Like I said, “squishy”. Obviously there is a huge gap between 0 and 1.
Direct quote please.
Of course there is uncertainty, that doesn’t mean we don’t know anything. And we clearly know that the state does nothing productive. It cannot. Again, a point of logic. An expropriating property protector is a contradiction in terms. A state which pursues freedom through monopoly, is a contradiction in terms. This is basic deduction.
As to Friedman’s concern, why would we need national defense if we were stateless? David Friedman (IMO) is great on some things, weak on others. But that’s the problem with being a consequentialist. You only are right when you get lucky.
I only have one cult, and it is the cult of honesty.
You wrote,
Does everyone demand government? Does no one demand anarchy? There is your argumentatum ad populum.
And yet that is obviously false, because people demand anarchy and they don’t get it.
No, that’s a new fallacy. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Stick to making the fallacies, and I will stick to pointing them out. It’s obvious you can’t recognize when you’re making a flawed argument.
What do you mean by “squishy”? Not being able to quantitatively measure the extensiveness of property rights between the extremes of no property rights and complete property rights? Do you propose that this “squishiness” is incorrect, and that we actually can measure that extensiveness?
What is your definition of rulers?
So you prefer/advocate that there are no rulers? So do I. And?
I fail to see the point of your (and others’) persistent returning to (and criticizing) my initial definitions of terms long after we’ve reached a consensus on almost all of them. And what’s the big deal about ocassionally shaking up definitions, anyway? New concepts/ideas/angles can only arise when old delineations and relationships between concepts are re-examined. Could Einstein have developed his theories of relativity while still klinging to the Newtonean conceptions of space and time?
The point which I am trying to make here is slightly different from the one StrangeLoop was/is arguing. Most posts in this thread are preoccupied with the subjective preferences of the market (voluntary) human actors and whether they may or may not prefer a “state”. I am raising the more neglected issue of the subjective preferences and goals of the non-market (parasitic) human actors. My point is that it is only natural for these actors to organize themselves (and others) in whatever societal structures would maximize the profits from their predatory (parasitic, non-productive) action. They also utilize whatever knowledge they have about humans to affect everyone else’s subjective valuations about their parasitic actions.
My point is that this is exactly what is happening right now! If I woke you up and said: “Look through your window! Anarchy!”. You would say that this is not anarchy. You would say that this is not what you prefer. You would say that there still are rulers and rulled ones that willingly (voluntarily!) obey them. And I say: Yes, and? What would you do if that occured in anarchy? How would that be different from what you are doing now under a “state”?
I really don’t understand what you mean when you say that you advocate that all exchanges are voluntary and that there are no rullers. Do you honestly think that I don’t?
Z.
When it becomes evident that you are an Einstein or a Mises, feel free to neologize as much as you deem fit. Until then let’s use the terminology as its found in the classics of the Austrian tradition, both for clarity of communication and so that we here, novices that we are, can more easily draw on those classics to guide and ground our discussion.
My issue isn’t quantitative. It is qualitative. The definition of a market is simply a definition of mixed markets. Which is useless for libertarian political discourse.
A mixed market is a market with no clear trend (not obviously bullish and not obviously bearish). Do you mean a mixed economy? I’m not saying a market is a mixed economy.
Defining “economy” as a social system of production, there is no such thing as a mixed economy, which is a point stressed by Mises. Interventions only obstruct market coordination and do not provide any substitute coordination of their own. And bureaucratic elements in society are not an integral aspect of the social system of production. They operate as (basically consumptive) elements within a market economy. But they do not contribute any social coordination to it. Quite the opposite. It is the market economy that contributes coordination to bureacracies, in that the latter wholly depend on prices that form via market processes to have any kind of internal rationality whatsoever.
I don’t see how anything I wrote implies the possibility of a mixed economy.
So people are entitled to whatever they demand?
For argument’s sake, divide all human action into two realms:
(1) Voluntary Human Action (VHA), containing its most relevant portion: the market, and
(2) Parasitic Human Action (PHA), containing the sub-set of Organized PHA (OPHA) to which a state belongs.
You advocate that all human action is VHA. How is this anything more than a Platonic construct – a wish?
The present is always an outcome of human action – the co-existence of VHA and PHA (especially OPHA). When you advocate for (an OPHA-less) anarchy, you are doing nothing more than wishing OPHA away from the realm of human action.
Z.
Right sorry, my poor choice of words.
The error here may be mine. When I say market, I mean more specifically, “free markets”. Not one market, not bundled with hampered markets.
Did I claim that?
Where did I advocate for anything?
LS, did you change your initial estimate about the debate-worthiness of this subject/thread?
Z.
How is his attempt to clear the field of strawmen (which is necessary for clear communication) an indication of that?
Not really. We’re clearing up misconceptions. Or at least, I hope we are.
I really believe you’re sincerely trying to debate in good faith.
The market is like a “society” or “nation,” composed of individual members and has no real meaning unless we give it one (ie. property rights). If the market is dependent on property rights then only actors who act non-aggressively and voluntarily compose the market. We can only say that aggressive human action has a negative influence upon the market.
Sorry. How would you describe your relationship with the concepts of voluntarism and/or anarchy?
Z.
Not sure how this is relevant to the discussion, but I am a Voluntarist.
For argument’s sake, divide all human action into two realms:
(1) Voluntary Human Action (VHA), containing its most relevant portion: the market, and
(2) Parasitic Human Action (PHA), containing the sub-set of Organized PHA (OPHA) to which a state belongs.You advocate that all human action is VHA. How is this anything more than a Platonic construct – a wish?
The present is always an outcome of human action – the co-existence of VHA and PHA (especially OPHA). When you advocate for (an OPHA-less) anarchy, you are doing nothing more than wishing OPHA away from the realm of human action.
It’s not wishing away PHA… Total VHA is the logical/moral ideal for libertarians, if never practically possible. Ancaps like Friedman point out that the state drastically reduces the cost of mass OPHA for a small group of individuals. The state is a kind of subsidy via mass ideological projection. To the degree you can delegitimize the state among the masses, mass OPHA becomes more and more expensive. Eventually, it becomes prohibitively expenseive (barring extreme assymtries of coercive power e.g. colonial technological advantage). See the previous post. The definition of the market doesn’t really matter much. Different people use it to mean different things, from “monetary interaction” to “all voluntary exchange” to “civil society.” Ancaps are anti-statists, not just free marketeers. What they usually mean by “free market” is “state-free market.” You need to deal with the definition, empirics, and theory of the state to have an intelligent discussion here.
~
Looks like it is. See below…
As I’ve stated before, I completely agree that education and changing of subjective preferences is key.
How is this not simply wishing OPHA (Organized Parasitic Human Action) away from the totality of HA’s realm?
Z.
How is this [state-free market] not simply wishing OPHA (Organized Parasitic Human Action) away from the totality of HA’s realm?
Are you arguing the state is eternally inevitable or what? Anti-statists indeed “wish away” the state. It is their wish that the state were abolished because the state is a uniquely mass-ideologically subsidized → cost-reducing enabler of mass OPHA. You eliminate the state, you maximize VHA and drastically reduce capacity for PHA in human society. Anti-statists have logical and empirical arguments as to how the state could be abolished, the existence of numerous stateless societies for thousands of years in history, etc… for the future, it’s ideological paradigm shift via anti-statist education, or seasteading, free state projects, omniseperatism, cascading secession, voting, agorism, an end to nation-statism via corporate arbitrage, whatever. What more do you want?
~