haha, who would say anything so ridiculous?!. this is strawmanning.
i think you need to appreciate the difference between market fundamentalism (good and proper), and market utopianism (absurd)
I like Hulsmann’s Theory of Error as applied here. Error has several parts. First, one makes a choice where one could have made a better one, for some given ends. Later, some information or change occurs which leads the actor to believe his choice was less appropriate than another.
Error cycles occur when one sufficiently large choice is veiled by illusion → the institution of choosing erroneous means for a certain ends. He considers government such an illusion. Rather than realize the error of choosing government, crises are attributed to some other choice, usually a lack of government. Thus, this illusion will cause recurring realizations that something is wrong until the choice to accept government is eventually realized as error.
This theory is perfectly capable of answering your question. People have never given anarcho-capitalism a fair shake, persistently believing in the illusion of government. They refuse to accept non-government as a choice, persistently confident that government must exist.
Still, we have seen some political evolution. The people have at least realized submitting to or establishing some forms of government are less effective than others. We are seeing now that democracy cannot be restrained by constitutions or republics. Governments tend to grow large, then collapse.
Finally, simply because something does not yet exist does not mean it will not in the future, or if it does, it will exist temporarily and artificially.
I actually have to say I disagreed with Hulsmann in that article. I think he makes an incorrect deduction, he moves from “not all changes cause errors” (which is disputable itself) to “not all errors are caused by changes”. I need to study in more detail but I think I have to side with Mises on this one. Moreover, I disagree with the Lachmannian idea that if people can foresee the expansion it will occur. Perhaps if you stipulate that people will know the exact events that will happen the cycle may not occur, but that’d only be because no action would ever occur. In any other case the cycle still would occur, nobody would no if they thought they could make profit, which is the case since there can be huge potential profits if the entrepreneur is lucky/ guesses correctly. Also, I don’t think his claim is quite correct that his theory of error cycles denies that possibility of the ABCT being true a priori, no more than the claim that the socialist dictator can guess correctly concerning the distribution of resources precludes the possibility of the impossibilty of socialism.
Who is making that statement?
Excellent subject, megiddo. I am thinking about this same issue for quite some time. At the bottom lays the question of the concentration of the means for violence.
Even in a private security production world, the entity (individual, insurance company, free city, family clan, etc.) who has an advantage will use it and with violence create irreversible competitive facts (through death) thus leading to concentration. How does free market work when the revolver works quicker?
you are not being praxeoligical. the acts of human beings cant be predicted as those of simple machines might
It spells praxeological and after a period the first word spells with a capital first letter and cant spells can’t and at the end of a sentence there is a period.
Looking at your other posts, your acts of misspelling seem pretty predictable.
Very well;
You are not being praxeological. The acts of human beings can’t be predicted as those of simple machines might.