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

Economics Political Theory
221

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

I read absolute and thought you meant monarchy. You’re correct, there aren’t any absolute democracies, I never said there weren’t though.

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”

Yet the founders fought for democracy anyways.

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

And the premise of this thread is complete misuse of praxeology.

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

Over you misusing the term “red herring” maybe, not over actual logical fallacies.

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

That isn’t arguing semantics, as there hasn’t been an argument over your (mis)use of the term, just a correction.

Appeal to antiquity

Exactly. Why do you continue to do it to defend statism if you know its a fallacy?

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?

How does saying it was a possible alternative make it an appraisal? For example, You could use copper wires in your house or you could use aluminium ones. Which one have I praised?

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.

This is just a false dichotomy, they don’t exclude on another by any means. Nor have I once rejected the accepted definition of a constitutional federal republic once.

222

Rettoper, what is a “sustainable system”?–yuberries

states that are unlikely to be destroyed by predation or internal revolt in the foreseeable future (50 years).

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

that is subjective. however, it is a fact that anarchism cannot guarantee societal health and security since it doesnt exist.

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

that is subjective. however, I believe that a system that taxes its citizenry 50% is confiscatory and unhealthy in the long term. nonetheless, if a competing system does not exist (anarchism) or a neighboring state extorts 60% of a citizens wealth then the state that extorts the least wealth (50%) will be the more “popular” or the least offensive.

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

if you are repeating the oft used claim from anarchists living within a constitutional federal republic cannot secede or are obligate to pay taxes against their will – then it is a faulty argument. for example, many of these same anarchists will greedily accept government largesse to pay for college or accept a government paycheck. moreover, by paying taxes and following the rules within statist societies the anarchists tacitly acknowledges the legimitacy of the statist government.

In summary, if you truly reject statism – stop supporting it, take up arms, and remove the system. Otherwise, you are admitting that you are a slave and submitting volutarily to this degradation, albeit with considerable whining.

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

because these are the foundations upon which society rests. for example, society is not based solely on economic wants and needs.

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.–yuberries

simply because anarchism allows the individual to choose his own means and ends does not make it viable. I will acknowledge that praxeologically speaking this arrangement is far more efficient that the alternatives in providing for material/economic benefits, however “man does not live by bread alone”. Once he is fed, irrespective of whether he is living in an anarchic or a statist society, he will look to attain non-economic goals, both good and ill.

that is why von mises advocated some measure of government to oversee the ill in man. nonetheless, I have nothing against anarchism, save I dont think it is viable based on a wealth of empirical evidence.

however, I hope that in our lifetime we can judge for ourself by the example of a pure ancap society.

223

Rettoper

I am very proud of you. You have really improved your knowledge and argumentation in the last few weeks since you debated Lilburne. I think you are closer to anarchism now than ever before, and I suspect soon you will probably abandon minarchism and become an ideologicaly sound voluntarist.

I’m so pleased we can count you in our ranks. Keep up the great work.

-LS

224

My original post:

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

Your response:

I read absolute and thought you meant monarchy. You’re correct, there aren’t any absolute democracies, I never said there weren’t though.-angurse

Conclusion:

this is getting ponderous, for example, you absolutely stated that saudi arabia, brunei, et al were absolute democracies — thats why I corrected you !!!

My post:

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”-- rettoper

your response:

Yet the founders fought for democracy anyways.-angurse

conclusion: what is your point ?!

My original post:

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

Your response:

And the premise of this thread is complete misuse of praxeology.-angurse

Conclusion:

you stated yourself that praxeology doesnt confirm anarchism or anything else. and I agree. then what is your point?!?

and produce the quote in which I supposedly misused praxeology ?!

Over you misusing the term “red herring” maybe, not over actual logical fallacies.–angurse

That isn’t arguing semantics, as there hasn’t been an argument over your (mis)use of the term, just a correction. – angurse

amusingly, your statements above are an example of red herrings and semantic minutia since you have already agreed with the premise of this thread namely: there is no praxeological precept confirming anarchism.

So what is your beef angurse? what is troubling you?

Exactly. Why do you continue to do it to defend statism if you know its a fallacy?-- angurse

produce the quote where I state that statism is a fallacy ?

moreover, I have repeatedly claimed that statism is more viable than anarchism since it actually EXISTS versus a anarcho-capitalism which has NEVER EXISTED.

simple stuff dude.

My post:

indeed, if monarchism is “stable”, it is a “stability” rooted in failure that has led to its abject decline and irrelevance–Rettoper

Your response:

How does saying it was a possible alternative make it an appraisal? For example, You could use copper wires in your house or you could use aluminium ones. Which one have I praised?-angurse

Conclusion:

your response is simply a non-response devoid of any fact, logic, or empirical argument supporting your original faulty assertion that monarchism was more “stable” than representative governance when in fact monarchism is in abject decline and representative governance is in ascendancy.

My original post:

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

your responses:

The U.S. currently is basically a corporatist state.–angurse

This is just a false dichotomy, they don’t exclude on another by any means. Nor have I once rejected the accepted definition of a constitutional federal republic once.–angurse

Am I correct in assuming that you cant agree on a specific political definition for the system currently in use in the USA ?

for example, is your “non-rejection” in reality a “rejection” or an “affirmation” ?!!

225

Thanks,

i am more than willing to gut the federal bureaucracy to pre-1789 levels and restore the balance of the power to the states.

however I cant say that I am willing to disband the military and sell it to the highest bidder.

for example, I trust the constitution more than warren buffet, bill gates or a cartel from the EU, china, or japan that would likely purchase these assets.

226

Why isn’t it viable? What does it mean to be viable? Do you mean you don’t like it?

Rettoper, correct me if I’m wrong, but your argument boils down to “I concede that anarco-capitalism can best give to each person what they want efficiently. However, I don’t think it can give me what I want”. Either you are not a person (lol), or what you want is something that no one will give or sell it to you.

What are those things (the non-economic goals?) you find unobtainable voluntarily yet desirable to you? And why should we care that you want it, at the expense of everyone else’s property?

227

Conclusion:

this is getting ponderous, for example, you absolutely stated that saudi arabia, brunei, et al were absolute democracies — thats why I corrected you !!!

Yes I agreed once already. I thought you meant absolute monarchies (hence Oman, Saudi Arabia, etc…) since nobody had said anything about absolute democracies prior, again, my mistake.

conclusion: what is your point

They pushed for something that had never existed just as those here, it wasn’t praxeologically confirmed, it had no empirical evidence, they based it entirely on their moral and philosophical beliefs. By your standards, since they were trying to adopt an unproven system, they were “dangerous and irresponsible.”

you stated yourself that praxeology doesnt confirm anarchism or anything else. and I agree. then what is your point?!?

The point is that its not confirming a thing means absolutely nothing.

and produce the quote in which I supposedly misused praxeology ?!

The very first, when you ask whether it confirms anything, it isn’t apt, its a misuse of praxeology.

amusingly, your statements above are an example of red herrings and semantic minutia since you have already agreed with the premise of this thread namely: there is no praxeological precept confirming anarchism.

No they aren’t, I posted pages ago explaining what a red herring is, please re-read them before misapplying the fallacy. Nor is there any semantic minutia when another is attempting to merge very different things (either purposefully or accidentally) in discourse. Things should be made as clear as possible to avoid confusion.

So what is your beef angurse? what is troubling you?

Your conception of the role and use of praxeology.

produce the quote where I state that statism is a fallacy ?

I never made such a claim. You have used fallacies to defend statism.

Appeal to popularity:

moreover, representative governance has increased significantly since 1776 from (1) to over (100).

are you aware that monarchism has been on the decline for a few years, namely since 1776 ?

it is a paradox that you are critical of representative governance for (1) allegedly being in decline despite its unquestioned global ascendancy

moreover, I have repeatedly claimed that statism is more viable than anarchism since it actually EXISTS versus a anarcho-capitalism which has NEVER EXISTED.

Yes, that claim is a simple logical fallacy. Its been pointed out multiple times now. What aren’t you getting?

your response is simply a non-response devoid of any fact, logic, or empirical argument supporting your original faulty assertion that monarchism was more “stable” than representative governance when in fact monarchism is in abject decline and representative governance is in ascendancy.

What on Earth or you even referring to? That wasn’t my response to that question.

Your Post:

indeed, if monarchism is “stable”, it is a “stability” rooted in failure that has led to its abject decline and irrelevance–Rettoper

My (actual) Response:

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…

Conclusion:

your response is simply a non-response devoid of any fact, logic, or empirical argument supporting your original faulty assertion that monarchism was more “stable” than representative governance when in fact monarchism is in abject decline and representative governance is in ascendancy

We’ve gone over this pages ago, go back and read it again if you’ve forgotten already.

Am I correct in assuming that you cant agree on a specific political definition for the system currently in use in the USA ?

Corporatism works fine. Where are you having hang-ups on it exactly?

for example, is your “non-rejection” in reality a “rejection” or an “affirmation” ?!!

I don’t know what example you are referring to at all, explain further.

228

Rettoper, I think it would also do you good to separate your normative statements from the descriptive. We know that we are in a statist world, and therefore the state exists. But what is has no bearing on what we wanted it to be. Or else, we wouldn’t have this discussion to begin with.

229

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.–seiben

your absolutely correct.

thats why I support a constitutional federal republic that in theory creates checks and balances and decentralization of power that minimizes the tyranny of the majority associated with democracy.

As long as political power exists there will always be the great temptation for the powers to dip their fingers into the basket.-seiben

I agree, however we disagree in that I believe that private defense agencies (more specifically a monopolistic defense agency) is equally as susceptible 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.-seiben

acts of violence are not to be condemned. for example, violence is a legitimate and desirable reaction to intolerable abuses to exact beneficial change in society. until anarchists accept this fact then they are not likely to maintain and hold power.

The state is the ultimate crook, worse than any private crook, because it socializes the costs of burglary-- seiben

I absolutely agree.

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.-- seiben

you are naive and give the statist too much credit when you presume that they think that they can manage the means of production more efficiently — i believe they are self-serving repitilian thugs who in the extreme have no regard for human life and could care less if their policies improve production – they are simply in the business of politics to gain and hold power.

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.–seiben

I agree with a caveat. I think this applies with the exception of armed conflict. Many vices in the free market are considered virtues in warfare. for example, centralization of forces.

or the precept that dictates an army that can direct the most force on a center of gravity controls that objective. or that sacrifice of entire units is necessary to achieve many objectives in war, that is anathema to an army based on profit or efficiency. for example, what is the logic or profit in dying for corporation X ? this explains why mercenary armies have had a dismal record throughout history in life and death struggles no matter how well trained, paid, and motivated.

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.-- seiben

Even if they do support modern statism, they would certainly also support contractual societies as per their premises.–seiben

interesting, there may be a praxeological a priori that you uncovered somewhere in the preceding statement.

seiben’s law – for example, is it not irrefutable that the following statement is true and not subject to empirical testing:

" the more direct the consentual contract between the state and the individual, the less likely it will be broken"

nonetheless, the union breaks down in the presence of external threats from large statist regimes whose leaders have favored forced annexation over economic cooperation with peaceful and prosperous contiguous free societies.

Economic logic reveals to us that contractual societies will outperform state societies in practically every way. – seiben

snowflake’s law.

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.-- seiben

with respect to economic issues, yes. however, just because an anarchic society has a far greater per capita efficiency doesnt mean that it has a greater output in real terms. Moreover, in order for anarchic society to be free from predation it would have to metastasize rapidly to offset threats from jealous statist regimes. this is hunchism, since praxeology can neither confirm that statist regimes will not attack an emerging ancap society or that ancap societies can provide for mutual defense against centralized statist enemies that could eliminate ancap enclaves in detail, irrespective of whether the aggregate of all disparate ancap societies are stronger and more proserous. for example, the statist could pick off the weakest one at a time without incurring the wrath of neighboring ancap societies.

A society with publicly run schools, roads, healthcare, and utilities would be more “minimal” than the nightwatchman state.-- seiben

agreed. I believe that we are headed toward a more capitalist and less statist governing framework. the American people have been clamoring for limited government since 1980. we have seen a dramatic reduction in statism since 1980 in fits and starts, arguably not enough but I believe that we are inexorably moving in that direction, recent setbacks associated with bushism, mccainism, pelosism, and obamism notwithstanding.

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.–seiben

all the guns are not in the hands of one authority. they are distinct divisions between the states/federal govefnment, local law enforcement, USMC, army, navy, and air force. Not one of these organizations could or would use force against the citizenry without risking a fatal flank attack from another. Moreover, I was in the military and under no circumstances would I or the overwhelming majority troops in my charge follow an order to shoot a fellow American.

INdeed, we frequently pondered this possibility as a unit and the overwhelming consensus was that we would follow the constitution and overthrow the governing authority that usurped the following tenets of this document:

1st amendment

the right of people to protest shall not be denied

2nd amendment

the people shall not be disarmed

4th amendment

the right of private property shall not be denied.

9th amendment

all rights not spelled out by the constitution shall exist nonetheless

10th amendment

when the federal government falters or violates the constitution, the state(s) become the legitimate government and authority

230

ancap societies are decentralized, as a result they could be overrun in detail by statist threats.

for example, in order for an ancap society to be secure from predation, it would have to metastasize immediately into a large society that possessed a more formidable military literally overnight than a statist competitor – (it is possible, see israel 1948)

i will acknowledge that if the ancap society reaches “critical mass” it would be free from external threats if

(1) a credible defense agency emerged relatively quickly to deter external threats,

(2) it could develop and maintain a strong and cohesive defensive framework among the disparate defense agencies that would emerge and compete against each other for “market share” versus common defense against external threats.

(3)these agencies wouldnt degrade capabilities in order to cut costs and increase profits as most private enterprises do (note that 99% of companies fail – in warfare this record is unacceptable if it happens to the defense agency responsible for protecting your turf )

(4) a single monopolistic defense agency could be deterred from absolutism (for example, “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” – if this isnt considered a praxeological a priori it should be.

231

If you want these laws to be upheld via taxataion by a monopolist central authority, you will run into all the same problems a democracy or monarchy does. Namely that you have at least one person who is judge in his own case. Abuse ensues.

Who has an easier time stealing? The guys who have to pay for their own coercion or the ones who can socialize the cost? Even if PDAs acted the same way as states, it is more difficult for them to be aggressive.

But there are good reasons why PDAs won’t be aggressive. Long explains:

Anarchy cannot prevent anything. Neither can statism. It is simply the case that aggression is much more difficult under anarchy than statism.

Violence, as in self defense, is permissible. Violence, as in aggression is not. The economics of taxation are such that it causes distortions in markets, reducing the incentive of private entrepreneurs to produce wealth and artificially changing capital structures to meet the consumption of the state.

This is why we seek to abolish the state. Even if private agencies got together to try and continue taxing us, it would be far more difficult for them to do so. In anarchy, the easiest way to get what you want is to cooperate with others. If you fight with them they’ll just fight you back. If you win, you bear the up front costs of attack, as well as social ostracism from those who do not wish to become your victim. The state incurs neither of these penalties for aggression, enabling the state to raise taxes dramatically and fight grandiose wars.

Yes. But what I’m saying is that arguments for statism are mostly actually arguments for central-dom. You can have voluntar central arrangements, so advocates of the state should also be comfortable with anarchic co-ops.

So how most anarchists imagine would be the most efficient way for an anarchy to defend itself goes like this.

People are afraid of being attacked and having their property destroyed, so they take out an insurance policy. In this way, the liability of the many is made the liability of the few. If an external threat presents itself, in order to defend their liabilities, insurance companies would comission the necessary force to protect their investments.

You can see the state is kind of like an insurance corporation right? It accepts responsibility for our security, but it does not accept liability. It does not lose money when my home gets destroyed. In this way, the state has no incentive to protect its citizens or their property. Its all just a matter of good faith…

No. Private defense contractors know they might die, but there are ways to get them to agree to contract. Large life insurance policies, or drawing of straws to determine which units have to be sacrificed. Private agencies can even employ the same propoganda that states do.

And this hugely serves to minimize casualties. People don’t want to die. So, an example of awesome private defense was the privateers, who lost very few men and kicked butt against statist navies. Read here.

The states are simply mistaken about economics. But we have known this for a long time. Most people are mistaken and believe that government is necessary. If people continue to make mistakes they may interact sub-optimally with other states and anarcho capitalist societies.

But it isn’t likely… practically all modern wars are fought between economically undeveloped countries, suggesting that there’s some realization of the overwhelming benefits of being trade partners over trying to conquer your neighbors.

Jealous regimes? See logic above. For more evidence, consider that all the middle eastern elites vacation in Europe and America. They think its awesome. There’s no reason to be jealous because everyone can take a piece of the pie.

It would be pretty obvious that a giant state aggressing against peaceful communities would be a threat to, not only ancaplands, but any other surrounding states. Their harmony of interests would create an incentive to unite.

Its kind of the same way, if you see a big group of guys walking around, you can’t go mug the smallest one and work your way up. They’re all buddies and they’ll band together to help the weakest one. Presumabely all the ancap societies would be trade partners, which is a bond much tighter than friendship.

It is more homogenous than you make it out to be. Regardless, all of these entities are controlled by political power. The political group is judge in its own case.

There are many examples of governments attacking their own people. If the need really arose and people like you weren’t willing to do it, they’d get some psychos from jail in your place.

Moreover, if you aren’t willing to kill me or any other american, how would you stop us from seceding? What if we decide not to follow your laws (peacefully)? Your commitment to personal non-aggression entails a support for voluntarism and an abhorence of statism.

Taxation is a violation of my right to private property. All the rights you listed (except the last one) are compatible with free market anarchism.

232

They pushed for something that had never existed just as those here, it wasn’t praxeologically confirmed, it had no empirical evidence, they based it entirely on their moral and philosophical beliefs. By your standards, since they were trying to adopt an unproven system, they were “dangerous and irresponsible.”-- angurse

republicanism had been around since ancient greece dude. what the founding fathers envisioned wasnt anything entirely new. moreover, anarchism was known in 1776 also, yet it was representative governance that overwhelmed monarchism, not anarchism. so how can you rationalize anything positive about anarchism based on representative governance’s ascendancy in 1776 ??

for example, you would be equally flawed in advocating for the possibility or viability of a society of one testicled, pink midget collectivists

this is Ad ignorantiam

The very first, when you ask whether it confirms anything, it isn’t apt, its a misuse of praxeology.-- angurse

thats my whole point dude !!!

praxeology doesnt confirm anything including anarchism. it is a rhetorical question

your the last one who got it , but you finally got it, congrats.

I never made such a claim. You have used fallacies to defend statism.— angurse

for example, how can stating a fact be a fallacy, namely that statism exists?

tulips exist too,

are you going to accuse me of using a fallacy by stating that tulips exist ?!?!

Corporatism works fine. Where are you having hang-ups on it exactly?-- angurse

it may work “fine” for you. however, by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure the overwhelming accepted definition for the political system of the USA is a constitutional federal republic or an abbreviated definition including one of those terms.

We’ve gone over this pages ago, go back and read it again if you’ve forgotten already.–angurse

and by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure monarchism is a failed system compared to representative governance, irrespective of its former prominence.

for example, it has been throughly and unquestionably preempted by representative government on the geopolitik.

for every weak, vulnerable, unstable, or insignificant monarchical regime their are ten representative governments that are far more prosperous and larger economically, politically, and militarily.

233

seiben,

I dont want to respond to your post with a half-ass response, as a result i will try to answer your post when I get home — if my connection is decent

otherwise, I will respond when tomorrow at work since my cover is here now.

later

234

Its fine. Take your time. I’m tired too.

235

republicanism had been around since ancient greece dude. what the founding fathers envisioned wasnt anything entirely new. moreover, anarchism was known in 1776 also, yet it was representative governance that overwhelmed monarchism, not anarchism. so how can you rationalize anything positive about anarchism based on representative governance’s ascendancy in 1776 ??

The republics of ancient Greece and Rome weren’t anything like modern republics and they failed miserably. So no, they hadn’t “been around,” they existed for a very short time. In regards to statelessness, ancaps are on very similar grounds, if not better ones. Interestingly, classical liberals at the time were even labeled as anarchists. However, the modern theory of anarchism wasn’t first expressed until until 1793. Basically, the ideas weren’t well known or developed at the time. Ideas must be spread before they can take effect.

for example, you would be equally flawed in advocating for the possibility or viability of a society of one testicled, pink midget collectivists.

No you wouldn’t, as there aren’t nearly as many economic or social advantages for such a society.

thats my whole point dude !!!

praxeology doesnt confirm anything including anarchism. it is a rhetorical question

your the last one who got it , but you finally got it, congrats.

So your point was that your question was nonsensical? Yeah, I didn’t expect that.

for example, how can stating a fact be a fallacy, namely that statism exists?

Using its existence as an argument is the fallacy, not simply stating a fact.

tulips exist too,

are you going to accuse me of using a fallacy by stating that tulips exist ?!?!

Nope, see above. Now if you said, tulips exist therefore growing petunias is impossible, then I would.

it may work “fine” for you. however, by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure the overwhelming accepted definition for the political system of the USA is a constitutional federal republic or an abbreviated definition including one of those terms.

No you are missing the point. I’m not denying that its a federal republic, (I will deny it following any Constitution) however being a federal republic doesn’t exclude corporatism by any objective, rational and independent thinking measure. The two can go hand-in-hand.

and by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure monarchism is a failed system compared to representative governance, irrespective of its former prominence.

So when history is overwhelmingly against you, you just say history doesn’t matter in this case.

for example, it has been throughly and unquestionably preempted by representative government on the geopolitik.

So what? It still isn’t the global norm, like monarchism once was.

for every weak, vulnerable, unstable, or insignificant monarchical regime their are ten representative governments that are far more prosperous and larger economically, politically, and militarily.

Sure, but socialist China, which isn’t a federal republic, can currently crush almost every representative democracy, does that mean socialism is superior to federal republics?

236

The republics of ancient Greece and Rome weren’t anything like modern republics and they failed miserably.–angurse

No need to comment on this statement, it is a perfect illustration of your flawed view of history.

No you wouldn’t, as there aren’t nearly as many economic or social advantages for such a society.–angurse

why hasnt anarchism’s social and economic advantages translated into an actual viable and sustainable society ? Note that I have repeatedly challenged anarchism’s ability to defend itself from external predation and this challenge has not been answered.

So your point was that your question was nonsensical? Yeah, I didn’t expect that.-- angurse

praxeology can neither confirm nor deny anarchism. Moreover, empirical evidence does not confirm it since it hasnt existed.

IN summary, your argument for ancap society being able to defend itself from statist threats is not supported by either praxeology or empiricism – simply subjective “hope and change” hunchism.

Nope, see above. Now if you said, tulips exist therefore growing petunias is impossible, then I would.-- angurse

[ EDIT: WATCH ATTITUDE PLEASE - DONDOOLEE]

it is not a fallacy to state that tulips exist in a particular climate in greater abundance than petunias thus making tulips more viable and sustainable. similarly, it is not a fallacy to state that statism is more sustainable and viable in the geopolitik based on the fact that it actually has existed/exists relative to anarchism which has never existed.

In summary, asserting the obvious – namely statism exists and anarchism doesnt – is not a fallacy. It is a fact.

however, your flawed interpretation of this statement to imply that since statism exists, anarchism cant – is simply a fallacy itself. for example, your flawed interpretation or lack of understanding of virtually every post I have made translates into fallacious rebuttals that have nothing to do with the substance of any of my posts.

hence your lack of understanding regarding the purpose of this thread.

No you are missing the point. I’m not denying that its a federal republic, (I will deny it following any Constitution) however being a federal republic doesn’t exclude corporatism by any objective, rational and independent thinking measure. The two can go hand-in-hand.–angurse

[SEE NOTE ABOVE]

by any objective measure that USA is not a corporatist state, for example, this is the definition from britannic encyclopedia – organizing the whole of society into corporate entities subordinate to the state-- britannica

Moreover, your assertion that the Constitution is not the acknowledged law of the land is fringe nonsense.

Lastly, by your definition the USA can be called any number of political systems, the only requirement is that a particular system need only exist in any degree or size, for example corporatism.

So when history is overwhelmingly against you, you just say history doesn’t matter in this case.–angurse

perhaps, this is your problem.

your flawed interpretation of history ended in 1776, hence your claim that monarchism is more sustainable and viable than representative governance.

my advice is to purchase a history book that covers the period from 1776 to present you might change your opinion that representative government is inferior to monarchism.

So what? It still isn’t the global norm, like monarchism once was.-- angurse

give it up angurse. monarchism is in abject decline, oman and leichenstein notwithstanding.

contemporary history confirms it. using your “logic” horses are preferable to the internal combustion engine since horses were used for thousands of years while the internal combustion engine has only been around for a little more than 100 years.

in sum, your argument regarding monarchism as superior to representative governance is sophmoric and flawed.

for example, it is amusing that you would cite history as proof of monarchism’s efficacy – then in the same post reject history as proof of anarchism’s failure.

your arguments are schizophrenic

Sure, but socialist China, which isn’t a federal republic, can currently crush almost every representative democracy, does that mean socialism is superior to federal republics?-- angurse

wrong, the USA could destroy china in 20 minutes. moreover, china cant even take taiwan by conventional means. the end result from an attack on taiwan would be a nuclear strike followed by a US retailitory strike that would utterly destroy china’s offensive capibility to defend itself, much less wage offensive war on taiwan.

in summary, china is socialist and it cant take contiguous representative states by any means. moreover, if the USA removed its protective umbrella from its asian pacific rim allies, they would immediately develop nuclear weaponry capability that would deter any aggression from china.

237

The fail does not abate. ;D

238

@ Rettoper

  1. I would love for you to explain what ancient “Greece” or Rome have to do with anything, and why it is relevant to your point.

  2. Please explain to me what social history is and what its function is when determining economic science.

  3. I would love for you to give me the pros of the French Revolution and how everything that came after it was a good thing overall for Europe. Moreover, I would love for you to explain how the least effected European country (The UK) by the revolution got better the more democratic it gradually got.

239

1) I would love for you to explain what ancient “Greece” or Rome have to do with anything, and why it is relevant to your point.-- dondoolee

I would love for you to explain why angurse can call grayson a fool and me a liar multiple times and I am the individual that gets censored (for a mild retort nonetheless)?

with respect to greece and rome - angurse claimed that republicanism was a “new” political construct in 1776, I corrected him by pointing out that republicanism was known for hundreds of years prior to 1776

Please explain to me what social history is and what its function is when determining economic science.- dondoolee

examing social history or empiricism can provide guidance in the absence of praxeological tenets. Moreover, human actions are not guided by economic considerations alone.

I would love for you to give me the pros of the French Revolution and how everything that came after it was a good thing overall for Europe. Moreover, I would love for you to explain how the least effected European country (The UK) by the revolution got better the more democratic it gradually got.-- dondoolee

do you advocate a return to the absolutism of monarchism ?

In summary, do you have an argument or a point your trying to make with your questions ?

240

No need to comment on this statement, it is a perfect illustration of your flawed view of history.

Please comment. You aren’t proving anything by declining.

why hasnt anarchism’s social and economic advantages translated into an actual viable and sustainable society ? Note that I have repeatedly challenged anarchism’s ability to defend itself from external predation and this challenge has not been answered.

I’ve answered this already.

Moreover, empirical evidence does not confirm it since it hasnt never existed. IN summary, your argument for ancap society being able to defend itself from statist threats is not supported by either praxeology or empiricism – simply subjective “hope and change” hunchism.

Yet this is no different than the “hope and change” hunchism of the U.S. founders. Repeating a fallacy doesn’t really help you, you know?

it is not a fallacy to state that tulips exist in a particular climate in greater abundance than petunias thus making tulips more viable and sustainable. similarly, it is not a fallacy to state that statism is more sustainable and viable in the geopolitik based on the fact that it actually has existed/exists relative to anarchism which has never existed.

That would just be a nonsense statement then, as viable would have to imply a purpose. Also, we know that the political climate is ever-changing and based purely on human expectations and beliefs and we know for a fact that anarchism has existed, so to say it isn’t possible or sustainable at all would be contrary to logic and common sense.

In summary, asserting the obvious – namely statism exists and anarchism doesnt – is not a fallacy. It is a fact.

Yet it doesn’t constitute a sound argument. (Which is the point at hand) Just as the King George the 3rd asserting that monarchism exists and democracy doesn’t would have been a fact, but it wouldn’t constitute a valid argument.

however, your flawed interpretation of this statement to imply that since statism exists, anarchism cant – is simply a fallacy itself. for example, your flawed interpretation or lack of understanding of virtually every post I have made translates into fallacious rebuttals that have nothing to do with the substance of any of my posts.

See above. We already know that anarchism and statism can coexist, (look at the world!). Beyond that, please point out your posts and all of my flawed interpretations. Because vaguely alluding to something as a rebuttal just isn’t going to help you defend yourself.

by any objective measure that USA is not a corporatist state, for example, this is the definition from britannic encyclopedia – organizing the whole of society into corporate entities subordinate to the state-- britannica

A contradiction: First: “By any objective measure” – Second: Britannica. How about you look up other definitions before saying “any.” Princeton - “control of a state or organization by large interest groups” perfectly describes the U.S.

Moreover, your assertion that the Constitution is not the acknowledged law of the land is fringe nonsense.

I didn’t make such an assertions, go back and read more carefully.

Lastly, by your definition the USA can be called any number of political systems, the only requirement is that a particular system need only exist in any degree or size, for example corporatism.

Are you disagreeing with your prior assertion?

your flawed interpretation of history ended in 1776, hence your claim that monarchism is more sustainable and viable than representative governance.

What? Are you saying after 1776 my interpretation of history is correct? Because you’ve been saying the opposite for some time now.

my advice is to purchase a history book that covers the period from 1776 to present you might change your opinion that representative government is inferior to monarchism.

I pointed out pages ago why monarchy was superior, you didn’t address a single reason. Instead - “Ascendancy” - come up with a non-fallacious retort. History books rarely cover economic theory, and the few that do normally fail miserably. The decline in monarchy doesn’t prove that democracy is a better system of government, what it does show is that mass opinion is the controlling force in society. Unfortunately, opinions are frequently wrong. However, this started simply as what I would prefer, “Preferable is entirely subjective but… monarchy.” I’m not sure how a preference can be “flawed.” For instance, there could be various sorts of misanthropes who would be quite correct in preferring democracy.

give it up angurse. monarchism is in abject decline, oman and leichenstein notwithstanding.

Do you have the capacity to actually address an argument? (See above) Its decline is utterly meaningless.

contemporary history confirms it. using your “logic” horses are preferable to the internal combustion engine since horses were used for thousands of years while the internal combustion engine has only been around for a little more than 100 years.

I pointed out why monarchism was superior to democracy pages ago, that’s the logic behind it.

in sum, your argument regarding monarchism as superior to representative governance is sophmoric and flawed.

Please, sum up my argument for monarchy over democracy. Your constant dodging and appeal to fallacies has put me in the dark as to what you could be possibly thinking.

for example, it is amusing that you would cite history as proof of monarchism’s efficacy – then in the same post reject history as proof of anarchism’s failure.

Yet, I haven’t done that. Why must you fail so hard to comprehend? I’m going to try and walk you through this once again.

  1. You wanted me to cite a more preferable system that has existed. I do.

with respect to Constitutional Federal Republicanism can you cite a more preferable system that has existed in more than theory – noting that no system is infinitely sustainable or perfect?

Preferable is entirely subjective but… monarchy.

  1. You move on to complete fallacies to argue against monarchy.

Indeed, it is a paradox that you are critical of representative governance for (1) allegedly being in decline despite its unquestioned global ascendancy and (2) leading to despotism or absolutism when monarchism is both in decline and has been far more identified with absolutism than representative governanc

Are you just making things up? I didn’t criticize representative governance for being in decline at all (thats a criticism you made of monarchy) nor could I care less that about its global ascendancy. There was a period when slavery was a growing phenomenon, times change.

  1. Repeat fallacy.

my assertion that monarchy is in decline is correct. indeed, it is virtually extinct. for example, how many monarchs maintain real power today?

Liechtenstein, Vatican City, Jordan, Kuwait, Andorra, Oman, Brunei, Morocco, Bhutan, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia… but who denied that monarchy was in decline? Minimal states are also in decline. So what exactly?

  1. I answer your very “example”

for example, are you seriously asserting that monarchism is more viable and sustainable than representative government based on its past success prior to the emergence of representative governance?!.

Where is the example? To answer your question - no. I haven’t been defending monarchy on any grounds other than the ones you have been using for representational democracy, namely history. Although, monarchy certainly has a robust theoretical and economic defense against democracy. (See: transaction cost, time-horizons, voter irrationality, etc…

wrong, the USA could destroy china in 20 minutes. moreover, china cant even take taiwan by conventional means. the end result from an attack on taiwan would be a nuclear strike followed by a US retailitory strike that would utterly destroy china’s offensive capibility to defend itself, much less wage offensive war on taiwan.

The USA couldn’t even take Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan. However, you didn’t actually reply to my question. Read again.

in summary, china is socialist and it cant take contiguous representative states by any means. moreover, if the USA removed its protective umbrella from its asian pacific rim allies, they would immediately develop nuclear weaponry capability that would deter any aggression from china.

Hunchism. (Yeah, I went there)