How do you guys feel about repayment of crimes towards an individual that has no money? This guy just got fired from his job and his house was repossessed.
Does forcing him into labor violate natural rights?
Another question would be, what if he damaged something he could never hope to pay back in his whole life? Is he now essentially a slave to the victim for the rest of his life?
Indentured servitude.
So, what would be the solution?
It depends. It will be up to the victim, the criminal, and the arbitrator what they all decide is just. For example, in Les Miserable, when the main character steals a silver lamp from a man, and the constable catches him and brings him to the victim, the victim not only forgives him, but gives him the other lamp! I think forgiveness is very important for healing grievances.
Let me ask you this: if you had a china shop with aricles worth 100’000 dollars and up, would you, in your right mind, allow anyone in without liability insurance? If you do, I’m sorry but you deserve to lose the money.
Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn’t. The question can’t be answered as there is no such thing as a natural law, just practical human beings looking for the most practical law available (Mises 3000-Hayek 1:). Under this light, “servitude” wouldn’t come to pass in such cases as forced labor is always far less productive than voluntary labor. The guy could be much more productive if left alone, his debt cancelled and all, than if he was forced to work for the rest of his life.
Yet, see http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_5_PDF_Practical_Anarchy_Audiobook.pdf to undestand that a guy would be incentivated to work willingly enough to repay the damages he has caused, at the very least partly.
Justice can hardly be based simply on what is practical. How would you see injustice in taxation? In forced labor? It seems as though you are presenting a utilitarian viewpoint towards justice, so I will present a counterpoint to it with a utilitarian example. If we regulate say 10% of the population to panopticons to provide 90% of the population with cheap, efficient goods, then how does that not pass your standard of what is justice, since it could very well be practical?
Utilitarian?! Hey, that hurts! 
But seriously now…
Let me know with which of these statements you disagree:
1-if given a choice, individuals choose societies which better satisfy them over those which do so less
2-given time, individuals find a way around movement barriers into societies more of their liking
3-hence, given time, societies found by more individuals to be “better” prosper at the expense of those held in less high regard
4-thus, societies reputed to be less satisfactory then other eventually disappear, bringing their institutions with them
5- Thus, if anyone disagrees with the “justice standards” of a “winning” society…well, there won’t be many like him, given time
6- justice standards of ineffectual societies are no more
7- our justice standard today, is the result of the mentality of a past winning society
So, the guy who got it wrong isn’t here today to tell his version. We can uphold as much as we likes the “naturality” of “natural law”, or the “moral value” of the NAP, no one will follow out of blind belief, and few out of logical reasoning (practically those “few” are in this forum).
Anarchy will come to be ONLY because it satisfied most people in a better fashion than statism. As we know this to be true, we uphold anarchy, for rest assure than should freedom be actually tradable with prosperity (in some parallel universe, that is), we would be speaking German now J
I believe you now understand what I mean with “practicality”: the sort professed by Hayek in the strength of social evolution, not the “short run-indidividual” practicality of utilitarianism.
The former can only be gambled at by man of reason, the latter can be twisted to anyone’s liking.
You labor under the premise that today’s justice is based on a system in which we can just simply opt out of, that we can establish separate legal systems apart from the state apparatus which better fit our agendas. Clearly it is a false premise, therefore your whole system of numbers is null and void.
Hardly anyone follows something out of blind belief without some sort of reasoning. You may come to find that there are quite a few deontological individuals on these forums. I am not so foolish to not see that natural law has good consequences and surely that is a positive. However, I do know that only a system that sees thievery, murder, rape as inherently wrong instead of merely inexpedient is the only system in which the radical message of liberalism can be fostered.
Anarchism is not dependent on popular will. We do not need to abide by the will of others to obtain that which should be inherently presupposed to us.
What does that mean?
No I don’t. ”Given time”, that is a very important part. I know that, unfortunately free exit is very rarely allowed nowadays, and fully providing it along with unlimited seccession rights would speed-up the process by a factor of at least a 100. But still, should people find themselves in truly dire straits they will find a way to flee to a country more of their liking, no matter what tortures await them should they fail. Trust me, my parents lived for 40 years under a regime that jailed you entire family for even thinking of getting away, and still people managed to emigrate.
So, in the long-run, a consistent period considering that we’re dealing with social evolution, there’s no such thing as a closed regime. Do you seriously doubt that states fail?
And again, I’m not saying that anyone can just set up whatever system he feels like setting u (most unfortunately), but still the choice among several systems exists. that, again in the long-run, in nearly equivalent to the ability to set up societies at will.
Do not misinterpret this as me saying “the good damn thing should be put to a vote”. It would be paramount to me saying “let the market decide whether pepsi max is better than normal Pepsi, and you replying “but preferences can’t be decided by majorities!”.
Anarchy, or any other system for that matter, including democracy itself, aren’t “selected” by the will of people, but by their mere choosing, over time, to live and work under a system instead of under an other. I even submit that this is even a hardly conscious choice, driven not by political/ideological considerations, but expedient alone. To make an other parallelism, if asked to “vote” about it, most people would probably chose to outlaw texting while driving, yet when give a choice they would do so themselves. This very important difference should be very clear to praxeologists above all.
As for anarchy being “you right”, again there is no such thing. We just come to the logical conclusion that anarchy would provide the best conditions for the expression of the human genius and there is nothing “holly” about it. Let us not slip into dogmatism, and keep a cool head at every time, seeing things for what they are: expedient, just as the division of labor, and society itself (Do you doubt that if Ricardo’s law didn’t’ apply, hence if no need for the division of labor and thus society ever arose, it would still be you right to live in “anarchy”? The whole term has no meaning whatsoever under such circumstances!)
That if, by the work of some impossible law, it truly could be possible to vastly increase the standard of living of the general population while lowering its freedom, if this truly could be, than make no mistake, no such idea as “anarchy” would have ever been seriously contemplated. And here I can’t agree with Rothbard who held that even if anarchy wasn’t’ economically superior, we would still need to chose it over statist by its mere moral values. There are, no such things as “moral values”, just “rules of thumb” we use.
But this discussion is rather less important than it would seem, as social evolution being the slow process that it is, we surely have no way to know what is “practical” or “expedient” for human beings, after all, can never have zero time preferences, and are always “doomed” to mistake short-run interest for long-run interests.
Thus we invent “Moral codes” and “ethics”, not out of some mystical entity commanding such rights to us (“The state gave me my rights” is just becoming “God gave me my rights” and I hate this line of thought!). So, in a sense, you are right, we must at all times keep to such standards, for if we decide to start acting on “a utilitarian basis”, i.e. out of short-run inertest alone, we’ll surely be dooming ourselves.
Still, we must never forget that, even if we don’t feel it, even if we can’t understand it and of it has no practical importance to us, social evolution and the expedient of generations are what really matter when choosing human institutions. After all, ancient Greeks cared not whether earth was round or not but they just upheld this as the truth, albeit an unserviceable one at the time.
Ultimately it would come down to the judges decision, as both parties would agree to it. In the last case a form of physical punishment could suffice, while not repairing the damages, it could It can satisfy a victim’s longing for revenge. Psychic repayment, if you will.
However, if both parties don’t come to terms then its… tricky.
We have lived under the state since the dawn of time. There are points of revolution but your whole premise rests on the fact that we can resist the state legal system and choose something other then that. That is not true. We cannot setup whole new legal systems while the state is the sole monopoly on such systems.
Such is not a system which I would call ‘secession.’ Secession involves the discontinuance of services from the state without harm to your person and property, meaning if I succeed from the US government, then I don’t have to move anywhere. Having the ability to move from one government to another government is just continuing the inevitable.
If no one can setup such a system then again, your idea that we can evolve into new forms is false prima facie.
The market is a system in which a penny is a vote and what I vote for I get irregardless of what others vote for. Therefore when I want anarchy, I should get anarchy.
That does not make sense. If choosing to work under means it comes about it essentially you are saying it is selected by the will of the people.
If that were true then explain the lifestyles of the 20th century Austrians. Why didn’t Mises just drop his political theories in order to obtain high end school professorships? That is certainly more expedient to the goal of prosperity rather then sticking to ones principles and being regulated to the depths of academic darkness. History shows through revolutions and social movements that ideas such as this are false. See Soviet Russia for details.
I don’t think you have a handle yet on praxeology.
The logical conclusion of what libertarianism is [ NAP and property rights ] leads to the environment of anarchism. Therefore in the right to have anarchism we have the right to an environment in which the full realization of our rights are realized.
I think it rather dogmatic to think that everyone is just searching around for the quick solution [ ie. what is expedient ].
Prima facie I trust nothing a British economist says. Anarchy is preferable no matter what the state of the world is.
It certainly is possible. I presented you with the example of a panopticon society with 10% of the population which creates goods for 90% of the population. I have yet to hear you object to such a system. I would like to hear if you can make such an objection without using ‘moral values’ which you state don’t exist.
And yet you calm that what has come to be has come to be because of practicality. Now you say we have no what of knowing what is practical…well have we lost that ability during the past? If so when did we lose it? If it has always been such that we cannot know what is practical then anything you say about the practicality of the world right now is useless speculation.
I say Aristotle discovered truths about the nature of man.
Such is the behavior you are enacting now with the denial of any rights, morality and basing the whole world of action on the premise on what is practical rather then what is morally correct.
I deny such a claim. I will not fall into such a belief that what is, is because of practicality or expedience.
You do a wonderful disservice to the first philosophical society of the world. ‘Greeks did not care about what is and isn’t truth, they cared about the status quo concerning knowledge.’ What a sham.
This is becoming an interesting discussion. I wish I had some more time to dovote to it. Nevertheless…
But where, oh where, did I say that we are able to do so? Where did I assume secession as a given right? Nowhere! You can’t secede and even with today’s open borders that would make anyone reluctant to flee for somewhere else, leaving at least some of his property behind. I completely agree with you! If you like we can delve further into this, saying that nation-states make it even harder to flee, as one would be forced to live on a nation other than his own, adding great emotional costs. So, granted the cost of leaving is very high, even assuming rather “free” movement. After all, US libertarians are unwilling to even move to , let alone leave the J.
But yet neither secession nor an ideal “zero cost of movement” situation are absolutely necessary for “social evolution” (I’ll have to use this term for lack of a better alterative, I know it means something else). The mere fact that some people can leave, be it under the most oppressive of costs, i.e. leaving their every property behind, that is the only thing that counts in the long-run. People in former socialist régimes where willing to live in the west, even at the cost of leaving everything behind. In time, in time, in time (just copy-paste this 9 times) this is enough to bring down a “lesser” societal arrangement. Please do not take this to mean, as it seems to me you’re doing, that one can just “want to live in an anarchy” today and be able to do so. In some instances one can’t even chose to leave for a rather freer country, let alone choose anarchy. Still you can hardly doubt that generations leave if they want. That’s what I’m talking about. Genrations bring down government they like less than existing choices, not individuals!
As for “new forms” of institutional arrangements, I can’t say how they are formed, just as biologists have only sketchy ideas as to how are mutations formed. I can just say that: 1- given some existing systems, the better will, over time, “win”. 2- in some fashion, new systems come to be, quite rarely, and this we know form the fact that modern democracy is…well, modern, and didn’t exist two centuries ago. So, if better existing systems wins, and slowly new systems come into existence, than in a long-long time (as a higher cap, of course) we can rest assure that if there is such a thing as “the best societal system” (anarchy of course), it shall come to be and prosper.
Sure thing. But just suppose that an individual in the market is replaced by 3-4 generations of a few tens of thousands men in social evolution. More to your liking?
I just meant the difference I highlighted above. “The will of generations” rather than the “will of the current majority”.
How can you tell what is “expedient” for someone else? And I’m the one without a hold on praxeology?! Do you doubt that Mises’ utility was best served by his professional choice rather than by a more “Hayek-ian” one? Or that Lenin’s utility was best served by his actual life than by, say, collaborating with the czarits? For “utility” is what I mean with “expedient”, but you still seem to want to be debating to Mill instead of to me J
Sure thing, if you assume the NAP as God-given, which I don’t. I just take it as the key principle to the best societal form and I believe that beyond doubt. I just can’t except anyone to do so, i.e. take the NAP as God-given.
I think it rather dogmatic to think that everyone is just searching around for the quick solution [ ie. what is expedient ].
[/quote]
Hello, I’m Merlin, not Mill or Bentham! I’m not advocating acting out of material interest. I’m just saying that whichever among the existing system provides the most utility for most people will, during generations, “win”. Utility may very well be very different form practical gain, just as Rothbard made clear that even understanding all of Mises’ arguments against the state, we still can’t counter someone who agrees to live under socialism out of a strong ideological commitment, for his utility is best served under such circumstances. If most people where like him, we would live under socialism already. Utility is maximized, not “practical gain”.
Allow me to express my strong belief that Ricardo’s law lies at the very heart of human society and that, as Mises himself strongly emphasized, without gains form the division of labor we would have no society at all, but a Hobbesian war of all against all. Ricardo’s law is the only law you need to explain why anarchy can work and not degenerate into chaos, the Rothbard approach in MESPM. Under these circumstances, I advise less distrust towards Brits. After all they did give us Kate Beckinsale [:P]
I hope we don’t have to discuss an example of a statist society collapsing, such as the one you propose. I’m sure you can see yourself how, in time, the “masters” would lose interest in their own labor, save less and require a higher proportion of the population enslaved to even maintain their parasitical standard of living (no personal gain form slave work+lower capital per head= less production per head). The process could go on for some time but, ultimately society would crash and be removed form the “evolutionary pool”. Nothing “moral” here. But seriously, you know the history of the now, don’t you? Of course, we can discuss the example more amply if you like.
And yet you calm that what has come to be has come to be because of practicality. Now you say we have no what of knowing what is practical…well have we lost that ability during the past? If so when did we lose it? If it has always been such that we cannot know what is practical then anything you say about the practicality of the world right now is useless speculation.
[/quote]
Allow me, than, to restate my position “In the time-span of a few generations, whichever of the existing social systems maximizes the utility of most people will expand at the expense of those systems who do so less”. Individuals without a strong sense of history and logic may easily not understand (consciously) why they better like living in west Germany than I East Germany (people still debate whether the West was better due to economic freedom or to democracy, for heaven’s sake!). I surely can’t “explain” logically most of my preferences and there is nothing that prohibits action here. We just consider preferences given, without asking “why are they so”. This is what I meant.
So, I suppose Wittgenstein was right, wording truly is at the root of every contradiction.
Aristotle just knew that most of his contemporaries where so dumb that they had no chance of logically understanding his position, so he mad up a straw man, just like one invents “monsters” to keep small children from playing with knives. This is what I believe.
Such is the behavior you are enacting now with the denial of any rights, morality and basing the whole world of action on the premise on what is practical rather then what is morally correct.
[/quote]
Again I advocate nothing at all! Let anyone act out of his individual preference-scale and, over time, the existing system better approaching these scales will prevail. I’m providing a dynamic of social change (positive), not preaching about ethics (normative). They just don’t exist for me to preach about them!
You do a wonderful disservice to the first philosophical society of the world. ‘Greeks did not care about what is and isn’t truth, they cared about the status quo concerning knowledge.’ What a sham.
[/quote]
What the hell on earth could a Greek sailor care to know about the geometric shape of the earth if all he needed to do was sail in the at most? Did this make any difference at all to him? Yet, he wanted to know about of his need for the truth, not practical concerns. The example was meant to show that you conception of “practicality” as “material gain” and not “personal utility” is mistaken, if applied to my post.
That would be number one and two of your planks. The ability to choose a society presupposes to leave one to join another. Secession is an implied power. Or are you going to argue that in choosing a society to live in one cannot leave which would then destroy your whole plank system of the ‘winning society’
Thus your plank system in which we can establish legal systems which serve our wishes better then say a state legal system is incorrect.
The whole basis of your social evolution theory is grounded in the premise that motion towards acceptable societies is the basis for how society evolves.
Well then how does your ‘winning society’ sustain itself? We cannot move to a winning society according to your very statement.
What does that even mean? Individuals are the basis of action according to methodological individualism.
Well that didn’t answer my statement. You have Whiggish sense of history. Society isn’t always ‘getting better.’ In fact it can be argued that this country is going further down the road of tyranny.
And again what does that mean?
How is there a difference between a ‘will of generations’ and a ‘will of majority’ in a democratic system?
That would be a wonderful question for you to answer since you think that individual’s base their life choices on expediency and not ideology or moral values.
Well now you are changing your tune, before you said there are no rights, now you are saying there is the NAP.
While I know you are not Mill or Bentham, you are propounding their very theories of utility.
Well Hobbes never said that society cannot have friends, lovers or unity within the state of nature. There is just a general distrust of individuals not a blind hatred.
Really? Taxation has been going strong for almost 100 years.
A mixed economy is certainly better then a communist society. However, that does not a fortiori mean that a mixed economy is the best system. There is a system beyond that which is better and which we do not have.
Well I think that is a severely disturbing statement and an incorrect one. Laws of logic are not strawmen. Aristotle and Plato are pretty much the foundation of western civilization.
You are starting to become muddled. This whole topic is about how you conceive of ‘winning societies’ and now you are saying you aren’t advocating anything.
Well what are we talking about because you seem to change the conversation from Greek philosophers and truth to Greek sailors and the shape of the world.
They sell his kidney and other organs so he can pay restitution.
Fine than, I have just enough experience with such discussions to realize that our isn’t going anywhere, as we keep misunderstanding one-another. I believe it is a question of words above all. So, in interest of clarity let me formulate, in a step-by-step fashion and in as much a precise wording as I can, what I meant in my original post. Please just let me know with which of these step you disagree.
Assuming you agree with such steps, in at least a general fashion, please answer either of these questions:
a) have I ever used words such as “natural rights”, or “NAP” in this expose?
b) I know it’s impossible to even fully contemplate (no sarcasm intended), but let us just imagine: IF anarchy wouldn’t bring about much more material wealth, knowing 4 to be true to a decent extent, would we end up with 20 or with 17?
Answering those questions without using words such as “natural rights” and NAP, as we must is, I believe, the whole point, and I apologize if, due to careless wording dictated by the limited time I can devote to posting, I have implied anything else that strictly this.
I myself answer “of course not, no need for them” to the first and “17” to the second.
Let us not mince words then, when you are saying ‘Ricardo’s law’ you are implying the law of comparative advantage. I will assume you are and if I assumed incorrectly then you can tell me in your reply.
Evolution implies a state of continual ‘weeding out’ that everything that is bad has been discouraged while everything that has been good has been sustained [ ie natural selection ], therefore the status quo is one in which everything that is, is good. Thus you are declaring a Whig interpretation of history in terms of societal development. Though that is incorrect for ‘society’ is not predestined to have evolving epochs in which things slowly work towards some goal. Free will in action means speculative history is false.
Applying logarithms to speculative history? You should stop here with such nonsense.
If that is true then I ask you why are India and China the most highly populated states in the world? Should we start by making a caste of dalits? Or have our own Tiananmen square incident? Will that get the ‘United States’ back on track to being a ‘winner’?
While I think I have sufficiently refuted 7, I think it rather interesting that you think the growth of liberty correlates with the growth of new, efficient statist systems. A rather tasteful contradiction.
Again you arbitrarily apply percentages and math problems to social systems.
Because no state has fallen due to imperialism.
Ah wonderful, all we must do is quicken this imperialistic nature and have a country conquer the world then establish a world government thereby leading to whole collapse. I think America is up to the task. This outrageous mentality is like that of Marx himself in thinking that we can achieve a stateless society through aggrandizing the state itself.
Do you honestly believe such things? Are you honestly propounding that America’s 20th century is an improvement on its 19th century? I think I need an actual answer from you on this statement, something along the lines of a specific quoting of my question with a yes or no answer and you can include reasons for your statement.
So you are inclined to believe that history is just some giant wheel in which we are forever going into phases. Anarchy - mild statism - medium statism - horrible statism back to anarchy?
In this response, no. In others, yes. In this response you’ve become even more ‘clairvoyant’, it seems from the last time we have talked you have managed to discover the historical laws of nature. While I welcome your new found ‘knowledge’, I feel congratulations is perhaps premature if you should feel so inclined in treating yourself to such. You know anarchy will happen, how grand. Yet you do not know when or where but simply that it will and when it does it will cover the earth and wrap it in a warm embrace. I do not believe in this naively innocent faith. Your ideas are based on thus, that we are either born into countries that we love and will always love or that we are born into countries that we despise and those few lucky who are able to escape [ yet somehow your premises also rest on mass geographic mobility without any concept of immigration standards ] are regulated into societies in which they are in complete agreement with for if they are not then they can simply move around from one statist society to the next while along the way losing any wealth they produce.
I think natural rights and NAP would do justice here but if you are so inclined to not speak of them then there are many other points which demand our attention, specifically your philosophy of history.
It would need to be settled between the two parties involved and the arbitrator.
And I’m the one accuse d of having a imperialistic outlook? The world is not confined to the US, which are of course worse off than in the XIX century but, and please believe my sincerity when i proclaim so, there are such thing as other countries around! And those are better off in the XX century. Enough thinking about the East Asian countries, where a full half of this world’s inhabitants reside.
Such “americo-centrism” is what may be misleading you to interpret the world today as worse than in the past: do you believe that people are worse off, globally, than they were a century ago? I would seem to me that although states must expand continuously, we are, on a global average, much freer in this century than we have ever been before. But please, ask the Russians or the Chinese if you have a hard time believing such a self-proclaimed prophet as myself.
The so-called “Whig” interpretation seems out of touch when we apply it to the smallest units available, excepting not only states, but every individual to be happier today that he was yesterday, or even a minute ago! What a parody! Whether that could or could not have been the original idea, it is far from what I believe: I mean that people on a global scale are much better off, much freer today than they’ve ever been.
That’s funny, because I thought I had put a disclaimer out there. But no offence taken, let me say it again: I don’t’ mean that such things as historical processes can be “mathemetized” just as praxeology can never be. I just wanted to explain my point, which you still find impossibly hard to grasp, that even if only a very few can leave, there still can be inter-statal competition. That was meant to do it, (providing an identity, not some sort of formulae), but I see that I have failed miserably to convey the idea, as you still can’t see how anything can happen beyond one’s own lifespan. But then again, I should perhaps have seen that coming from someone who likewise finds it hard to believe that there are other countries around besides his own, in the very moment we’re talking [;)]
.
First of all they aren’t. A serviceable comparison would have to be made on a per-square kilometer basis, and these countries clearly lose in this game to Europe.
If that still doesn’t satisfy you, there’s more. Why are some guys rich while patently unable to restrain themselves from wasting their money? Perhaps because a large sum has been left to them form some rich uncle, and it will take some time for it to disappear. Thus, while hard to believe, both China and India have been incredibly liberal geographical areas once upon a time. As a matter of fact it was only at the beginning of the XIX century that European volume of production surpassed that of China alone!
More recently, China has been subjected to division into spheres of influence by western powers: what that means to us is that it was effectively divided into smaller polities, which we know to be very good. Thus both China and India are heavily populated (though far from the top ones) countries as they have been quite liberal up to one century ago. When both started their socialist experiment death rates soared (check out Mao’s deeds) and only after they decided to embark on economic liberalization did their population actually started to grow again.
But fear not! For on a GDP per caita basis both these countries are light-years behind the States, and thus far less successful. But in the future that may change (should growth rates such as the present continue). For now, you’re not being out-competed by either China or India, for no American is leaving for either of these countries, thus disqualifying them as “winners” by ‘my’ standards.
You should rather fear the likes of Hong-Kong and Singapore, truly rich, truly heavily populated and truly out-competing the US government. But you know better than to ask the same questions about these countries, don’t you?
You should know better that speaking such word, for “correlation” isn’t “causation”, and that’s a very important tenet of praxeology.
Correlation between increases in liberty and increase state efficiency have long been discussed by Rothbard and Hoppe, who upheld that it where the most liberal states those who most often engaged in aggression, rather than less free states, because liberty make for increased production, which can be taxed which…wait, am I seriously discussing this at the Mises.org forum?!
Again, I thought I had made it clear that “the world state falls” doesn’t mean that it is replaced by anarchy.
When the socialist Albanian state fell, no one thought of living in anarchy, for they just saw a state falling, not the idea of the state fall. And as long a people still find it necessary, in their minds, to have a state, a s state will form, even after the collapse of such a colossus. History will just repeat itself.
But if I had come to believe, by some mistaken tenet such as those you apply to my argument, that after the collapse of the federal world government anarchy would arise, if I though anarchy had an even 10% chance of appearing due to this, rest assure that I would be the first one to uphold a world government, and send the poor western soldiers to carnage to achieve it.
But as I know better than that, Ishare not such a “statist” path to anarchy with Marx or Rothbard (“poitical action” is the path to anarchy?! for heaven’s sake!
)
Thus on your specific request, I answer this question anew: its surely worse but no one cares. Other people are happier thus the general situation has improved.
An analogy to sweeten the taste? During natural evolution some unneeded mutations arise, not present before, making their bearers surely worse off, does this mean that evolution “can sometimes go backward”? No, for generally speaking, creatures have improved, although some may have regressed. trial and error does that.
Again, does every entrepreneur always chooses a line of production closer to consumer preferences? No, many people just invest in all the wrong areas, actually furthering the structure of production from the that best preferred by the costumer, but other achieve success and thus, on balance, a free market always approaches consumer preferences.
Sorry, i accidentaly posted the unfinished post.
No for I made it clear that I don’t think anarchy can be displaced by statism where communities are not isolated form one-another. Thus once anarchy arises under such conditions I don’t think it can be displaced. Anarchy breaks the statist cycle, which itself truly is periodic.
All it needs to do is to “happen” somewhere for a long enough time. As to the when-abouts or where-abouts of said miracle, I leave such thought to others…for now
I appreciate sarcasm (as I hope you do with this one). What I d**on’t appreciate is lack of argument and above all you patent lack of faith in anarchy.
You uphold anarchy as a “god-give right”, “immutable”, “independent of the very existence odd society itself” and still you doubt it shall come to be! A fundamentalist Christian who doubt Christ shall come again!
We part ways here, for I have no doubt that anarchy is the destiny of mankind. Let others, with their faith in this mystical god who gave us “rights” despair, I, the “materialist”, the “imperialist”, the ‘Benthamite”, the “Marxists” surely do not.
As for the question of immigration which, hear-hear, is unfree and entails loss of property, again please try to see the reason I put a mathematical identity up there, and not take that to some offense to the verbal nature of praxeology.
I of course know the world does not revolve around the US, I was under the impression that we both lived in the US. Please though, apply my question to the entire world. Explain how the 20th century of the world was better then the 19th. According to Robert Higg’s anaylsis around 180 million people died from there government [ not through war ]. You’d be hardpressed to argue with such a clear disadvantage.
politically speaking yes. Economically speaking perhaps. Though there is a distinction between the market and the state, and the market works wonders in spite of the state, not because of it.
Ok so you don’t apply it to reductio ad absurdum. Yet you are still implying it on a global scale.
Ah yes, what a wonderful red herring, I discuss America and suddenly I am a nationalist sympathizer and ethnocentric. Your premise rests on ones ability to move fluidly from country to country in order to choose a ‘winning society’ yet you have not brought up anything on immigration systems nor have you asked a most basic and key question to your whole theory, ‘Why must I move in the first place?’
Well that would be nice…if Europe wasn’t a contentient and was in fact a state which is the institution we are discussing.
Ten Countries with the Highest Population
China and India, highest population.
Time preference.
Yes that is why Europe imposed upon China the ‘unequal treaties’ and coercive opium trade which drained the silver coffers of the Chinese government, all this because Europe was in fact more productive then China.
This should be interesting. Pray tell, what were these liberal systems in place? I’d very much like to hear how Confucius society which is based on caste systems is some how liberal.
Yes yes. We aren’t being outcompeted by China, we just have a 1 trillion dollar trade debt with them.
Because Hong Kong is apart of China now. The British gave up its colony several years ago.
Yes I do know that. To say that liberty causes new efficient statist systems or vice versa [ something you said by the way ] is sheer falsity.
Well once again you don’t have your facts straight. Rothbard didn’t want efficient people in government in fact and this is a quote from him ‘we want people who can’t find the door knob’ Efficient government is worse then inefficient. Really, I don’t understand how you think that increases in the government’s ability to do its job means increases in liberty. That would be like saying moonshiners hope the ATF gets better at illegal liquor stings.
Going through your numbered list which jumps back and forth you stated that there will come a time in which due to the course of statist growth a singular country will arise as the dominate and establish a world government. Being that this state will fail…across the world then what is the failure of state? Is it not anarchy? And wouldn’t this failure extend across the world? If it is not anarchy then your system of cyclical statism is false. For you go from a high point of statism not to a state of anarchy but revert back to a lower stage thereby destroying the cyclical nature.
So your battle cry is world government and your creedo is ‘Give me liberty or give them death’?
Well this is bizarre..are you implying that Rothbard is a statist? Or that he somehow has some connection to Marx?
Wonderful double think. It’s worse [ which thereby contradicts your whole argument about things getting better globally ] and no one cares that it is worse…yet there are some who somehow do not care [ since they would be included in ‘no one’ ] yet are happy.
Yes but in evolution, those without unneeded mutations thin out over time. Therefore like I said previously, you are presenting the status quo in an evolutionary light in which everything that is, is good.
History is not some kind of market exchange.