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

Economics Political Theory
241

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

This, of course, is a lie. I never said “republicanism was a ‘new’ political construct.” There have been vastly different systems called “republics” including the one put forth by the U.S. founders in 1776.

Or as I said:

“The republics of ancient Greece and Rome weren’t anything like modern republics…”

242

You know that economic is not the same as material, right? Human actions certainly aren’t guided by material considerations alone; humans do value non-material ends. But calling those ends “non-economic” is silly. If you do so, you will find it impossible to pick a non-arbitrary cutoff between economic and non-economic, as even seemingly material ends are often valued partly for non-material aspects.

I personally hold that all action is economic. I believe that the findings of praexology are no less valid with regard to love and beauty than they are with regard to exchanges involving commodities. All are scarce, and therefore economic. All are the objects of action. If a thing is not scarce, then it cannot be the object of action. If a thing is scarce, then it must be considered economic, as it needs to be economized. Are you defining economic in some way that invalidates this conclusion? If you are, what is your definition? If not, they you have no tenable distinction between economic and non.

243

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.–seiben

indeed, PDA’s are motivate by market forces and profit – statist regimes are not restricted by profit, they can divert all resources toward defense spending thereby offsetting any efficiency disadvantage.

private protection agencies have to bear the costs of their own decisions to go to war. Going to war is expensive.–long

Indeed, the PDA that emerges will be the lowest bidder in contrast to statist forces that are chosen by effectiveness and not restricted by market forces and profit considerations.

The economics of taxation are such that it causes distortions in markets–seiben

indeed the statist economy can “distort” the market to favor defense expenditures that the anarchic society is incapable of doing. For example, the anarchic society cant distort in favor of defense – in an anarchic society defense spending would be subject to the same limitations as consumer goods and services.

Even if private agencies got together to try and continue taxing us, it would be far more difficult for them to do so.-seiben

this is the paradox of anarchic defense against external threats, namely the more decentralized anarchic PDAs, the less effective the defense against a focused and centralized statist enemy. IN contrast, the more centralized the PDA defense, the more effective against statist threats, however the more likely it will morph into a monopolistic absolutist internal threat.

If an external threat presents itself, in order to defend their liabilities, insurance companies would comission the necessary force to protect their investments.–seiben

would a PDA expend shareholder assets to defend a competitor PDA’s customers? for example, isnt it a matter of moral hazard if PDA X determines that they can save money on defense from a potential statist threat because they hope that PDA Y would come to their aid in the event of an attack?

In summary, what is the profit or logic in using your investments/assets to defend a competitors customers against a statist threat?

(statist regimes) 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…–seiben

i disagree. I think that both statist and liberal democracies are vigorous in their defense of national soveriengty. If non-anarchic regimes do one thing effectively - it is wage war.

One example, history has shown time and time again how statist armies have out matched mercenary armies in life and death engagements.

who would be more motivated to die for their cause — a PDA fighting to defend the right of its citizens to commit infanticide, or a statist army fighting to irradicate the forced starvation of babies?

Private agencies can even employ the same propoganda that states do.–seiben

if their citizens could be beguiled by propaganda as readily as statist citizens then they would be equally as likely to be conned into absolutism in the defense of their homeland. history is full of nascent quasi-anarchic societies that reverted to absolutism by war propaganda — see french revolution, American confederation, et al.

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. --seiben

i havent read sechrest yet. the first time I tried the link I lost my entire post (you got me! I should try that on angurse). No doubt some privateers had limited successes against statist navies. however, if a privateers force emerged from an anarchic society then the statist regime could sidestep this PDA and attack the anarchic societies centers of gravity without engaging the private army. In summary, privateers and mercenary armies may be able to effective harass statist forces, but they cannot defend their homeland from predation. generally, these are inconsequential non-state actors who have no impact of note on world affairs.

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.-- seiben

if societies were formed by economic considerations alone you would be correct. However, not all unions are based on economics, many are based on shared values and beliefs that transcend economic considerations.

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.-- seiben

I agree,

thats why I am perplexed that anarchists would spend so much bandwidth attacking classical liberalism that has a demonstrated utility for promoting trade among nations and thereby reducing the chances of conflict between trading nations.

note that if anarchism is to be realized, it will be in a world dominated by free trading liberal democracies. In contrast, it cant be sustained and viable in a world dominated by statist regimes.

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.-- seiben

I agree,

however making the transition from absolutism to anarchism in our lifetime is not possible. Moreover, I question whether economic utility associated with maximal capitalism can ever have more sway than faith as a driving force in society. for example-- infanticide, “voluntary” slavery or servitude, non-religious law, et al are impossible propositions for the faith-based to accept. For example, anarchists seem to forget that over 90% of the globe’s citizens belong to a religion – moreover, anarchism is anathema to many of the tenets practiced by these faithful.

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.-- seiben

I doubt it.

isolationism is a powerful motivator even among aggressive and warlike statist regimes. history is replete with examples of nations standing down while a neighbor is attacked. Note that the french could have ended WWII before it began by simply crossing the rhine in 1939 and overruning a defenseless german homeland while the bulk of the wehrmacht was engaged in poland.

would a PDA risk personnel or expend precious resources and assets to defend a competitors customers?

it is equally likely that they would allied with the statist regime over a scheme to gain market share.

Presumabely all the ancap societies would be trade partners, which is a bond much tighter than friendship.-- seiben

I dont think so.

However, that is something that probably has been researched. for example are cultural, religious, and familial ties more substantial than economic ties ?

note that trade is not the primary determining factor for peace since the USA and other liberal democracies have attacked nations that they had a healthy trade with. it seems that the political system of liberal democracy is the best deterrent to war irrrespective of how much trade these liberal democracies engage in with each other.

nonetheless i agree, the more trade between statist regimes and liberal democracies – it is logical that there would probably be a reduction in the chance of war.

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.-- seiben

trust me, there is nothing more enticing to a Marine than to be given the opportunity to defend the constitution against a maurading solider, sailor, or airman. there is a reason for the separation of the branches. Moreover, there is a reason the department of the navy has an air, land, and sea component. There is a reason the army has a ground and air component. and there is a reason why all three have tactical nuclear weaponry and vastly different and distinct training centers.

there is absolutely no threat of all branches of the military and the state militias undermining the civilian government and forming a military junta.

moreover, the political power that controls our military is overseen by numerous checks and balances that have stood the test of time for over 230 years.

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.–seiben

very few examples within liberal democracies. Indeed, despite the attacks on 9/11, precious few, if any, Americans have had their Constitutional rights impacted without due process.

I wonder what would happen to individual rights in an anarchic society in the aftermath of a WMD attack ?

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.-- seiben

I said we would defend the Constitution, not lawless conduct. The constitution guarantees your right to free speech, assemble, petition the government, private property, possession of a weapon, et al. You dont have the right to secede that was established in 1861. However, if the he federal government surrenders power to the states (10th amendment) we might see the establishment of a quasi-anarchic society that might be a positive example that could lead to the further erosion of the federal government – provided that this new society can demonstrate that it can defend itself from non-state, faith-based, and statist threats.

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.–seiben

my quote was an affirmation of private property rights. however, I believe that anarchism is not consistent with free speech, property rights, and life. for example, private property has rights over human life within an anarchic society. what if a parent chooses not to feed his child (who subsequently starves) since the act of providing food for the child is a “violation” of the parents free will?

also, what if a mentally handicapped citizens “volutarily” surrenders his/her freedom to a shyster for a paltry reward?

also, there will be no common area that protects free speech in any anarchic society. for example, the only place that a citizen could exercise his right to free speech is within his own tiny domain.

lastly, anarchism trounces copyright protections or intellectual property rights.

for example, inventions, music, books, software, live saving drugs, et al would all be subject to piracy within an anarchic society without penalty. No doubt that any innovator and inventor would likely abandoned an anarchic society and relocate to a statist society where his hard earned innovations can be rewarded.

244

it is futile to reason with someone who believes the following:

ancient rome, ancient greece, the USA, UK, Sweden, Germany,et al are examples of the “failure” of representative government as a system

while andorra, bhutan, brunei, oman, et al are examples of the “success” of monarchism as a system of governance.

Amusingly, your answer to why no ancap societies exist is the definition of Ad ignorantiam ( argument from ignorance that states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true.)

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?–angurse

amusingly, my “assertion” that the USA exists is a fallacy by your definition. also, my “assertion” that anarcho-capitalism has never existed is a fallacy by your definition.

in summary, please explain to me how stating these facts can be considered a “fallacy” ??

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.**–angurse

if your statement was anything other than opinion then perhaps, however both I for one, grayson, et al, disagree (please refrain from calling us “liars” and “fool”) . More importantly, anarcho-capitalism has never existed. again you are fast and loose with the “facts”.

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.-- angurse

Ad ignorantiam again if you are using this “argument” to defend the efficacy of anarcho-capitalism, pink unicorns, or any other entity that hasnt existed.

We already know that anarchism and statism can coexist, (look at the world!).-- angurse

indeed, the globe is anarchic. however you are misled into believing that within this anarchic framework any anarcho-capitalist society is functioning absent dominance from a statist master or landlord.

In summary, your flawed argument defending anarchism since it exists within the current geopolitic is more a condemnation of its efficacy and benefits than a example of support for it. Indeed, the geopolitik is anything but prosperous, peaceful, and stable. if this is your example of anarchism then your flawed argument of anarcho-capitalism’s efficacy is on shaky ground

“control of a state or organization by large interest groups” perfectly describes the U.S.–angurse

there you go again fast and loose with the facts. the defintion you provided says nothing about a corporation or a state run by corporations. it is merely an example of pluralism – for example, “large interest groups” are not exclusively corporations.

amusingly, your own citations debunk you.

I’m not denying that its a federal republic, (I will deny it following any Constitution)–angurse

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

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

It will be amusing to read how you rationalize this contradiction with some semantic backpeddling. In the meantime, I will deconstruct the balance of your fallacious commentary later in the week.

245

An ancap society can divert all resources toward defense if its members want to. If people are willing to pay for an extremely high level of security, then PDAs will provide an extremely high level of security. Service providers always try to provide the products that their customers want. This is pretty basic stuff…

No. People would not choose their PDA merely by what costs the least. Rather, they would balance the utility gained by extra security against the utility lost by spending money and find the point where the two balance. If security is valued very highly in an Ancap society, people will spend a correspondingly high amount of money on it, and the popular PDAs will be extremely large (and expensive), leaving the society extremely well defended against any nearby states.

You are mis-interpreting the theorem that, other things being equal, people prefer to save money. The key there is other things being equal. If two unequal services are available, people certainly might buy the more expensive one.

Edit: Some of the text in my post randomly appears very small. I’m working on it…

246

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–Rettoper

This, of course, is a lie. I never said “republicanism was a ‘new’ political construct.” There have been vastly different systems called “republics” including the one put forth by the U.S. founders in 1776.

Or as I said:

“The republics of ancient Greece and Rome weren’t anything like modern republics…”–angurse

I haven’t once called you a liar for that. Anarcho-capitalism doesn’t equal anarchism. If Grayson, or anyone else, says differently then they are fools not to be taken seriously.-- angurse

it is futile arguing with someone who continually defends his position with ad ignorantiam fallacies, calls those who cite facts as liars and fools, and who has mulitple definitions for a single word (republicanism)

247

The statist economy distorts the market?! Did you mean the statist government? This is the result of trying to write a lot of text without thinking very hard about it. Slow down. Proofread. Check your logic. Your posts are extremely high on volume, but things like this make them very hard to go through.

248

An ancap society can divert all resources toward defense if its members want to. If people are willing to pay for an extremely high level of security, then PDAs will provide an extremely high level of security. Service providers always try to provide the products that their customers want.-- lennow

the efficiency of an anarchic PDA(s) would be negated by the real advantage of a centralized statist military force.

the assumption that a PDA would be effective is based on numerous hunches.

(1) that the anarchic society would be large enough at its inception to immediately deter or repel statist attacks

(2) that the competive anarchic PDAs would work together to repel a statist atttack. for example, would the shareholders and customers of a PDA that wasnt directly threatened risk personnel and assets to come to the aid of a competitor’s customers ?

(3) that an effective co-op of PDAs would morph into an absolutist force that overran anarchic society. For example, the more centralized the anarchic defense industry, the more likely it will become a monopoly and therefore a greater danger to the anarchic society. In contrast, the less centralized the anarchic PDA industry, the less likely it would seek absolutist powers, however it would be less effective against statist provocations.

(4) since nuclear weaponry is the cheapest and most effective deterrent to predation. what kind of lunacy would suggest that anarchism is more stable and secure when it is likely that myriad separate PDA’s in an anarchic society would all be nuclearized ??!!

(5) how would anarchic society develop the technology to compete against statist regimes if the anarchic society routinely trampled on intellectual rights and copyright protections ?? for example, anarchic society would have no protections against the theft of intellectual property.

249

The statist economy distorts the market?! Did you mean the statist government? This is the result of trying to write a lot of text without thinking very hard about it. Slow down. Proofread. Check your logic. Your posts are extremely high on volume, but things like this make them very hard to go through-- lennow

despite the obvious fact that the statist economy would not be as efficient as the anarchic economy – the statist government could still “flood the market” in military expenditures and overcome any per capita disadvantages with greater real output.

for example, history is chock full of large inefficient statist regimes sacking prosperous, free, and efficient nation-states simply because the statist society was larger and more warlike .

it is unlikely that a large anarchic society will emerge – more likely small anarchic societies will attempt to cede from large statist regimes. Unfortunately, these breakoff regions rarely survive long after establishing independence. moreover, if they do survive they are generally vassals of a larger statist regime that is the ultimate arbiter on whether these states survive or no.

250

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)?

It was neither read by me or brought to my attention by someone, unlike your post, which was read by me.

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

Yes, but without that wonderful Enlightenment twist of lemon that has brought so much “joy” to this world.

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

Granted, human action is not guided by economics alone. But history is no science, nor does it have rules; guidelines and guidance is an entirely personal experience, do with it what you will. To analyze history in it’s historical context and try to see the causes and effects of that era within that context is one thing, to try to apply it to today is folly…if you could do such a thing, history would be a science. Now, if you think there is a science behind republican or democratic government in and of themselves without any historical context, please explain.

do you advocate a return to the absolutism of monarchism ?

A) Most importantly, I do not see how this statement addresses the pros or cons of the French Revolution or the Monarchism of the UK of that period.

B) I would choose the Sun King, a material man, seven days a week and twice on Sunday to the Zeitgeist of the “rational” French Revolution and I would choose early 19th century comparatively more monarchical England to the UK today. “Absolutism” is a hollow propaganda phrase, post revolutionary governments now have absolutely more power to advocate governments will than the absolutist King of France ever did. Post revolutionary governments have also executed and imprisoned their own people and have caused a countless more internal bloody revolutions to a greater degree than pre-revolutionary governments.

Furthermore, post Revolutionary governments have come up with a way to create far more arbitrary and unnecessary divisions, schisms, broad categorizations, dragons and hobgoblins to slay, fight, and worry about than any monarchist. They also promise more money, unicorns, flowers, rainbows, and kittens if you only take up your cross for their cause.

C) I do not advocate a return to monarchism, I am nihilistic when it comes to government or 99.99% of all action that happens on this planet, so little of it effects me in any significant way other than for light passive amusement and ponderings. Though it is a little irksome when people speak of democracy as if it has any decent qualities.

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

Exegesis of your thought. A question is a question, not a point or argument. Did Socrates have a point when he asked so many questions?

251

The anarchist force could be centralized. A PDA could use a military hierarchy very similar to the U. S. military, if it wanted to. They could even name their command center “The Octagon”. Look around you. Most modern corporations have central command structures. Why would anarcho-capitalism be any different?

You could be more neutral and call them assumptions. Which would be more accurate, as well. “Hunch” is the beginning of a non-logical attack. “Assumption” would imply that you were going to make a careful, logical argument. I wish you’d send more signals like the latter.

Right now, we are discussing whether anarcho-capitalism is a good idea. After that, we can discuss how to bring it about. Your point belongs in the latter discussion, not the former. Maybe an anarcho-capitalist society would form gradually. You assume a sudden “inception” must accompany anarcho-capitalism. That is a terribly unsound assumption.

Thought Experiment: There are three PDAs: Acorp, Bcorp, and Ccorp. They are all the same size. Suddenly, a statist threat looms. The threat is too large for any one corp, but smaller than any two. Acorp and Bcorp sign a contract similar to a mutual defense pact. Ccorp customers realize they aren’t adequately protected, and switch to Acorp and Bcorp. Acorp and Bcorp gain customers and, thus, profits, while Ccorp dwindles. The End

Um, no, I don’t assume that. I think you do.

I don’t assume that it is. You do. The market would make the PDAs choose the most efficient deterrent, whatever it is.

  • There are about a billion articles on this site explaining how intellectual property actually stifles innovation. Please go read one.
  • Um, the PDAs themselves? Gee, maybe being technologically advanced attracts customers?
  • Maybe people who like weaponry? It’s called crowd sourcing, and it’s extremely visible in the computer industry, where you see people writing programs and distributing them freely online. With the source code. Where I can freely modify the thing any way I want. No monopoly incentive there…
  • “Anarchic society” doesn’t trample on anything. Individuals do. Drop the collectives.
  • Just delete the phrase for example. Your whole post reads better without it.
252

My point was that states can engage in theft much more easily than PDAs, because PDAs have to bear their own costs of burglary. States socialize the costs, and can therefore steal and waste money without consequence. Every society operates off personal profit, monetary or psychological. States are made up of men who act like other groups of men.

However, in war, how much you spend is determined by how much the other guy is spending. If a state spends literally all its money on guns, the ancap society will have to do the same. When they’re really pressed, most people would rather continue to live in poverty than die…

Moreover, you are under the assumption that ancap societies would be attacked in the first place. But as an excellent trading parner, and at the risk of undermining the state’s image as a protectorate, this is exceedingly unlikely.

I mean there are so many governments in the world who have crappy nonexistant militaries who are not attacked in the status quo. Why is that? Why doesn’t some imaginary barbarian state take over the philipines? Or madagascar? War isn’t profitable, even if you loot everyone. You destroy the country’s infrastructure and lose all the advantages you had when you could trade with them voluntarily.

Lowest cost possible does not mean “cheap”. It means efficient. Ancap societies are able to turn on a dime because they do not over OR under invest.

Here ‘distort’ means to change the market in some way that is not reflected in consumer demand or real world scarcity. So, if a government ordered a 10x increase in in potatoe production, that would be a distortion because it is not backed up by consumer demand. But if people actaully really wanted potatoes 10x more, that would not be a distortion. Ancap societies can rearrange capital structures just as well as state societies, except they do not have to contend with the calculation and knowledge problems, of which you have yet to address.

So, if an ancap society needed a behemoth PDA, there are accountability issues. People don’t sign unenforceable contracts though… it is likely that the entrepreneur bidding for the defense contracts would put in all sorts of checks against abuse of this power.

You mean free riding? Its taken care of by organizing through insurance. If everyone thought they had to buy their own personal SAM battery, there would be free rider problems. But if everyone simply took out insurance, the few insurers would cooperate and make the necessary expenditures to protect their liabilities in the property/lives of their clients.

State elites are interested in protecting their own positions of power, but not the property or lives of the common man. As I said before, they nominally accept responsibility as guardians, but do not accept liability. In this way, there is no profit-seeking motivation for state authorities to protect their citizens.

Actually, privateers rocked the socks off all statist navies for 700 years.

So you have to imagine that an anarcho capitalist society, materially wealthier and with better enforcement of libertarian laws, which prohibit infanticide, would somehow still commit infanticide, and that a foreign state would somehow take an interest and go to war to stop the baby killing?

Let me make your point for you more clearly; You are saying that PDAs are motivated only by profit, whereas state forces can be motivated by patriotism or emotion etc, and therefore will make better soldiers b.c. you can sacrifice them etc. Well PDAs are not only motivated by profit; as I said before, the same tactics states use to motivate their troops are also available to PDAs, who I must say, would certainly have the upper hand on propoganda!

“Those statist pigs want to enslave you and take half your income! They think you have no rights! They’ll kidnap your children and send them to be brainwashed in their daycare prisons! They’ll subject you to monopolist cartels who’s food will make you fat, and drugs will poison you!” Yes i think we have the upper hand on propoganda.

It is true that states come into existence and continue by virtue of propoganda, but none of the slogans I mentioned above are really at odds with freedom. In order to establish a state, you would have to somehow turn people against the ancap society which has been so good to them… its possible but i think very difficult.

Dang… I always use the middle mouse button on links. Opens up a new tab for sure.

Read the article. They completely dominated.

Anarchism is not at odds with collectivism though; it is at odds with compulsory collectivism. But even collectivists, if they better understood economics, would realize that states are harmful to their long term prosperity etc.

Well, we’d really prefer it if the whole world were minarchist. But we attack minarchists on the grounds that their vision of the state is unstable. State → Judge in its own case → Rules in its own favor → bam → state expansion, which is bad.

Well, my observation was that wars are much much more common among economically destitute countries than rich ones. Particularly rare is a case where two rich countries, who are trading partners, go to war. PARTICULARLY with the goal of conquering one another.

In this way, ancap societies have a much easier time existing peacefully with other states because the benefits of trade are so high. I mean if a society were just sitting on natural resources because its economically backwards, it might make sense to go attack them. But if an ancap society is utilizing all resources maximally and trading with the world, you’re going to lose resources if you attack them, destroy their factories, and replace them with government planning.

Moreover, if ancapland has many trade partners, which of them is going to risk pissing off the others by attacking them? Violence is just totally outdated. Its never useful against really mature civilizations.

Actually gerard casey has a youtube where he talks about christianity not only being consistent with anarchism, but requiring it. To be an ancap, thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, etc etc. While many people may currently construe their religions to require a state, it should be obvious these religions are also compatible with anarchism, and it is simply a matter of cultural change.

There have been large cultural changes btw… I mean the change from the status quo to anarchist friendly religion would be much smaller than going back to victorianism :stuck_out_tongue:

There are no boundaries to ancapland. Again, people take out insurance and the few insurance companies work it out. It is conceivable that people in statist societies might even take out insurance through ancap PDAs if their own state will not take the necessary action.

Its pretty cool to imagine a world where private companies go arond to all societies offering insurance policies to people for their property/lives, instantly eradicating all war. As the second a force arises that would threaten the liabilities of the insurance companies, they all squish it at minimal cost to the consumer.

Division of labor is made of win.

Really?

Actually the seperation of powers failed in about 10 seconds. The constitution doesn’t even say what happens if one branch disagrees with another… its kind of an anarchy between leaders. But whats happened is that they have consolidated power and basically agreed to scratch eachother’s backs. Corporatism etc…

All states need citizens to think the government is doing its job. America needs its people to think its a well behaved democracy… but no. If you count off every amendment on the bill of rights most americans have lost a significant portion of those rights.

I know what the constitution says I can do. But it would be a PEACEFUL action for a bunch of secessionists to simply stop paying taxes and move to the middle of nowhere in wyoming. In order to stop them, you would have to be prepared to kill them. You would have to be prepared to kill innocent, peaceful people, to preserve the union.

Well now you didn’t answer my objection, which is that since taxation is theft how can the government claim to be preventing theft?

Private property does not have rights over human life; you cannot build a giant wall around my house and watch me starve, or lock your baby in the basement and watch it starve. You might be able to get away with those things if you are sneaky, like you can in statist societies, but they are definite forestalling of homesteading and violations of easement rights. There have been many threads on these topics, and I would suggest you look them up or else simply wait till you’re done with this thread, and start a new one.

Like the internet? There’s a demand for free speech. It will be provided by profit seeking firms. Competition has already lowered the price of free-speech areas to zero.

Moreover, the homesteading provision allows for collective ownership of things. It may not be optimal to organize society this way, and people may choose to rearrange their title claims in a more efficient way, but the point is that you can do basically anything so long as it is peaceful and not a violation of anyone else’s homesteading rights. So you can go out into the forest and yell curse words. Its fine. You just can’t break down my door and start lecturing me about scientology.

Here, I actually depart from other ancaps. I think that regardless of whether ideas can be owned, any reasonable seller of ideas would include a contract saying that you’re not allowed to copy or distribute these ideas etc etc… As far as enforcement, I think it would be very very difficult in some cases (music) while it is much easier in others (proprietary engineering software).

All the music downloaded makes up 40x the world’s GDP. I’m pretty sure we’ve failed at this as bad as humanly possible :stuck_out_tongue:

253

ancient rome, ancient greece, the USA, UK, Sweden, Germany,et al are examples of the “failure” of representative government as a system

while andorra, bhutan, brunei, oman, et al are examples of the “success” of monarchism as a system of governance.

Actually, I never said such a thing. Try to keep everything on context.

Amusingly, your answer to why no ancap societies exist is the definition of Ad ignorantiam ( argument from ignorance that states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true.)

No. That wasn’t my answer to why no ancap societies exist.

amusingly, my “assertion” that the USA exists is a fallacy by your definition. also, my “assertion” that anarcho-capitalism has never existed is a fallacy by your definition.

I’ve explained this clearly to you, what you have written above is complete garbage, address my actual argument.

in summary, please explain to me how stating these facts can be considered a “fallacy” ??

I have done this multiple times now:

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

if your statement was anything other than opinion then perhaps, however both I for one, grayson, et al, disagree (please refrain from calling us “liars” and “fool”) . More importantly, anarcho-capitalism has never existed. again you are fast and loose with the “facts”.

Get a history book, I named several anarchist societies pages ago, others have as well. I never once said anarcho-capitalist societies, as you’d be a fool to conflate the two, just as you’d be a fool to conflate classical republics with modern ones.

Ad ignorantiam again if you are using this “argument” to defend the efficacy of anarcho-capitalism, pink unicorns, or any other entity that hasnt existed.

Yet, I haven’t used this argument to defend anarcho-capitalism, I’ve used philosophical, economic, and ethical arguments to defend anarcho-capitalism itself. Pointing out that statement of a fact isn’t a valid argument, doesn’t in turn equate a defense.

indeed, the globe is anarchic. however you are misled into believing that within this anarchic framework any anarcho-capitalist society is functioning absent dominance from a statist master or landlord.

I’ve made no such statements.

In summary, your flawed argument defending anarchism since it exists within the current geopolitic is more a condemnation of its efficacy and benefits than a example of support for it. Indeed, the geopolitik is anything but prosperous, peaceful, and stable. if this is your example of anarchism then your flawed argument of anarcho-capitalism’s efficacy is on shaky ground

Just as your previous summary didn’t include a single refutation of my arguments, neither does this. Just more hogwash.

there you go again fast and loose with the facts. the defintion you provided says nothing about a corporation or a state run by corporations. it is merely an example of pluralism – for example, “large interest groups” are not exclusively corporations.

amusingly, your own citations debunk you.

How is using a definition being “fast and loose with the facts?” I never explicitly mentioned corporations or a state run by corporations. I said “corporatism” to which my citation backs up perfectly, your false inference doesn’t debunk a thing.

It will be amusing to read how you rationalize this contradiction with some semantic backpeddling. In the meantime, I will deconstruct the balance of your fallacious commentary later in the week.

Acknowledging something as the law of the land and saying it follows it are two different things. Have you not heard of “paying lip service?” There are several authors on this site who can tell you how they don’t actually follow the Constitution, Woods, DiLorenzo, Guitman, Paul.

it is futile arguing with someone who continually defends his position with ad ignorantiam fallacies, calls those who cite facts as liars and fools, and who has mulitple definitions for a single word (republicanism)

Are you going to apologize for lying? (There are multiple definitions for Republicanism, monarchy even fits in some definitions, I can’t read your mind and use your pet definition)

254

The anarchist force could be centralized. A PDA could use a military hierarchy very similar to the U. S. military, if it wanted to. They could even name their command center “The Octagon”. Look around you. Most modern corporations have central command structures. Why would anarcho-capitalism be any different?-- lennow

if centralized, it would represent a danger to anarchic society if it reached “wal mart” status. moreover, 99.9% of corporations fail. meaning that the anarchic society is putting its existance in an entity that will ultimately fail.

“Hunch” is the beginning of a non-logical attack.–lennow

Defending hunches is more of a “non-logical attack”

Right now, we are discussing whether anarcho-capitalism is a good idea. After that, we can discuss how to bring it about. Your point belongs in the latter discussion, not the former. Maybe an anarcho-capitalist society would form gradually. You assume a sudden “inception” must accompany anarcho-capitalism. That is a terribly unsound assumption.–lennow

again, you are challenging my “hunchism” with a far more tenuous “hunchism” considering the system you are defending has never existed in history. Moreover, if a system is vulnerable to predation, hence probably a reason why it hasnt existed, then it is a “bad idea” to consider it. Indeed, defense is the most critical component of a system’s efficacy.

There are three PDAs: Acorp, Bcorp, and Ccorp. They are all the same size. Suddenly, a statist threat looms. The threat is too large for any one corp, but smaller than any two. Acorp and Bcorp sign a contract similar to a mutual defense pact. Ccorp customers realize they aren’t adequately protected, and switch to Acorp and Bcorp. Acorp and Bcorp gain customers and, thus, profits, while Ccorp dwindles. The End-- lennow

hunchism run amok.

I could counter your hunch with one of my own: three PDA’s sign mutual defense pact and take power from the citizenry of anarchic society A,B,and C. Then sign a mutual defense pact with statist regime.

Moreover, it is unlikely that an anarchic society of any size would have the ability to defend itself from huge statist regimes that now populated the globe irrespective of how many PDA’s merge. Indeed the entire defense industry of a typically small nascent anarchic society could merge and still represent only a tiny fraction of a statist’s military power

you assume too much when you assume a huge anarchic society will emerge “overnight”.

Um, no, I don’t assume that. I think you do.-- lennow

then you dont subscribe to the adage “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”

there is nothing in capitalism that predicts that a corporation (PDA) acts in the best interest of society. Indeed, corporations act in their own best interest at the expense of competition and society’s best interest. a corporation will actively seek out an “unholy” union with central government at the expense of the free market or potential customers in order to increase market share and secure tax payer supported subsidies and regulatory favors that are anathema to free market.

you put too much faith in human beings — in contrast to our founding fathers who placed checks and balances, and decentralized power to undermine human frailities that you think will mysteriously disappear due to market forces.

I don’t assume that it is. You do. The market would make the PDAs choose the most efficient deterrent, whatever it is.-- lennow

nuclear weaponry is cheap and it is an effective deterrent, anarchic societies and their PDAs will possess them. The that nuclear weaponry or other forms of WMD will disappear and not be used in an anarchic geopolitic is “hope and change” run amok. Moreover, this proliferation is likely to be more rampant than that currently since there would be no centralized authority to check WMD research and production.

Indeed, any citizen in an anarchic society would be free to develop his own WMD weaponry in the privacy of his own with impunity.

anarchic society would be a terrorist’s (or any other psychopath) playground. This fact alone makes anarchism untenable.

Indeed von Mises asserted the same thing:

in order to preserve peace, it is, as human beings are, indispensable to be ready to repel by violence any aggression, be it on the part of domestic gangsters or on the part of external foes. Thus, peaceful human cooperation, the prerequisite of prosperity and civilization, cannot exist without a social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, i.e., without a government.–Von Mises, On Some Popular Errors, Concerning the Scope and Method of Economics

There are about a billion articles on this site explaining how intellectual property actually stifles innovation. Please go read one–lennow

I will, however the few I have read are as equally lacking as those touting private law and private defense which repeatedly discount external threats or challenges. virtually all of the arguments defending anarchic regimes deal with internal issues or challenges and assume that the entire geopolitic is anarchic or that the neighboring statist regime with over 1 billion citizens and 10,000 nuclear bombs doesnt exist.

Um, the PDAs themselves? Gee, maybe being technologically advanced attracts customers?–lennow

you wont be technologically advanced if you chase away the edisons, bells, ottos, watsons, shockleys, gates, et al by stealing their intellectual property. Indeed, this would be a possible motivation for a large statist regime (the future USA f) to invade and remove the offending anarchic society that engages in piracy thereby cutting statist corporation profits.

In summary, piracy is a provocation that can and has contibuted to war.

“Anarchic society” doesn’t trample on anything. Individuals do. Drop the collectives.-- lennow

are you discounting the possibilty that a PDA would trample on the rights of non-customers in an anarchic society?

an abusive or poorly run PDA is equally capable of trampling individual rights as any statist entity. there is no check against extortion and intimidation would run amok in an anarchic society without any checks, save it would be a more “efficient” form of coercion. Indeed, if market forces would make anarchic society more efficient that efficiency would translate into more efficient methods of depriving its citizens of individual rights and privledges.

in an anarchic society it would be “legal” to starve children to death. In addition, slavery would be legal within an anarchic society. These abominations alone would invite predation of anarchic societies from christian and islamic “holy wars”

Just delete the phrase for example. Your whole post reads better without it-- lennow

thanks for the constructive criticism. I’ll comply since this is the 2nd time I have been called on its use.

In summary, IMHO it is currently irresponsible to advocate an unproven system (anarcho-capitalism) to replace a system that has been the framework for the remarkable increase in individual rights, prosperity, peace,and stability (liberal democracy)

liberal democracy in its various forms including constitutional federal republicanism has been the framework in which capitalism has been able to flourish and bestow its incredible benefits on its citizens at the same time this system has shown the ability to perpetuate itself by challenging and defeating collectivist evils in the form of monarchism, chattel slavery, fascism, communism, religious extremism, et al.

until the anarchist is willing to spill blood (his own and the statist’s) – then society is not going to trade classical liberalism’s obvious efficacy at promoting individual rights, peace, prosperity, and stability for the unproven utopian model of anarcho-capitalism.

255

seiben,

your arguments are compelling and sound, however i havent challenged the theoretical benefits of anarcho-capitalism. I have challenged its sustainability or viability in a geopolitic dominated by statist actors who are motivated by the preservation of power at the expense of the markets and the welfare of the citizens under their charge.

leaders within statist regimes act in their own self-interest and those of their cronies in the private and public sector. they do not act in the best interest of the vast majority citizens or the markets.

as a result, an emerging anarchic society will immediately be subject to predation at the hands of these jealous (well armed) statist regimes.

as I have stated previously, an anarchic society would have to metastasize quickly to a size that would deter or repel predation at the hands of a statist regime or it would have to form within a geopolitic domiated by liberal democracies (who are peaceful to likeminded societies) in order to be sustainable.

moreover, i think the anarchist puts too much faith in market forces for deterring war. The most violent and destructive wars in history have been motivated as much by concepts such as liberty, religion, egalitarianism, et al as economic considerations.

I envision myriad distinct, disparate, and isolated enclaves within an anarchic society based on cultural, religion, lifestyle, race, wealth, et al that would breed distrust, competition, and animosity in the anarchic society.

would the PDA defending an islamic enclave defend the customers in an adjacent infidel PDA that was under attack?

moreover, how many examples can you give of competitors within the free market assisting each other ? perhaps I am wrong, but I dont believe there has ever been an example of competing private enterprises within an industry organizing into an effective,efficient, or longstanding cartel in the history of capitalism.

if so, then it is a stretch to think that disparate competing PDA’s from diverse and distinct social enclaves would form an effective and lasting cartel to repel statist threats.

In contrast, within a liberal democracy the citizenry have a common heritage and value system that engenders cooperation and a sense of “oneness” that bonds societies’ members. when one citizen is attacked within a liberal democracy, all citizens are attacked. This is a compelling deterrent and insurance against predation when compared with an anarchic society that is fragmented, has no common bonds save economic, and has no common value system or heritage.

lastly, anarchism is not going to materialize simply because it is a good idea. islamists, marxists, democrats, et al have demonstrated that they willing to “put skin into the game”.

what is it about anarcho-capitalism that prevents its practioners from “putting skin into the game” or risking life and property to see it realized?

if you claim that anarchists will fight vigorously against statist threats once it is formed, what prevents it from fighting against statist forces to be formed?

moreover, why should skeptics risk all in scraping the existing system, that while imperfect, has still provided an incredible bounty of peace, freedom, stability, and prosperity for an unproven system that anarchists are not willing to kill or die to promote and defend?

like all previous systems, some blood will have to be spilled on both sides if anarcho-capitalism is to be realized. When the anarchist resolves to take this last step, then I might be more amenable to arguments for its efficacy, otherwise it will continue to be nothing more than another theoretical construct that nobody is willing to “put skin in the game” to see realized.

Until then, I will put my faith and effort into improving the system that we now have, that thousands of better men then myself have seen fit to die to defend, and that has provided the framework in which capitalism as provided the unparalleled improvements that we have seen in prosperity and individual rights since 1776,

256

angurse,

your contradications and semantic backpeddling are too numerous to cite in one post, so I will deconstruct them in detail in no particular order.

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…–angurse

you are trying to defend monarchism relative to representative governance on historical grounds, yet history has shown without question that representative government has overrun monarchism since 1776, oman, andorra, bhutan, burnei, notwithstanding.

it is painfully obvious that you have supported your flawed argument by selective examination of only chosen segments of history, not the entire record of history. Using this “logic” I could cite the period from 1917-1980 to “prove” the efficacy of communism relative to most other systems.

moreover, it is amusing that you continue to adopt the fallacy of ad ignoratium, namely that anarcho-capitalism has never been disproven (indeed it has never existed) so it must be true ?!

note that I have not made an equivalent argument, I have merely stated that representative government exists, while anarcho-capitalism hasn’t. This statement does not imply that anarcho-capitalism cant exist. it simply states that history to date has shown that representative government (over 50 examples today) is more prevalent than anachro-capitalism (zero examples today).

Are you going to apologize for lying? (There are multiple definitions for Republicanism, monarchy even fits in some definitions, I can’t read your mind and use your pet definition)–angurse

I was not aware that republicanism had multiple meanings, amuse me by providing your sources and the differing meanings.

monarchy certainly has a robust theoretical and economic defense against democracy. (See: transaction cost, time-horizons, voter irrationality, etc…–angurse

Simple question.

are you seriously claiming that monarchism is a more economically “robust” system than that practiced in the USA ?

257

Get a history book, I named several anarchist societies pages ago, others have as well. I never once said anarcho-capitalist societies, as you’d be a fool to conflate the two–angurse

Then by your defintion grayson is a “fool” since he doesn’t subscribe to your notion that anarchist societies have existed.

Moreover, havent you seen the contradiction of your argument?

namely, if you are trying to defend the efficacy of ancap society, why cite examples of supposed non-ancap anarchist societies if “you’d be a fool to conflate the two”

why did you even bring up examples of non-capitalist anarchist societies in a discussion on the efficacy of anarcho-capitalism if the two are not to be “conflated” , other than as another of your diversionary red herring or straw man arguments?

moreover, havent you just called yourself a “fool” for citing non-capitalist anarchic societies in defending anarcho-capitalism when only “a fool would conflate the two” ?

258

you are trying to defend monarchism relative to representative governance on historical grounds, yet history has shown without question that representative government has overrun monarchism since 1776, oman, andorra, bhutan, burnei, notwithstanding.

Thats just it. If you are going to take a purely historical view, then representative government has only overrun monarchism since 1776, a tiny fraction of history, a blip on the radar, and it still hasn’t won out overall (see, Andorra, Saudi Arabia, Liechtenstein, etc…).

it is painfully obvious that you have supported your flawed argument by selective examination of only chosen segments of history, not the entire record of history. Using this “logic” I could cite the period from 1917-1980 to “prove” the efficacy of communism relative to most other systems.

Exactly! You would be the communist in the exchange.

moreover, it is amusing that you continue to adopt the fallacy of ad ignoratium, namely that anarcho-capitalism has never been disproven (indeed it has never existed) so it must be true ?!

I never said it must be true. I said it was preferable and that its defendable on economic, ethical, and philosophical grounds. Hence, the 1776 analogy. You, however, adopted the fallacy to disprove the possibility of anarcho-capitalism. I’ll select a few of quotes “why hasnt anarchism’s social and economic advantages translated into an actual viable and sustainable society ?” “moreover, I have repeatedly claimed that statism is more viable than anarchism since it actually EXISTS versus a anarcho-capitalism which has NEVER EXISTED.” All of these are the argument from ignorance. This has been pointed out to you at least a dozen times now.

note that I have not made an equivalent argument, I have merely stated that representative government exists, while anarcho-capitalism hasn’t. This statement does not imply that anarcho-capitalism cant exist.

See above.

it simply states that history to date has shown that representative government (over 50 examples today) is more prevalent than anachro-capitalism (zero examples today).

And as we know from 1776, such a statement is utterly meaningless.

I was not aware that republicanism had multiple meanings, amuse me by providing your sources and the differing meanings.

“The Invention of the Modern Republic” or Republics: Ancient and Modern (I’m still on volume 1) However, you don’t need to even dig that deep to know the difference between Classical “Republics,” and the Republic of the Renaissance and Revolutions.

259

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

I am amused that the ontological argument gets everywhere.

FALLACY

260

Then by your defintion grayson is a “fool” since he doesn’t subscribe to your notion that anarchist societies have existed.

Fine. I haven’t read him say that and he does know the distinction between, but if it is, it is.

namely, if you are trying to defend the efficacy of ancap society, why cite examples of supposed non-ancap anarchist societies if “you’d be a fool to conflate the two”

I haven’t defended the efficacy of an anarchist society (Capitalist or not) based on history. In fact, I dispelled the notion of proving the efficacy of anarchism in my very first post “Its quite impossible to prove the efficacy of anarchism as anarchism doesn’t have a goal.”

why did you even bring up examples of non-capitalist anarchist societies in a discussion on the efficacy of anarcho-capitalism if the two are not to be “conflated” , other than as another of your diversionary red herring or straw man arguments?

This was explained pages ago, why can you not read? You’ve said multiple times that no anarchist societies have existed, which is simply factually incorrect. Why would you not want your mistakes corrected? Also, see above.

moreover, havent you just called yourself a “fool” for citing non-capitalist anarchic societies in defending anarcho-capitalism when only “a fool would conflate the two” ?

See above.