Rettoper, you clearly don’t understand the terminology here. Praxeology is nothing more than the science of human action. There’s no “praxeological concept” that disproves statism. You can, however, deduce that statism is ineffecient.
QFT.
What would it even mean to “disprove statism”?
Rettoper, you clearly don’t understand the terminology here. Praxeology is nothing more than the science of human action. There’s no “praxeological concept” that disproves statism. You can, however, deduce that statism is ineffecient.-- krazy kaju
your constructive criticism is noted and appreciated.
Indeed I agree that statism is inefficient based on both praxeological and empirical arguments. Moreover, it is obvious that there is no praxeological evidence to disprove statism since statism indeed exists!
however, you have still not answered the following question:
what praxeological precept(s) confirm anarchism over minarchism in providing for societal economic health AND societal security from external threats?
Sharif Sheikh Ahmed was appointed in 2009 and seen as Somalia’s best chance in two decades of war but he has failed to expand his authority which remains only a few blocks in the capital.
I lol’ed. Your other source is just links to some subscriber service and proves nothing.
@Rettoper, I’m not interested in answering your question “of what praxeological precept confirms anarchism relative to minarchism in providing for societal economic prosperity and societal security against external threats?” That is why I have not.–skyler collins
interesting,
perhaps because there is no praxeological a priori that confirms anarchism over minarchism?
and if so, then the argument for anarchism is on shaky ground considering that the only methodologies to consider in the absence of praxeology are metaphysical and/or empirical.
I lol’ed. Your other source is just links to some subscriber service and proves nothing.–olovetto
my use of private sources and your use of statist sources notwithstanding, you have still not answered my question:
what praxeological precept(s) confirm anarchism over minarchism in providing for societal economic health AND societal security from external threats?
Sorry for using “statist sources”, Mr. anti-anarchist. Would you say that Sechrest’s paper is a “statist source” as well? Is that why you have yet to read it and make any substantive response. By “substantive response” I mean cite a passage and give a valid logical proposition. Claiming to have read something and offering BS doesn’t cut it.
@Rettoper, not at all. My only interest to post in this thread was correcting the bit about what science is based on. Otherwise, I’m just observing. Carry on.
Sorry for using “statist sources”, Mr. anti-anarchist. Would you say that Sechrest’s paper is a “statist source” as well? Is that why you have yet to read it and make any substantive response. By “substantive response” I mean cite a passage and give a valid logical proposition. Claiming to have read something and offering BS doesn’t cut it.-- olovetto
I read sechrest and I couldnt find an irrefutable a priori that confirms anarchism over minarchism in providing societal prosperity and security from external threats.
Note that praxeological precepts are self-evident and irrefutable. by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure – sechrest has not produced one.
If I missed something please present it in your own words, for example if there is an a priori confirming anarchism over minarchism – then lets have it
Claiming that you are observing such a regularity only proves your sheer ignorance of history then. Anarchy is all around us. States are in a state of anarchy amongst themselves. Do you advocate one world government?
What makes the provision of security subsantively different than the provision of egg beaters or translator services? That’s right, nothing.–olovetto
absolutist, socialist, and representative governments exist within an anarchic global environment. however, there are exactly ZERO viable and influential anarcho-capitalist societies within this anarchic global framework, your “city on a hill” somalia notwithstanding.
Moreover, if you are claiming that “anarchy is all around us” – then you have disproved it since what is “all around us” is largely oppressive and statist. For example, there are precious few, if any, enclaves in which the free market florishes unencumbered by statist abuses.
There appears to be no praxeological precept that discounts the likelihood that an actor will use force to compel or coerce another actor to surrender what he values. for example, you are naive to discount the propensity of human actors to use coercion to achieve ends.
Indeed, empirical evidence shows that not only is this possible – it is likely. and those that discount this empirical truth are likely to fall into the ash heap of history irrespective of the economic utility of their system of choice.
In summary, it appears that some contributors on this site have misrepresented or misintrepreted praxeological tenets to assert that anarchism is confirmed relative to minarchism.
for example, for the XXth time – what is the praxeological a priori that confirms anarchism over minarchism in providing for societal economic prosperity and security from external threats?
While praxeological a priori confirm the failure of statist systems, none that I am aware of prove the efficacy of anarchism relative to minarchism.
Its quite impossible to prove the efficacy of anarchism as anarchism doesn’t have a goal.
For example, what praxeological precepts confirm anarchism’s efficacy at providing BOTH economic prosperity and societal security relative to minarchism?
There aren’t any. What praxological precepts confirm minarchism’s efficacy at providing both economic prosperity and soceital security relative to the functional state, the welfare state, etc…
many contributors to this forum are adamant that anarchism is preferrable to minarchism, yet there appears to be no praxeological or empirical evidence to support this assertion.
Praxeology absolutely does support polycentricism and empiricism is largely a waste (read up on AE), however ancaps are just as vulnerable as minarchists, constitutionalists and other “idealists” in that regard.
For example, a greatly attenuated central government devoted primarily to national defense would provide all of the economic freedoms offered by anarchism without the vulnerability to external threats from statist regimes.
Thats simply impossible. A central government requires capital, and would to some extent crowd out the marketplace. So, no, not all of the economic freedoms. Further, you’ve already seem to have admitted that minarchism will fail “While praxeological a priori confirm the failure of statist systems” why would one push for a guaranteed failure?
Moreover, there appears to be strong empirical evidence discounting anarchism relative to minarchism. For example, no anarcho-capitalist societies have ever existed while minarchism (albeit imperfect and evolving) is in ascendancy.
No capitalist societies have existed, nor minarchist.
Its quite impossible to prove the efficacy of anarchism as anarchism doesn’t have a goal.-- angurse
if anarchism doesnt have a goal, then why adopt it, what is the purpose for advocating its adoption?
There aren’t any. What praxological precepts confirm minarchism’s efficacy at providing both economic prosperity and soceital security relative to the functional state, the welfare state, etc…–angurse
I agree with you that there are no praxeological precepts to confirm anarchism – you need to enlighten the others, olovetto, seiben, et al.
moreover, I agree that no praxeological precepts confirm minarchism either.
Thats simply impossible. A central government requires capital, and would to some extent crowd out the marketplace. So, no, not all of the economic freedoms. Further, you’ve already seem to have admitted that minarchism will fail “While praxeological a priori confirm the failure of statist systems” why would one push for a guaranteed failure?-- angurse
I agree.
I am here seeking knowledge or irrefutable praxeological truths when possible and empirical knowledge in the absence of praxeological truths when necessary. However, it appears that certain ideologues are of the opinion unsupported by either praxeology or empiricism that anarchism is the “confirmed” system for providing prosperity and security against external (and internal) threats.
with respect to the “impending failure” of our present Constitutional Federal Republic I will paraphrase two oft used quotes:
“reports of American capitalist and limited government demise are greatly exaggerated”
and this one taken liberally from churchill:
“representative government is the worse form of government except for all others”
Note that I did state that minarchism is imperfect and evolving, and it would be rash to discount it in the absence of any substantive replacement.
Moreover a recent dynamic has appeared on the geopolitik, namely the axiom that asserts that higher order democracies are virtually immune from engaging in conflict with one another.
if anarchism doesnt have a goal, then why adopt it, what is the purpose for advocating its adoption?
It best suits my goals.
I am here seeking knowledge or irrefutable praxeological truths when possible and empirical knowledge in the absence of praxeological truths when necessary. However, it appears that certain ideologues are of the opinion unsupported by either praxeology or empiricism that anarchism is the “confirmed” system for providing prosperity and security against external (and internal) threats.
Of course it isn’t confirmed, nothing is confirmed. Minarchism has never existed, functional states have never lasted, welfare states are fairly new and already crippling, socialist ones are… however anyone pushing for any system is is equally as guilty as anarchists in that regard. The only difference is that ancaps (generally) have a much better understanding of economics than their ideological rivals, and it generally makes their credence more justified.
with respect to the “impending failure” of our present Constitutional Federal Republic I will paraphrase two oft used quotes
What do those quotes prove? That people say stupid things? Here are some quotes as well:
“Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind.”
“Capitalism is war; socialism is peace.”
Has your mind been changed about socialism now?
Note that I did state that minarchism is imperfect and evolving, and it would be rash to discount it in the absence of any substantive replacement.
Replacement? You cannot replace something that has never existed.
It best suits my goals.–angurse
by your definition, your statement that anarchism has no goal is debunked — for example, its goal is to suit your goals.
The only difference is that ancaps (generally) have a much better understanding of economics than their ideological rivals, and it generally makes their credence more justified.–angurse
what economic views of the anarchists do minarchists reject?
For example, I support the same economic precepts that anarchists support.
the lack of understanding from anarchists is their naive assertions regarding coercion by force and the oft repeated hunchism that anarchic market forces will deter coercion by force from either statist regimes or an internal defense enterprise that reaches critical mass over its competitors or near monopoly power.
indeed, there is no praxeological precept to discount or confirm this eventuality, hence it is in the realm of empiricism.
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?
do you believe without reservation that our present system cannot be attenuated or that a better system exists that is practicable and attainable?
In summary, not only are arguments for anarchism praxeologically unsound – by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure they are not realistic at the present time in practical or empircal terms.
simply engaging in the oft repeated, “since it hasnt existed in the past, doesnt mean it cant exist in the future” as an argument for adopting a theoretically efficacious system that is nonetheless untried, unpopular, and praxeologically unproven while human needs are left wanting is perhaps as dangerous and irresponsible as advocating a confirmed failure like marxism.
Rettoper, you write as if a knife has goals.
Argument from ignorance.
^Yes I actually created another thread for this so we wouldn’t hijack rettoper’s, but it went unanswered.
I think we can use this one, rettoper is no closer to an epiphany about anarchism than he was a month ago. This conversation is going nowhere as long as he doesn’t clearly define what he believes anarchy and minarchy to be.
by your definition, your statement that anarchism has no goal is debunked — for example, its goal is to suit your goals.
Not at all, it is just a political state, my goals exist regardless of what political state I’m in, akin to saying that a Mediterranean climate has a goal because I’d prefer to live in it. Some states simply fit my goals better than others, they don’t have their own goals.
what economic views of the anarchists do minarchists reject?
Coordination games and the public goods argument.
For example, I support the same economic precepts that anarchists support.
You obviously have some reserves though, as ancaps push those ideas to the extreme.
the lack of understanding from anarchists is their naive assertions regarding coercion by force and the oft repeated hunchism that anarchic market forces will deter coercion by force from either statist regimes or an internal defense enterprise that reaches critical mass over its competitors or near monopoly power.
Exactly. You do not support the same economic arguments as anarchists.
indeed, there is no praxeological precept to discount or confirm this eventuality, hence it is in the realm of empiricism.
Not a realm a minarchist should even dip his toe into.
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.
do you believe without reservation that our present system cannot be attenuated or that a better system exists that is practicable and attainable?
Monarchy is definitely obtainable.
In summary, not only are arguments for anarchism praxeologically unsound – by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure they are not realistic at the present time in practical or empircal terms
This sentence however is completely backwards, Polycentricism is praxeologically sound however it hasn’t been confirmed empirically. Ironically this statement could be used for democratic republics circa 1500. Even more ironically, democracy was a once a synonym for anarchy. Uncommon doesn’t mean undesirable or impossible – by any objective, rational, and independent measure.
simply engaging in the oft repeated, “since it hasnt existed in the past, doesnt mean it cant exist in the future” as an argument for adopting a theoretically efficacious system that is nonetheless untried, unpopular, and praxeologically unproven while human needs are left wanting is perhaps as dangerous and irresponsible as advocating a confirmed failure like marxism.
You are making no point at all. As advocating minarchy puts you in the exact same position as the ancap. Its never been tried, proven, nor is it popular. All you seem to be saying is that you are as “irresponsible” as people you disagree with.
What Angurse has explained to you is that anarchism is a means, not an end. Anarchism itself has no goal. It is however a means to the goals which Angurse pursues.
Argument from ignorance.
Interesting how you can switch domains like that without actually establishing what the subject is which you feel belongs in a different domain.
Strawman.
I could pick apart the rest, but what’s the point?
Rettoper, you write as if a knife has goals. --nirgrahamUK
irrelevant, a red herring.
nonetheless, you have not answered my question:
what praxelogical precept(s) confirm anarchism over minarchism in providing for societal economic health AND societal security from external threats.
liberty student,
logical fallacies aside, indeed your “argument” to every empirically supported position you disagree with is to claim some logical fallacy in the absence of any substantive rebut.
nonetheless, please answered the following question:
what praxelogical precept(s) confirms anarchism over minarchism in providing for societal economic health and societal security from external threats?