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

Economics Political Theory
301

if greece, rome, and America are not republics — why do you suppose they are called “republics”

Who said they weren’t republics? I said they were vastly different systems.

it appears that either you or historians are playing fast and loose with sematics.

I pointed out books on the matter, feel free to actually read them, semantics is hiding behind the name republic and not looking at the substance.

perhaps, you need to practice some revisionist re-defining of accepted definitions for these states.

Nobody accepts the republic of the United States to be like that of Rome or the Greek city-states.

302

anarchism is a fringe ideology. the vast majority of citizens reject it. In contrast to democracy in 1776 which had enough adherents in the colonies to gain allies and defeat the British Empire and win independence. Moreover, unlike democracy’s favor in 1776 among leaders in foreign nations, business, arts, politics, military, et al — the overwhelming majority of elites in business, politics, arts, science, et al do not advocate anarchism.

So once there are “enough” were there? Couldn’t agree more.

In sum, you cant establish a system in the absence of support from the majority of the masses or the elites.

Haven’t once said otherwise.

this is amusing. since you have stated that monarchy was dominant prior to the establishment of democracy and today it is in decline and democracy is in ascendancy.

are you going to engage in another exercise in sematic backpeddling to assert that the decline of monarchism from global dominance to a few insignificant regimes and the rise of democracy from 1 nation in 1776 to over 75 today is an example of “stability” ?!!?

How is it amusing? We’ve covered this pages ago, I’m not sure how you can conjure up new ideas of back-peddling without completely ignoring/forgetting most of this conversation.

in summary, it appears that your illogical definition of “stability” is the likelihood of a system to fail.

It appears your definition of stability just means “popular right now,” nothing to do with the actual definition.

303

is e.r. olovetto a fool ?

Apparently.

what kind of anarchic society was it.

Capitalism simply didn’t exist so to call is so would be a mistake. Iceland did have capitalist features as well as tribal and communal features. To pigeonhole it as anarcho-X or anarcho-Y would be leaving something out.

304

we are not talking about an instant in time, in which there is obviously no equality.

however, we are talking about a transition from a balance of power, albeit unequal, to a greater imbalance away from equilibrium, not equality, that increases the chances or opportunities for gains by predation.

And power is always shifting, unless you have some pet definition of “power equilibrium” this theory is obviously false.

if not, read correalates of war (sic), by singer et al

I assume you mean read the site, I have, and?

305

Surely war is profitable for some or wars would never exist. But if you know anything about the broken window fallacy, one cannot create wealth by destroying wealth, even though one can be paid to do so. The war profiteer always gains from the losses of others, more so in a statist system where its costs are subsidized and passed on to the whole population. I didn’t say that war isn’t profitable ever, I said that there would be less of it in and against an an-cap society because no subsidies are made to war mongers, so if they decide to engage in war, they have to do so at the cost and risk of their own capital, and take full responsibility for losses.

Decentralization of power, opposite to what you may think, is actually more stable than a more central scheme. If there were only two nations in the world, only one of them needs to decide to expropriate it’s civilians money to go to war, and you’d have a world war. As the number of rational agents increases, there’s less deviation towards aggression (or non-aggression for that matter).

In regards to the PDA X/Y scenario, it couldn’t possibly be any worse than the military escallation of today, so I don’t know why do you fear such. I do fear states expropriating people’s moneys for such matter, because they have no market restrains to how much they can build up, but for a PDA to be doing so out of it’s own funds, 1- I couldn’t care less and 2- would probably be more responsible. Military weaponry is a scarce resource, and as such, would be better allocated in the market, not unlike shoes. That of course, unless you just want to have your little plan implemented at the cost of everyone’s else voluntary plans.

I don’t know if war would cease to exist in an-cap land; I’m just pointing out the obvious by saying that when war mongers have to risk their own capital, as opposed to the expropriated money of millions others, for their window-breaking schemes, there will and has to be less of it. And if people recognize the state as coercive, then war gains would be reduced to looting and pillaging, not something that can be long term profitable at any rate. A statist looking to profit from war in an-cap land would either lose against one of the thousands of PDA’s and go bankrupt (very likely due to knowledge dissipation), or kill everyone in the world and go bankrupt anyways.

I would indeed like to call the state the cause of all wars; but I can’t think of a predicate that it has to be so. In any case, the state does certainly help, a lot, and I’ll call it the main factor in making wars, yeah.

Democracy as a solution for war? Democracy in itself can be considered a “war” over public opinion. Because in democracy, I can force you to do things, and you can force me to do things, through the ballot, I’d say it’s a poor way to stop people from making eachother to do things. World peace isn’t achievable by force, at any rate. It’s contradictory.

306

I think he means that whenever a statist regards another state as weaker than his, he will engage in war. Just needs to be perceived as weaker.

And the site is pretty cool but I didn’t get the point either. Just that there has been a lot of war in the world. Ok, I guess?

307

  1. Is what you favor what we have now, or are there some differences?

  2. Where have I defended or attacked anarchy or statism (as a whole)?

308

Who said they weren’t republics? I said they were vastly different systems.–angurse

Your statement is the classic example of semantic evasion.

for example, republicanism is a “system”

you contradict yourself by admitting rome, greece, and the USA are republics (“who said they weren’t republics”) and in the same sentence you make the absurd statement that they are different systems?!

only you can contradict yourself in just one line of text.

309

I think he means that whenever a statist regards another state as weaker than his, he will engage in war. Just needs to be perceived as weaker.yuberries

you think wrong yuberries.

the study DOES NOT imply that there will be war just because of a difference in capabilities and power.

the study theorizes that a statist regime or any other regime is more likely to engage in war the greater the shift or change in the balance of power.

note that this change creates uncertainty that leads to distrust.

the COW study confirms this. Indeed, it is one of the most consistent factors predicting the possibility of war.

I am glad to see that you liked the site. it is an excellent source of empirical raw data on armed conflict.

i have benefitted greatly from reading the material on mises.org and I am happy to return the favor to those on this site.

310

And power is always shifting, – angurse

and we have always had war within the anarchic geopolitic. so what is your point?

unless you have some pet definition of “power equilibrium” this theory is obviously false.-- angurse

a theory is not false just because you dont understand it.

the theory implies that the greater the shift in the balance of power between adversaries the more likely the chance of conflict.

I assume you mean read the site, I have, and?–angurse

if you “read the site” you obviously didnt understand what you read — or you have mistakenly equated “visiting” the site with “reading” it.

311

1) Is what you favor what we have now, or are there some differences?-- don

I still believe that we can work within the framework of our constitutional federal republic to significantly reduce the size and scope of government’s interference in the free market.

As I stated many times in previous posts and threads – I would favor the elimination of all federal government agencies, departments, and responsibilities to just law and defense.

that would represent a decline from 30% of government spending as a percentage of GDP down to less than 10% of federal government spending as a percentage of GDP.

within this framework, the states would essentially represent disparate anarchic enclaves and compete for “market share”.

if citizens didnt like the policies or taxes in one state they could move and take their skills and capital to another state.

the federal government would provide for the common defense in order to insure that the separate states would not degenerate into constant conflict that characterizes the broader global geopolitic and the early period in US history to 1865.

312

Surely war is profitable for some or wars would never exist.-- yuberries

I think you misunderstood my statement when I stated that “if war wasnt profitable, then why have we had so much of it”

my implication was that many leaders think that war can offset greater losses that would result in the absence of war.

but war is always the most destructive and least beneficial avenue of change. Nonetheless, due to the challenges associated with coopting certain leaders and groups it is used often as a “last resort”

as an example, the US destroyed native american civilizations because they determined that they could benefit from taking the indian’s land and generate more goods due to our superior economic system.

obviously the land that was taken from the indians was indeed made more economically productive after the Americans took it. However, the more economical scenario would have been a peaceful free market exchange similar to the purchase of Manhattan.

we would have gotten the land, the indians would have gotten paid, and no resources or lives would have been lost.

however, circumstances on both sides prevented that from happening so tragically war was the result needed to maximize the productive capacity of the land that the indians had occupied.

313

is e.r. olovetto a fool ? – REttoper

Apparently.-- angurse

This is disturbing.

While we disagree on a wide range of issues I do not consider olovetto a fool.

moreover, his knowledge of AE and his rebuts to my posts show that his understanding of the issues raised in this thread far exceed yours.

your statement is more an indictment on you, not him.

Iceland did have capitalist features as well as tribal and communal features. To pigeonhole it as anarcho-X or anarcho-Y would be leaving something out.–angurse

another example of sematic backpeddling and contradictions that dominate your posts.

for example, you are hedging and contradicting yourself by stating that “iceland did have capitalist features” and “capitalism simply didnt exist”

what is the difference between “capitalist features” and “capitalism” other than outright semantic juggling?

this argument parrots your amusing “republicanism” sematic two-step.

your statement is simply an intellectual sidestep that means nothing and contributes nothing to the discussion except a demonstration of your continued ad hoc meandering from one semantic evasion and logical fallacy to another.

314

Right, pointing out your hypocrisy and misuse of fallacies is “personal insults” and “emotional invective” whereas your long rants repeating pretty much the same tripe over and over are “serious arguments”. I see. And you’re not a troll. Right.-- jon

It is hypocritical to call my “long rants” as tripe and trollish when compared to your obvious ad hominems and invective deviod of any substantive fact, logic, and empiricism.

in sum, there comes a point when accusations without substance of trollish behavior become trollish itself.

315

It’d be hypocritical if I engaged in them too albeit I don’t. You seem to have a problem with the definition of words. Need I bring up your entire posting history replete with accusations of others relying on so-called “hunchism” (i.e. a word thrown to dislodge any claim that didn’t bode well for your own arguments)?

316

Rhett: “in sum, you will still have war, and more of it. the only difference is that PDAs will be the actors, not central governments.”

Which rigorous analyses of anarcho-Capitialism have you read that you have come to reject? Anything by Rothbard? Hoppe? Maybe your next thread should be a critique of For a New Liberty, perhaps? By the way, what did you think of that book? Did you find Rothbard’s ideas to be flawed? (I am not asking about Austrian Economics, or what AE you have studied).

I only ask because you write page after page of replies and critiques on this subject. You must consider yourself to be quite knowledgeable because you don’t ask questions. So, please tell me what books you have read on the subject you critique. A short list would be fine.

317

for example, republicanism is a “system”

you contradict yourself by admitting rome, greece, and the USA are republics (“who said they weren’t republics”) and in the same sentence you make the absurd statement that they are different systems?!

Wrong. Republicanism consists of multiple systems, just as anarchism, monarchy, etc… consist of multiple systems under the same label. Calling all republics the same system is as foolish as calling all form of anarchism the same. There is no contradiction

and we have always had war within the anarchic geopolitic. so what is your point?

No, there hasn’t been continuous war against all, like there would if the theory was correct.

the theory implies that the greater the shift in the balance of power between adversaries the more likely the chance of conflict.

I know what it implies, that doesn’t make it correct.

While we disagree on a wide range of issues I do not consider olovetto a fool.

moreover, his knowledge of AE and his rebuts to my posts show that his understanding of the issues raised in this thread far exceed yours.

So what? Even the greatest of men make foolish mistakes. All of my heroes have done so, its part of being human.

for example, you are hedging and contradicting yourself by stating that “iceland did have capitalist features” and “capitalism simply didnt exist”

This is pretty straight-forward: Private property is a feature of capitalism, Iceland had that. + Free market determination of prices is also a feature of capitalism, Iceland didn’t have that. -

318

Wrong. Republicanism consists of multiple systems, just as anarchism, monarchy, etc… consist of multiple systems under the same label. Calling all republics the same system is as foolish as calling all form of anarchism the same. There is no contradiction-- angurse

again you are engaged in a meaningless exercise in semantics, while failing to understand the substance of my argument, namely the fact that the founding fathers benefitted and gained by the experience of republicanism as practiced by the ancient romans and greek.

No, there hasn’t been continuous war against all, like there would if the theory was correct.–angurse

First you obviously dont understand the concept of a change in the balance of power increases uncertainty which increases the chance of conflict. or you are again engaged in another exercise in diversion deviod of fact, logic, and empiricism.

Moreover, if the anarchic geopolitic has not been at war over the last 4000 years, then please provide your source that rebuts my assertion. For example, provide the periods in history when mankind was not engaged in some form of conflict.

Moreover, provide the post in which I claimed “there has been continuous war against all”

in summary, please read my posts before responding and if you dont understand a post than ask for clarification before making misstatements deviod of fact, logic, and empiricism.

no semantic diversions please.

I know what it implies, that doesn’t make it correct.-- angurse

It is not my theory, it was developed based on years of research by the COW research group. SInce you disagree with the tenet that a change in the balance of power increases the likelihood of war between adversaries, please provide your source or educate us by providing your explanation of why the COW research team’s conclusions are incorrect.

no semantic diversions please.

So what? Even the greatest of men make foolish mistakes. All of my heroes have done so, its part of being human.–angurse

You did not accuse grayson and olovetto of making “foolish mistakes” you accused them of being fools. Again you are engaged in an exercise in semantic two-stepping

This is pretty straight-forward: Private property is a feature of capitalism, Iceland had that. + Free market determination of prices is also a feature of capitalism, Iceland didn’t have that. -angurse

Interesting, so by your definition iceland didnt have free market mechanisms to determine value. Then please provide your source or educate us on how the value of goods and services were determined in anarchic iceland.

no semantic diversions please.

319

I only ask because you write page after page of replies and critiques on this subject.-- chloe732

rather than questioning the manner of my responses and the supposed depth of my knowledge, if you dont agree with my arguments then challenge them directly.

You must consider yourself to be quite knowledgeable because you don’t ask questions.-- chloe732

I dont consider myself “to be quite knowledgeable” and I have asked questions and challenged anarchists to rebut my assertions. However, all I have been getting is ad hominems, exercises in semantics, and irrelevent pointed questions instead of direct and honest challenges to my arguments.

what books have you read?

and if you wish to challenge my knowledge of AE simply ask a question and I will try to answer it.

320

again you are engaged in a meaningless exercise in semantics, while failing to understand the substance of my argument, namely that the idea of republicanism or indirect rule in the form of a constitutional republic as opposed to mob rule or direct democracy which the founding fathers abhorred.

No, you’ve got it completely backwards, and are trying to shift from the earlier discussion. The point I was making was that the “republic” that the U.S. founders created was very different than the “republics” of Rome and the Greek city-states. So using them for evidence as its history is just grasping at semantics not substance. Again, this point isn’t even controversial, why are you having such a difficult time with it?

First you obviously dont understand the concept of a change in the balance of power increases uncertainty which increases the chance of conflict. or you are again engaged in another exercise in diversion deviod of fact, logic, and empiricism.

No, its understood. Its the application that is faulty, or at least, not being applied extensively.

It is not my theory, it was developed based on years of research by the COW research group. SInce you disagree with the tenet that a change in the balance of power increases the likelihood of war between adversaries, please provide your source or educate us by providing your explanation of why the COW research team’s conclusions are incorrect.

I’ve given a very obvious challenge to the original statement. There are a wide array of complex factors that lead to war, from the political, to religious and ideological, to the cultural and economical.

You did not accuse grayson and olovetto of making “foolish mistakes” you accused them of being fools. Again you are engaged in an exercise in semantic two-stepping

I said they’d be fools for equating anarchism with anarcho-capitalism not for making a mistake (like getting history wrong). However, if it wasn’t a mistake, then yes - fool, indeed - As I said, don’t take his analysis seriously. My claims aren’t limited to those two either.

Interesting, so by your definition iceland didnt have free market mechanisms to determine value. Then please provide your source or educate us on how the value of goods and services were determined in anarchic iceland.

Look up skuldaping