While praxeological a priori confirm the failure of statist systems, none that I am aware of prove the efficacy of anarchism relative to minarchism.
For example, what praxeological precepts confirm anarchism’s efficacy at providing BOTH economic prosperity and societal security relative to minarchism?
many contributors to this forum are adamant that anarchism is preferrable to minarchism, yet there appears to be no praxeological or empirical evidence to support this assertion.
For example, a greatly attenuated central government devoted primarily to national defense would provide all of the economic freedoms offered by anarchism without the vulnerability to external threats from statist regimes.
Moreover, there appears to be strong empirical evidence discounting anarchism relative to minarchism. For example, no anarcho-capitalist societies have ever existed while minarchism (albeit imperfect and evolving) is in ascendancy.
I’m trying to get you to explain things in your own terms so I know we’re all on the same page. It will be easier to have a discussion this way. So how do you define praxeology?
Why do you think lack of economic calculation is fatal to the efficacy of systems?
Moreover, there appears to be strong empirical evidence discounting anarchism relative to minarchism. For example, no anarcho-capitalist societies have ever existed while minarchism (albeit imperfect and evolving) is in ascendancy.
This is a logical fallacy called an appeal to tradition. This has been pointed out to you several times before. You’ve also been given numerous historical cases of societies with private law, and it just seems to go in one ear and out the other.
This is a logical fallacy called an appeal to tradition. This has been pointed out to you several times before. You’ve also been given numerous historical cases of societies with private law, and it just seems to go in one ear and out the other.–olovetto
I think you have cited “Iceland” circa 1200 ? as an example of the “efficacy” of anarchic societies.
and yes, I rejected it out of hand since it was not a purely anarcho society (it had a decentralized legislature that declined into an oppressive centralized statist structure) and more importantly it became extinct when confronted with a handful of Christian missionaries.
for example, citing an isolated, tiny, barely anarchic enclave in a geographically insignificant barren patch of land is not empirical proof of the efficacy of anarchism relative to minarchism by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure.
for the 2nd time:
What praxeological a priori confirms anarchism relative to minarchism as a more viable system to provide BOTH economic prosperity and societal security from external threats?
for the 3rd time you have not answered the following:
What praxeological a priori confirms anarchism relative to minarchism as a more viable system to provide BOTH economic prosperity and societal security from external threats?
No. I want you to explain how the calculation problem stops government from centrally providing shoes efficiently. 20>10? “Nominal prices” have nothing intrinsically to do with the calculation problem.
I’m not going to answer it directly. I’m going to get YOU to answer it by taking the above logic to its conclusions.
What praxeological a priori confirms anarchism relative to minarchism as a more viable system to provide BOTH economic prosperity and societal security from external threats?
I’m not going to answer it directly. I’m going to get YOU to answer it by taking the above logic to its conclusions.–seiben
for the 4th time:
What praxeological a priori confirms anarchism relative to minarchism as a more viable system to provide BOTH economic prosperity and societal security from external threats?
In summary, why dont YOU answer the question by taking it to its “logical” conclusions.
For example, wouldnt it be more economical in bandwidth and time if you just explained your position?
There’s no point in me explaining something to you if you don’t understand it. I’m not convinced that you do. Moreover, if you say something, you won’t be able to back out on or ignore it.
I’m not particularly worried about my bandwidth. I’m merely picking the approach with you that I think will work best. If you think i’m crazy for choosing it, fine. But the sooner you answer it the sooner we can make progress on the topic. That’s what you’re here for isn’t it?
I read the substance of the paper and there is no praxeological a priori that confirms anarchism over minarchism.
indeed, hoppe makes the telling observation that alexander the great, genghis khan, frederick the great, et al are examples of private armies. This is noteworthy since it confirms my opinion that private defense firms would evolve into a monopoly that would degenerate into absolutist instruments.
Moreover, hoppe claims that in order for anarchic armies to defeat existing statist armies this centralization of power would be necessary. Furthermore, he does not adequately explain how a tiny emergent anarchic society, no matter how efficient its army, would counter the numerous and aggressive statist behemoths that will exist.
Also, hoppe does not convincingly explain why these armies would not degenerate into instruments of absolutism.
in summary, hoppe’s assertions are mere “hunchisms” to quote an oft used term from grayson.
and again you have not answered the question:
What praxeological a priori confirms anarchism relative to minarchism as a more viable system to provide BOTH economic prosperity and societal security from external threats?
There’s no point in me explaining something to you if you don’t understand it. I’m not convinced that you do. Moreover, if you say something, you won’t be able to back out on or ignore it.–seiben
I didnt ask myself the question, I am asking you (and any others who would like to answer it).
for the 6th time:
what is the praxeological precept that confirms anarchism over minarchism in providing societal economic prosperity and societal security from external threats?
I believe it is a simple straight forward question.
So you think a centrally planned shoe market would be less efficient than a free market in shoes right? Explain why
The problem is pushing the ‘central planning’ argument too far. It’s true that shoes are most efficiently produced in a competitive market.
It’s also true that centrally planned armies are more effective than market-based armies. With some things, like armies, efficiency is not the relevant factor, rather effectiveness is.
Markets key advantage is efficiently deploying resources; central planning’s key advantage is effectively deploying resources towards a specific goal.
If you want comfortable shoes produced at reasonable prices, catering to individual preferences, markets will do it. If you absolutely need boatloads of shoes by tomorrow, central planning will do it.
To observe that something consistently happens and then predicting it will happen again is the basis of science.
The burden of argument is on the scientist who claims that history is not a reliable guide, and there still have to be experiments which can be cited to back it up.
This is a logical fallacy called an appeal to tradition. This has been pointed out to you several times before. You’ve also been given numerous historical cases of societies with private law, and it just seems to go in one ear and out the other.–olovetto
I think you have cited “Iceland” circa 1200 ? as an example of the “efficacy” of anarchic societies.
and yes, I rejected it out of hand since it was not a purely anarcho society (it had a decentralized legislature that declined into an oppressive centralized statist structure) and more importantly it became extinct when confronted with a handful of Christian missionaries.
for example, citing an isolated, tiny, barely anarchic enclave in a geographically insignificant barren patch of land is not empirical proof of the efficacy of anarchism relative to minarchism by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure.
First, this says nothing about the logical fallacy you repeatedly commit. There was no legislature. There was one yearly meeting in case of serious threats to the whole community and it was almost never used for any actual cases. People can act collectively without state collectivism.
A relatively peaceful society, i.e. not a state of “war of all against all”, existed longer than the United States has yet. There are tons more cases of the same sort of success of the system, even in modern times.
The existence of anarchy is not some sort of self-sustaining system. It rests on the people in the society maintaining the order. In the case of Iceland, they gave into religion getting special priviledges which centralized power, led to the typical violence associated with states, then the people asked for protection from the king of Denmark.
I read the substance of the paper and there is no praxeological a priori that confirms anarchism over minarchism.
I was more talking about the paper by Sechrest. Feel free to cite something specific from the papers rather than just making up nonsense.