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

Economics Political Theory
201

you obviously do not understand the substance of any of my arguments or you are engaged in diversions, semantics, and fillibustering devoid of fact, logic, praxeology, and empiricism.

Your entire argument has been from ignorance, there is no substance.

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

Right, there aren’t, its an impossibility, so what? But, I haven’t contradicted myself in the slightest.

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.

Right, as I’ve said, nothing can prove a negative. Hence, the importance of theory.

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

As I’ve said before classical liberalism isn’t representative governance, and the there aren’t really any governments run by classical liberals. I don’t know where you are getting any of this. “classical liberalism is a political ideology a republic is a system of government. The U.S. currently is basically a corporatist state.”

202

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

your having a hard time grasping the obivious. for example, dont make it so complicated.

the point is that many anarchists on this site support the efficacy of praxeology as a methodology for describing human actions, while at the same time these anarchists are unyielding in their belief in the unquestioned efficacy of anarcho-capitalism as the preferred system for societal peace, security, and prosperity.

the contradiction is that praxeology does not confirm this – even you admit this fact.

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

your a little confused on this point. semantics aside, absolutist monachism = statism.

in contrast, by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure classical liberalism, liberal democracy, representative governance, constitutional federal republicanism are vastly more efficient, free, and stable than monarchies of either yesterday or today.

Lastly, you miss the point when you sing the praises of anarcho-capitalism in 1776 relative to classical liberalism, liberal democracy, representative governance, constitutional federal republicanism when none of the former exist and the latter are the most prosperous, free, peaceful, and stable nations that exist today.

and their numbers have grown since 1776 relative to any other system.

In summary, provide evidence that confirms your favored system (whatever that is) rather than criticizing the efficacy of the systems (statism and liberal democracy) that dominate the geopolitic, your monarchical examples of oman, leichenstien, monaco, notwithstanding.

203

Your entire argument has been from ignorance, there is no substance.–angurse

your chasing your tail and you contradict yourself,

for example, my original argument was that there is no praxeological precept confirming anarchism — -and you acknowledge this.

so my entire argument is correct by your definition.

Right, as I’ve said, nothing can prove a negative. Hence, the importance of theory.-- angurse

in the absence of theory, mankind observes empirical evidence to make judgments and take action. Hence there is no praxeological precept confirming anarchism, so actions have to be guided by other methodologies, empiricism for instance.

do you discount empiricism in the absence of praxeology ?!?

As I’ve said before classical liberalism isn’t representative governance, and the there aren’t really any governments run by classical liberals. I don’t know where you are getting any of this. “classical liberalism is a political ideology a republic is a system of government. The U.S. currently is basically a corporatist state.” – angurse

absurd subjective label.

the USA is acknowledged by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure as a constitutional federal republic. only fringe leftists, anarchists, et al would call the USA as a corporatist state.

204

Rettoper,

the point is that many anarchists on this site support the efficacy of praxeology as a methodology for describing human actions, while at the same time these anarchists are unyielding in their belief in the unquestioned efficacy of anarcho-capitalism as the preferred system for societal peace, security, and prosperity.

I don’t know if this has been brought up before, and I’m a little hesitant to join the fray, but I think I can offer some insight on the topic. Whether or not anarcho-capitalism is preferred over any other form of society/government — whether democracy, dictatorship, monarchy, or whatever else — is a question of value judgement, not a question of praxeology. As such, you are right, praxeology cannot confirm that anarchism is preferred over democracy. Praxeology is a value-free science.

What praxeology can tell you, however, are the results of actions and decisions. Take the market for security, for example, and compare two different possibilities of what this market would look like. Case A would be a free-market in security, and Case B would be a mixed market in security. You can praxeologically deduce the consequences of each market, and then by using value independent of praxeology, but using praxeological insight to guide your value judgement, decide which one is preferred.

205

your having a hard time grasping the obivious. for example, dont make it so complicated.

What? I’ve accepted that praxeology cannot stop an asteroide, how is that not grasping the obvious?

the point is that many anarchists on this site support the efficacy of praxeology as a methodology for describing human actions, while at the same time these anarchists are unyielding in their belief in the unquestioned efficacy of anarcho-capitalism as the preferred system for societal peace, security, and prosperity.

the contradiction is that praxeology does not confirm this – even you admit this fact.

That isn’t a contradiction, as praxeology cannot confirm it, it can only be used to deduce consequences. Further, I’ve already explained why others prefer anarcho-capitalism “economic theory/moral code/philosophical beliefs”

in contrast, by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure classical liberalism, liberal democracy, representative governance, constitutional federal republicanism are vastly more efficient, free, and stable than monarchies of either yesterday or today.

Thats pure nonsense. Democracy is quite famous for its instability, due to the changing whims of the populace, the personal gains sought by politicians, and the rapid switching of political power. Monarchy, in comparison, is much more stable.

Lastly, you miss the point when you sing the praises of anarcho-capitalism in 1776 relative to classical liberalism, liberal democracy, representative governance, constitutional federal republicanism when none of the former exist and the most prosperous, free, peaceful, and stable nations are represented by the latter.

No, you miss the point, I’m not praising anarcho-capitalism in 1776. I’m praising anarcho-capitalism now as an alternative just as the U.S. founding fathers had done for democracy, that is, without any empirical support.

In summary, provide evidence that confirms your favored system (whatever that is) rather than criticizing the efficacy of the systems (statism and liberal democracy) that dominate the geopolitic, your monarchical examples of oman, leichenstien, monaco, notwithstanding

Prove why its necessary, it certainly hasn’t been in the past.

206

for example, my original argument was that there is no praxeological precept confirming anarchism — -and you acknowledge this.

Thats a point I acknowledged though, it was your derived implications of the point that lack substance.

in the absence of theory, mankind observes empirical evidence to make judgments and take action. Hence there is no praxeological precept confirming anarchism, so actions have to be guided by other methodologies, empiricism for instance.

Oh my… you need to brush up on your AE quick. There is never an absence of theory, you value and interpret said evidence via some theory, whether correct or incorrect.

do you discount empiricism in the absence of praxeology ?!?

Stuff doesn’t just happen, we put theories behind everything.

absurd subjective label.

Call it what you want, its still the same thing.

the USA is acknowledged by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure as a constitutional federal republic. only fringe leftists, anarchists, et al would call the USA as a corporatist state.

Only an insane person (or politician) would deny the corporatism in the USA at this point.

207

Rettoper,

You VERY frequently use the phrase “for example” incorrectly. It does not mean “what I mean is…” or “because”.

208

What? I’ve accepted that praxeology cannot stop an asteroide, how is that not grasping the obvious?-angurse

I never stated otherwise. Indeed, it cant predict anarchism too. you obviously agree with me, while arguing my position at the same time.

that is the definition of a contradiction.

That isn’t a contradiction, as praxeology cannot confirm it, it can only be used to deduce consequences. Further, I’ve already explained why others prefer anarcho-capitalism “economic theory/moral code/philosophical beliefs”-- angurse

none of these “economic theory/moral code/philsophical beliefs” confirm anarchism when contrasted by the lack of a praxeological a priori and the preponderence of empirical evidence debunking anarchism – for example, no ancap societies have ever existed.

Thats pure nonsense. Democracy is quite famous for its instability, due to the changing whims of the populace, the personal gains sought by politicians, and the rapid switching of political power. Monarchy, in comparison, is much more stable.–angurse

you are engaging in sematic triviality again.

for example, (1) there is no absolute democracy that exists today as a nation-state and (2) by definition “liberal democracy” = representative government. Moreover, you have confused a dynamic society where change is necessary for the promotion of societal health and well being with a failed static system that rewards the status quo (monarchism)

indeed, if monarchism is “stable”, it is a “stability” rooted in failure that has led to its abject decline and irrelevance, even if you dont see the difference.

also, I agree that pure democracy represents tyranny of the majority – indeed I have stated my opinion on this matter repeatedly.

No, you miss the point, I’m not praising anarcho-capitalism in 1776. I’m praising anarcho-capitalism now as an alternative just as the U.S. founding fathers had done for democracy, that is, without any empirical support.–angurse

this is a bizarre statement since you have rejected anarcho-capitalism as an alternative in 1776 relative to democracy, yet you cite anarchism as an alternative today ?!!

what is your rationale for supporting ancap today and rejecting it in 1776? Moreover, none existed in 1776 and none exist today.

moreover, you have contradicted yourself again by calling the US a democracy while a few posts previous you called it a “corporatist state” ?!?!

contradictions abound it appears.

209

I don’t know if this has been brought up before, and I’m a little hesitant to join the fray, but I think I can offer some insight on the topic. Whether or not anarcho-capitalism is preferred over any other form of society/government — whether democracy, dictatorship, monarchy, or whatever else — is a question of value judgement, not a question of praxeology. As such, you are right, praxeology cannot confirm that anarchism is preferred over democracy. Praxeology is a value-free science.-- jonathan

I agree.

What praxeology can tell you, however, are the results of actions and decisions. Take the market for security, for example, and compare two different possibilities of what this market would look like. Case A would be a free-market in security, and Case B would be a mixed market in security. You can praxeologically deduce the consequences of each market, and then by using value independent of praxeology, but using praxeological insight to guide your value judgement, decide which one is preferred.-jonathan

I agree with a caveat.

for example, praxeology can only identify which system is more efficient, in contrast it cannot predict which system will be most effective. if the statist defense system is larger in real terms (the case throughout recorded history) then it will likely prevail.

in addition, praxeology cannot predict intangibles like elan or defense agency cohesion under extreme stress of combat. by definition a private defense agency is a for profit entity. ---- what is the profit or logic in dying for the “bottom line” ?? IN contrast, praxeology cannot discount the force multiplier of an army fighting for an ideal (freedom, nationalism, religion, et al)

lastly, many anarchists on this site are unabashedly against the possession and use of nuclear weaponry. this appears to be a direct contradiction to praxeological precepts that would predict a defense agency would possess the most effective weaponry and tactics. for example, it is a contradiction that ancaps would reject WMD out of hand and at the same time sing the praises of a methodology that would likely advocate its possession and use under many circumstances (defense against statist predation)

210

grayson,

thanks, my grammar aint never been any good.

however, it is more important that I can read and draw schematics without error.

i bet that you are happy that angurse and I are engaged in this inane back and forth.

was it your idea to send him in here to distract and occupy me ?

also, do you think the USA is a “corporatist state” (as angurse states) when the USA has the 2nd highest corporate tax rate in the free world and many corporations are seeking refuge off shore ?

211

The US is not simply a corporatist state; it is a special privileges state. Government cartel programs make life sweet for a select few corporations. The high tax rate hurts non-politically connected entities. This is what Angurse means by a “corporate state”

Also, if you think a corporate state will not tax corporations, then a state of the people will not tax the people. Clearly we are taxed at a very high rate if you include the inflation tax, lending credibility to the idea that we are not a government of the people.

212

Hey Rettoper, I haven’t read the whole thread, but what’s the point of your inquiry? Are you looking for a reason to be converted from minarchism to an-cap?

If so, your original question “What praxeological precept(s) confirm anarchism over minarchism in providing for societal economic health AND societal security from external threats?” can be reduced to “What arguments do you have to convince me that anarchism is better than minarchism for ends x and y”

People have already given some material for you to work with, but instead of addressing them, you just keep going with empiricist arguments. What’s your problem?

Just say “I don’t believe the market (aka other voluntarily working people) can give me what I want therefore I prefer minarchism over anarchism” and stop acting like you have some objective truth over the matter.

213

I never stated otherwise. Indeed, it cant predict anarchism too. you obviously agree with me, while arguing my position at the same time.

I never said it predicted anarchism.

none of these “economic theory/moral code/philsophical beliefs” confirm anarchism when contrasted by the lack of a praxeological a priori and the preponderence of empirical evidence debunking anarchism – for example, no ancap societies have ever existed.

They confirm one’s preference of anarchism. Nothing has confirmed its viability, but those don’t claim to. Those personal guides falling flat because of lack of a priori praxological justification is utter nonsense since it isn’t applicable. Further, to say anarcho-capitalism is debunked because it hasn’t existed is just ridiculous (just look at the 1776 analogy). King George could have debunked the entire rebellion by simply saying “democracy hasn’t existed and there are no praxeological justification for it, therefore you will fail.” If only the good king was familiar with praxeology, its a shame.

you are engaging in sematic triviality again.

I haven’t even argued semantics, what are you talking about?

for example, (1) there is no absolute democracy that exists today as a nation-state

False. Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia.

(2) by definition “liberal democracy” = representative government. Moreover, you have confused a dynamic society where change is necessary for the promotion of societal health and well being with a failed static system that rewards the status quo (monarchism)

Liberal democracy doesn’t by definition mean classical liberalism. And no, I haven’t confused a thing. You may disagree with the famous anti-democracy arguments, but that doesn’t make them any less famous or applicable.

indeed, if monarchism is “stable”, it is a “stability” rooted in failure that has led to its abject decline and irrelevance, even if you dont see the difference.

You can make up all the things you want, once democracy gets near the life of monarchy, maybe you’ll have a point, until then…

this is a bizarre statement since you have rejected anarcho-capitalism as an alternative in 1776 relative to democracy, yet you cite anarchism as an alternative today ?!!

What are you talking about? I made an analogy about what the U.S. founding father wanted (1776) and what I want (2010), what justification did they have to pursue democracy given its non-existent track record? Anarchism was definitely an alternative then as well as now.

moreover, you have contradicted yourself again by calling the US a democracy while a few posts previous you called it a “corporatist state” ?!?!

There isn’t a contradiction, the two don’t necessarily exclude one another by any means.

214

yuberries,

I am not making any judgment on the efficacy of either minarchism or anarchism. Indeed, I came to this site because of a desire to find an alternative to the failed statist model that we are now drifting towards.

however, I am not convinced in the efficacy of anarchism in removing statism from the geopolitik.

more likely, promotion of capitalism within a representative governance framework is the best method from removing statism.

then as I have stated many times, the outlook for a sustainable and viable ancap society is greatly improved since democratic peace theory predicts the elimination of many potential external threats to that ancap society.

unfortunately, many potential converts to AE and classical liberals looking for answers to statist abuses are immediately soured on this site due to the unabashed adherence to anarchism from many of the members despite the lack of praxeological and empirical evidence confirming anarchism over classical liberalism as a sustainable system in the current geopolitik.

215

Rettoper - “unfortunately, many potential converts to AE and classical liberals looking for answers to statist abuses are immediately soured on this site due to the unabashed adherence to anarchism from many of the members despite the lack of praxeological and empirical evidence confirming anarchism over classical liberalism as a sustainable system in the current geopolitik.”

What do you mean by “this site”? Do you mean the forum? Do you mean Mises.org? Do you mean the Ludwig von Mises Institute?

216

The US is not simply a corporatist state; it is a special privileges state. Government cartel programs make life sweet for a select few corporations. The high tax rate hurts non-politically connected entities. This is what Angurse means by a “corporate state”–seiben

i agree 100% – as do all other classical liberals.

government cartels and preferences to selective constituencies exist in the USA and they are destructive to overall societal health and well being

however, by definition the USA is not considered a “corporate state” (yet) simply because a few politically connected corporations or industries are given preferential treatment. They are corporations equally likely to be abused and regulated out of business in order for politicians to gain non-corporate parasitic constituencies like unions, environmentalists, unemployed, et al. these are simply isolated statist abuses within a constitutional federal republic. for example, you also cant call the USA a marxist nation simply because the government engages in some redistributive policies.

Also, if you think a corporate state will not tax corporations, then a state of the people will not tax the people. Clearly we are taxed at a very high rate if you include the inflation tax, lending credibility to the idea that we are not a government of the people.-- sieben

as a result, we need to vote into office classical liberal politicians that reject this nonsense (angle, rand paul, christie, et al ). For example, I think increasingly dangerous statist policies since the 1900’s will reach a point where the American people will reject most forms of central governance and use the ballot box to transfer power back to the individual.

you have defended angurse a few times, are you willing to defend his assertion that:

praxeology doesn’t confirm anything, statism nor anarchism. – angurse

praxeology doesn’t confirm a thing about anarchism–angurse

No capitalist societies have existed, nor minarchist. --angurse

empiricism is largely a waste – angurse

for example, if he doesnt support a praxeological argument for anarchism and he rejects empiricism – under what methodological framework, other then hunchism, does he defend anarchism ?

217

Rettoper, what is a “sustainable system”?

What is societal economic health and societal security for that matter?

Is a person who has to part with 50% of his earnings to the government secure? Healthy? Stable?

Is a person who cannot secede from an organization to which he never signed into secure, healthy, stable?

Why do you place an arbitrary focus into security, health, stability, whatever that means?

The problem with minarchy and whatever type of archy is exactly the reason why it will always be less efficient than the market, because it takes common ends as granted to all, and forces those ends upon all (Edit: well not just ends are forced, means too obviously.). Economic problems aside, your question about anarchism v. minarchism fails when you specify an arbitrary end for both, when anarchism has no such end. Each individual seeks its own end… and you’re free to regard that as undesirable. Politicians certainly regard that as undesirable on praxeologically valid points - they would lose power and remuneration if the state were to vanish. Praxeology can’t say one is best for the other objectively, because ends can only exist subjectively.

218

for example, (1) there is no absolute democracy that exists today as a nation-state-- Rettoper

False. Brunei, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia.–angurse

or are you seriously asserting that saudi arabia, brunei, qatar, and oman are pure democracies -?!?!

Further, to say anarcho-capitalism is debunked because it hasn’t existed is just ridiculous (just look at the 1776 analogy).–angurse

Ad ignorantiam

for example, That makes as much sense as saying:

“Further, to say pink unicorns is debunked because they havent existed is just ridiculous”

I never said it predicted anarchism.–angurse

thats the point dude, you agree with the premise of this thread. Namely that anarchism is not proven by praxeology.

yet amusingly, you are still arguing with me over red herrings.

Liberal democracy doesn’t by definition mean classical liberalism.–angurse

I haven’t even argued semantics, what are you talking about?-angurse

your hilarious dude, in the same post, your arguing semantics while claiming you havent.

You can make up all the things you want, once democracy gets near the life of monarchy, maybe you’ll have a point, until then…–angurse

Appeal to antiquity

What are you talking about? I made an analogy about what the U.S. founding father wanted (1776) and what I want (2010), what justification did they have to pursue democracy given its non-existent track record? Anarchism was definitely an alternative then as well as now. --angurse

No, you miss the point, I’m not praising anarcho-capitalism in 1776. I’m praising anarcho-capitalism now–angurse

did you just change your mind in less than two posts angurse ?

do you have a stable ideological framework to base your positions on – or do you routinely jump around the map from post to post?

moreover, you have contradicted yourself again by calling the US a democracy while a few posts previous you called it a “corporatist state” !!! – Rettoper

There isn’t a contradiction, the two don’t necessarily exclude one another by any means.-angurse

your all over the map dude, which is the USA — a democracy or a corporatist state – or does it change from post to post. for example you are definition is seriously flawed in that you would adamantly refer to the USA as either democracy and/or corporatist while rejecting the accepted definition of a constitutional federal republic.

219

Rettoper - "as a result, we need to vote into office classical liberal politicians that reject this nonsense (angle, rand paul, christie, et al ). "

But the people do not want to elect politicians of the type you describe above. This is obvious from the power structure in Congress and Presidency, whether it is of the R or D type. The people want exactly what we have now, an ever expanding government, leading ultimately to a totalitarian state.

This is, IMO, the flaw in minarchist thinking; the idea that the people desire, or will ever desire, to choose other people in an election who will take away said people’s benefits. The score is 534 to 1 against Ron Paul. I say, in time, the score will be 535 to 0.

Your theory that a minimal government will eventually emerge from this system is a pipe dream.

220

Insofar as voting is non-aggressive, this is fine. But its a little naive to suggest democracy as a means to classical liberalism. Its like asking serial killers to stop killing. The majority doesn’t have the incentive to keep its hands off everyone… In democracy, the majority is judge in its own case. Nothing good can come of this position.

As long as political power exists there will always be the great temptation for the powers to dip their fingers into the basket. As free market advocates, we condemn all acts of theft and aggression because they violate individual rights and screw up capital structures. The state is the ultimate crook, worse than any private crook, because it socializes the costs of burglary.

Indeed, when we get right down to it, statists are not at all married to the idea of a state, but to that of centralism. They want there to be a single owner of cities/utilities/countries because they unimaginatively think that only a central planner can coordinate the means of production efficiently. But if a single owner really were the most efficient way to organize society, a free market could easily form co-ops to overcome whatever problems requiring centralism.

Even Hobbes conceives the state as a consentual contract, not something to be imposed externally. In this way, Hobbes and practically all political philosophers are really advocating anarchy. Their misidentification of modern states with social contracts leads them to support statism. Even if they do support modern statism, they would certainly also support contractual societies as per their premises.

Economic logic reveals to us that contractual societies will outperform state societies in practically every way. The calculation problem, knowledge problem, and incentive problem, not only apply to the central planning of televisions, but to that of security and large scale defense. Practically all of the state’s undertakings are grossly unprofitable and destructive to human kind.

You claim to favor the minimal state, but there’s nothing minimal about ceding all judicial power and giving mountains of guns and tanks to a political entity. A society with publicly run schools, roads, healthcare, and utilities would be more “minimal” than the nightwatchman state.