What praxeological precept(s) confirm anarchism over minarchism in providing for societal economic health AND societal security from external threats?

Economics Political Theory
181

Argument from Personal Incredulity

Do you throw these silly words around to be obnoxious, pray tell?

I have covered this repeatedly, please read the previous posts. Efficiency per capita does not equate to real output. for example, history is replete with instances of prosperous, free, and stable societies being overrun by large, inefficient, despotic contiguous regimes who had a REAL advantage in munitions and troops.

The defence of which was handled by states. Seems the states did f*ck-all to prevent the eventuality then, eh? We’re discussing the economic efficiency of defence per se. That one state can drain all its coffers to overpower another neither proves it would overcome anarchist defence forces nor that it even would these days without causing internal instability, and then there’s the issue anyway of massive states like the USA barely able to enter and occupy countries like Iraq. Where’s this supposed “efficiency”?

in surviving, existing, of significance relative to anarcho-captalist societies.

Cockroaches can out-survive humans. So. What. BTW, where are these so-called Marxist, democratic, classical liberal/minarchist etc. systems today? Which of them survive really? How long did they even last?

praxeology neither disproves nor does it prove anarchism.

Because you’d need to lay out criteria for anarchism to fulfill for praxeology to play that role in the first place.

for example, I challenged you to cite an a priori to prove anarchism’s efficacy at providing societal defense against external threats and none has been forthcoming.

There has been. You simply choose to pretend there hasn’t.

for example, an a priori argument is irrefutable and by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure you have provided none proving anarchism.

A priori refers to the mode of validation of the statement. It does -not- mean irrefutable. Other a priori arguments may suffice to refute an existing one, particularly by pointing out errors in prior deductions, concept formation and so on. You need to get your English sorted.

Sorry, we’re discussing economics here, not moonshine. What the hell does this even mean?-- jon

your statement is typical of the propensity of anarchists to discount the non-economic wants and needs of individuals. For example, not all human goals involve the attainment of economic issues. otherwise, explain the “economic” motivation of suicide bombers, kamikazee attacks, christians rejecting the monarchy under sentence of death, et al.

What is a “non-economic” want, i.e. one trading a less satisfactory for a more satisfactory state of being, hm?

moreover, machivelli illustrated clearly that for profit armies and troops are ineffective since there is no logic in dying in a profit motivated endeavor. hence statist armies motivated by non-economic goals have repeatedly out performed and defeated larger and better equiped private armies.

He argued mercenaries (hired by Kings) could become a problem for their hirer should they decide to turn on them. Why would an anarchist defence force a) not potentially be motivated by “non-economic” (read: non-pecuniary) goals and b) what actual proof is there furnished by Machiavelli of the Hoppean insurance-as-defence model failing?

likewise, if there was a single a priori or series of precepts than confirmed anarchism, then presumably anarchism would have established itself within the last 40,000 years of civilization.

Why? It’d need for the concepts to be recognised and understood first. A priorism =/= inborn intuitionism.

your statement was not supported by praxeology or empiricism, hence it was a hunch.

Sorta like everything you post?

It matters because we both agree that statism is anathema to societal health and well being. Moreover, we both agree that the less coercion in society the better and that government/statism is the source of ALL coercion in society. however it is obvious that we disagree on the means to achieve common ends.

So the state is the source of all coercion but we need it for defence… because… it can pour resources into defence regardless of whether a) it is satisfying its consumer populace and b) the investments will in fact pay off? Nice economic logic.

182

Didn’t we have the closest thing to minarchism after 1776?

You guys are making the arguement way too complex. It’s quite a simple answer.

“A system where I am incapable to voluntarily opt-in or out of is inheritly evil.” I assume refusing to pay for the tax to keep the minarchism from operating will result in me being jailed for life. What justification do they have to lay claim over my money? IE, hours worked, aka slave labor?

183

your manifestly wrong,

praxeology debunks statism, namely the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism.

moreover, cite the praxeological precept that confirms polycentrism. also, cite the praxeological precept that confirms polycentrism as exclusive to anarchism. – REttoper

In Response to: – angurse’s “rebutal”

The point is that that praxeology doesn’t confirm anything, statism nor anarchism. However, it does show that polycentrism is more efficient.–Rettoper

Do you just like saying “manifestly wrong?”-- angurse’s “rebuttal”

In summary, do you have a point, and what is it !??!

184

In summary, do you have a point, and what is it !??!

The points is pretty obvious: you simply aren’t reading or you just like saying “manifestly wrong.” I say: “praxeology doesn’t confirm a thing,” your response “show what it confirms.” I obviously, cannot do that, nor can anyone.

185

Not at all, read the quote “I haven’t praised anarchism itself, I’ve praised capitalism, which can only exist unfettered.” As I don’t use the terms anarchism and anarcho-capitalism interchangeably.-- angurse.

looks like another of your diversions or rationalizations

It is obvious that my posts denote anarchism = anarcho-capitalism = pure capitalism.

few, if any, anarchists on this site believe that communal-anarchism, socialist-anarchism, collectivist-anarchism, et al are equivalent to anarcho-capitalism

for example, von mises, rothbard, hoppe, et al rejected these anarcho systems.

A system of private property, a system without political dominance.–angurse

Yes. I said so in my first post “No capitalist societies have existed, nor minarchist.”-- angurse (emphasis added)

wrong,

I stated clearly that capitalism exists – in contrast to capitalist societies.

capitalism and private property rights have existed and exists in many forms within the USA.

for example, capitalism doesnt require a system to function, it functions naturally through many mediums including black markets.

186

It is obvious that my posts denote anarchism = anarcho-capitalism = pure capitalism.

No, it isn’t.

few, if any, anarchists on this site believe that communal-anarchism, socialist-anarchism, collectivist-anarchism, et al are equivalent to anarcho-capitalism

Good, however, Grayson even agreed, few, if any, reject them as being anarchism.

for example, von mises, rothbard, hoppe, et al rejected these anarcho systems

They didn’t reject them as “anarchism.” They rejected them as feasible or desirable.

I stated clearly that capitalism exists – in contrast to capitalist societies.

You can stop right there… I’m quoting myself there, not you.

for example, capitalism doesnt require a system to function, it functions naturally through many mediums including black markets.

A market is a system, even a black one.

187

The point is that that praxeology doesn’t confirm anything, statism nor anarchism. – angurse

Thanks for answering my question amid your contradictions and paradoxical red herring responses.

specifically , praxeology DOES debunk statism relative to anarcho-capitalism ( failure of economic calculation - socialism). in contrast, there are no praxeological arguments debunking anarcho-captalism.

188

specifically , praxeology DOES debunk statism. in contrast, there are no praxeological arguments debunking anarcho-captalism.

There isn’t a contradiction (nor has there been any red herrings), as not debunking doesn’t equate confirmation, you cannot prove a negative after all.

189

angurse,

your claim that capitalism has never existed and can only exist within a maximal-capitalist society is wrong.

it has existed and does exist – for example, any black market is an example of capitalism - your diversionary arguments in sematics notwithstanding.

190

you dont seem to understand my purpose for starting this thread.

for example, many anarcho-capitalist support the efficacy of anarcho-capitalism despite the absence of any praxeological precept (s) confirming it.

This fact coupled with the dearth of empirical evidence confirming anarcho-capitalism put arguments supporting ancap society on shaky ground.

191

it has existed and does exist – for example, any black market is an example of capitalism - your diversionary arguments in sematics notwithstanding.

You understand that a black market isn’t backed by the state don’t you? However, even that is still fettered by the government’s warping of resources allocation and legal states. So, no, pure capitalism has never existed.

192

for example, many anarcho-capitalist support the efficacy of anarcho-capitalism despite the absence of any praxeological precept (s) confirming it.

Sure, whats wrong with that, as asking for a confirmation is simply impossible. However, when compared to statist structures, anarcho-capitalism is the only one that isn’t revealed as inefficient.

This fact coupled with the dearth of empirical evidence confirming anarcho-capitalism put arguments supporting ancap society on shaky ground.

No more than democracy circa 1776, actually its on better grounds, given that praxeology does show how inefficient democracy is.

193

I’m not sure this is correct. The drug market in Mexico is an example of a black market, but I would hardly consider it a free market. If it were a free market, then there wouldn’t be any need of calling it a black market. Black markets are the product of interventionism, and therefore by definition it’s impossible that black markets are an example of unfettered capitalism. Instead, it is an example of entrepreneurship under the existence of government suppression of that sector of the market.

194

You understand that a black market isn’t backed by the state don’t you?–angurse

when did I say the state backed a black market? Your making groundless assumptions.

However, even that is still fettered by the government’s warping of resources allocation and legal states. So, no, pure capitalism has never existed.–angurse

Again you dont understand my original statement . I said that capitalism exists, I never said “pure capitalism”.

195

Sure, whats wrong with that, as asking for a confirmation is simply impossible. However, when compared to statist structures, anarcho-capitalism is the only one that isn’t revealed as inefficient.-- angurse

inefficient from an economic standpoint. there is no praxeological precept that disproves the ability of statist systems to destroy anarcho-capitalist systems. Moreover, there is no praxeological precept that confirms the ability of a ancap systems to emerge and dominate the geopolitic.

IN contrast, statist systems do indeed dominate the geopolitic in the absence of any anarcho competition.

196

when did I say the state backed a black market? Your making groundless assumptions.

You didn’t, hence the “?”

Again you dont understand my original statement . I said that capitalism exists, I never said “pure capitalism”.

Then your response was a complete non-sequitar.

197

No more than democracy circa 1776, actually its on better grounds, given that praxeology does show how inefficient democracy is.-- angurse

argumentum ad ignorantium

moreover, it is bizarre that you would defend anarcho-capitalism in 1776 while discounting democracy when indeed it was democracy that emerged and overtook monarchy while anarchism of all types has languished.

198

inefficient from an economic standpoint. there is no praxeological precept that disproves the ability of statist systems to destroy anarcho-capitalist systems. Moreover, there is no praxeological precept that confirms the ability of a ancap systems to emerge and dominate the geopolitic.

The economic standpoint is the only (developed) praxeological standpoint. Praxeology also doesn’t disprove the ability of an asteroid destroying the Earth. So what?

IN contrast, statist systems do indeed dominate the geopolitic in the absence of any anarcho competition.

And your point is? Monarchical systems dominated at a time as well.

199

argumentum ad ignorantium

Thats your argument in a nutshell.

moreover, it is bizarre that you would defend anarcho-capitalism in 1776 while discounting democracy when indeed it was democracy that emerged and overtook monarchy while anarchism of all types has languished.

Democracy hadn’t overtaken monarchy by 1776, it had languished just as anarcho-capitalism.

200

you obviously do not understand the substance of any of my arguments or [MOD EDIT: STOP IMPUGNING YOUR DEBATE OPPONENT’S MOTIVES]

nonetheless, in your offhanded and contradictory way you have answered my original question that there is no praxeological precept to confirm anarchism.

amusingly, you continue to defend anarcho-capitalism while offering nothing substantive empirically to defend your position, save attacking the very systems that are today in ascendancy.

for example, you attack representative governance (classical liberalism ) which is the prevalent system in power today