis for reasoning. I still think there are a few central AnCap arguments you haven’t been exposed to, which if you read them you’d be asking different questions.
There is an even more fundamental problem. Any effective defense that includes expensive and powerful weaponry will give rise to some sort of state. It’s unavoidable. Thinking otherwise is not thinking right.
That’s right. If you want aircraft to land at your airports, you will adopt thick books of regulations.
Something that confuses me, which is related, is the idea of private roads. Does a house with a street address have guaranteed access to the street? If a house didn’t pay dues, or whatever, what happens?
I guess ultimately, I’d like to know, why invest in a system that has no credible means of getting off the ground? How do you about dismantling the state? Ask them to please hand over the launch codes, and just don’t tell anyone that the SS checks are stopping?
Nothing wrong with defending the status Quo, z1235, whenever the status quo is actually helping things. You on the flip side are defending the status quo for it’s own sake and your reason’s are founded on logical fallacies, appeal to people, and opinions rather than logic.
How do you know this? Also, define how you conclude what is right.
On private property. Indeed buisnesses do this now. Also, define how you conclude what right is.
When a person is confused that means such a person doesn’t understand and does not give any knowledge. Thank you for the disclosure.
First you need to have knowledge (episteme) and then you will know something.
When you are confused you babble alot. Are you aware of this?
First ask yourself, how do you learn and get episteme?
Yeah, you sure rattled on about nothing. Next time offer a post that gives knowledge and doesn’t declare that you are confused. Rise above intellectual immaturity if you can muster the will.
interesting link. To understand what an individual is going on about such an individual needs to make sense, be presentable, and provide logical clarity or else they are simply bells, whistles, and tin cans rattling about.
Still, each private security force (and whoever has hired their services) are strongly incentivized toward certain (non-aggressive) behavior by the stronger over-arching force of the state. You cannot randomly pull off interconnected pieces from a complex structure and expect it to still stand. I haven’t heard about private courts, I admit. I assume you’re talking about arbitration. In this case too, this process resides in the shadow of the state legal system which ultimately determines the incentives of the arbitrated parties.
If you read my posts in this thread you will see that I am not necessarily disagreeing about the state being a parasite, nor am I claiming that USA (status quo) is even close to how I would prefer it. In this light my point is that even parasites may perform functions in complex structures that contribute to the sustainability of those structures. Not all connections in complex structures are imminently obvious.
That is a good insight. However, there is another good insight that may make the picture clearer: every State that ever wanted to wage war had to raise taxes and usually print money to do it. If they had no money, they could not wage war. If aggression were really that profitable they would have been able to recoup the losses, especially considering how military personnel aren’t paid that much in a State system, and they have immense propaganda backing them. If the State can’t even be aggressive for profit (at least not without the people’s “donations”), how is a private security force going to profit from it? Partly this goes back to my post (Why Anarchy Fails), in the sense that way back in history it was (sometimes) profitable to be aggressive, but I think we’re long past that point, owing to the factors I mentioned therein.
Mainly because the state licenses them, and can revoke the license. Remove the state and the other incentives (customer relations, capital waste, etc.) come to the fore.
Gosh, I didn’t realize I was so stupid. I’m so stupid, I didn’t even know I was stupid. I’m pure stupid.
I’ll stay out of your way now, and just observe, but how much longer are you just going to pound sand?
Also, can my episteme start with anything? I’m inclined to go with you are a giant ass. I admit that it’s probably not the most useful axiom to start off my calculus, but it has an oddly appealing aesthetic… like throwing a small rock at a dog for no good reason that I can give. Ahhh, to be human.