Well at least you know that it’s an assertion, and you’ve stopped calling it fact.
If a PDA is hegemonic there is no competition. We are assuming thats not yet the case, so your statement literally is nonsense.
In a free market any industry could bring security/defense in house. Furthermore any company that choses to partake in illegal activity is likely to lose it’s customer base, funding, and all associated parties are likely also to run the risk of being criminalized, introducing ostracism. The fact that you think this is a viable business model is just simply funny.
Walmart may for example decide to exploit it’s massive capital base to jump into the security market, offering immediate alleviation from any antagonistic security agency that operates outside of the law. No rogue PDA could go up against the resources of a massively succesfully capitalist business, which specializes in satisfying consumers. Walmart would reap immediate profits, and grow it’s business, at the expense of some warlord idiot who likely won’t live much longer, not to mention an almost immediate bankruptcy of his PDA’s business operations.
You also just assume that people will sign up for antagonistic PDA’s. What kind of insurence company would offer financial security for an agency without good reputation? Why would people sign up to a PDA that was un-insured? You just assume willy-nilly that people will randomly choose evil warlords to handle their property defense and law-enforcement. That is your whole argument, one huge gigantic assumption that is literally unprovable.
Praxeology makes no such assumptions where force is applied. You are incorrect in your understanding of what praxeology actually states. Consider a man that puts a gun to your head, and forces you to trade his banana for your apple. Praxeology does not state that the trade was in the best interest of both parties. Praxeology only states this when the trade is mutual. When coercion is applied all bets are off. How many different ways must we word this? You can continue your assertion but stop saying “Praxeology says this”, because you haven’t a clue as to what praxeology actually is.
You don’t seem to be very well informed on the subject of Praxeology, otherwise you would know the problems coercion implies. It seems to me you are confusing Whig theory with Praxeology. You should probably read up on Whig Theory.
At any rate I find it humorous that you use the word, praxeology, in such error. Just because we don’t have anarchism today, or that because democracy is widely used, does not in any way mean that it was praxeologically preferred. Thats called Whig Theory.
Then I suggest you spend your time writing up “substantive posts” as you call it, rather then self entertaining 1000 word rhetorical posts.
Assertions are neither false nor true, they are assertions. The very concept implies unproven. If I said the sky was pink I’d be making an assertion, it’s on me to present the argument. You have failed to present any argument, instead you adher to argumentum ad nauseam
Retropper, I do not need to offer a 2000 word post to explain your position. Your position essentially is an assertion, one that states that security operates differently on the market.
(Stated Retroppers position in 16 words)
Fine, thats your assertion, but you keep vociferously asking me to prove otherwise. If you knew the first thing about logic you would know that the burden of proof lies with you. Not on us. It’s your assertion that needs defending. Prove to us that security functions outside of general market laws. Thats your task. You have to prove to US that this is the case. It’s up to you to prove to us that the sky is pink, we have no reason to argue and defend the fact that the sky is blue.
Do us all a favor and practice on your written/literary skills while you participate on these forums. No one wants to read 2000 word rhetorically verbose posts. Try and stick more to the point, don’t sidetrack. – filc
it is impossible to prove to faith-based moslems that straping on explosives and blowing themselves up in a market of women and children does not lead to paradise.
similarly, it is near impossible to disprove to impressional young faith-based adherents the shortcomings of the ancap system that utterly discounts the threat of a dominate PDA cartel assuming absolutist power.
if the burden on me is to disprove the efficacy of a system (in 1000 words or less – no less) that has never existed and that has no sway among more than fringe then so be it.
(1) specialization of labor dictates that most of those skilled in the application of armed force will coalesce in a single industry.
(2) market mechanisms dictate that the PDAs that identify valued resources, annex these by force or otherwise, effectively defend these resources, and utilize their wealth to maximum societal benefit will emerge as the dominate PDAs
(3) economy of scale dictates that the most expertly led of these PDAs will coalesce further into a few dominate agencies.
(4) to reduce costs and increase security – a cartel of dominant PDAs form a carte. At this point, there is no challenge from the rest of society to forestall the emergence of absolutism.
in sum, pacifist ancaps are of the dangerously naive illusion that market forces will negate the following truth:
“power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”
Moreover, ancaps are of the illusion that a dominate cartel or coalition of PDAs will not form, much less assume absolutist power.
this naivete and ignorance explains why ancaps will never secure power and if by forces beyond their control anarchism emerges – it will quickly wain from the machinations of corrupt armies led by brilliant, ambitious, and charismatic leaders (alexander, ceasar, tamerlane, napoleon, lenin, mao, et al)
I eagerly await your ad hominems, english lessons, and “rebuts” supported by every manner of argument except fact, logic, and empiricism.
This is not a point, it’s a re-packaged version of your original assertion. Division of labor “Specialization of labor” doesn’t dictate this at all.
Argument ad Nauseam
Retropper your still assertion. The market does not “dictate” this. Your re-stating your opinion. This is an example of you being evasive. Assertions are not facts. You have to PROVE how the market dictates this.
Now to the contrary of your claim, any PDA that excersizes force beyond what the law permits is likely to find itself bankrupt and un-funded almost over night. Additionally, no antagonistic PDA is ever going to get a solid customer base, more importantly they won’t get any kind of insurance coverage. PDA’s of all organizations will need to pay the highest premiums on insurance. No insurance provider will back such a company. They would never be able to afford it. And no consumer is going to subscribe to a security service thats not properly insured.
The market dictates that consumers are sovereign, thats all we can say. You need to turn your assertions into actual arguments, and not just re-packaged assertions.
Any time you use the word “Dictate” it makes me cringe. Your still asserting, and not actually creating anargument. Furthermore Economies of scale are just dissmissed here. Even outside of AE it’s a highly debated concept. At any rate we have not seen such behavior in markets at all. Logically it does not follow that the fruits of the division of labor, amplified in specialized business’s will coalesce to single instituttes and monopolistic monolithic agency’s all over the place. Markets have shown that the opposite occurs. I don’t even know how you think you can use such a silly argument.
Business’s specialize in specific services, and partner or trade with others. Walmart does not go into software development for example, they leave that to Adobe and Microsoft. Likewise MIcrosoft does not try to sell bulk retail. But even still, the economies of scale argument is mute. Any agency that begins illegal activity, specifically violent activity, is likely to see it’s customer support drop immediately. Not only that it’s likely to lose any market partnerships its created and lose all credibility it created up to that point.
Cartelization of security agenciess does not auto-magically mean that prices will fall or that security will increase. First off it doesn’t logically follow that the more security you offer, the happer consumers will be. If a place is already fairly secured, why is more security necessary? Does it logically follow that I as a consumer will be more happy when there are 1000 militant agents walking down my street? That is a breakdown in understanding logic, and how to properly deduce things. Furthermore Austrian Economics has already addressed the cartelization/monopoly issue. Especially in the way of security, a monopoly or cartel is far less likely then in other industries.
Lol this is hilarious. Your repeteated statement has nothing to do with anything. It’s a rhetorical statement designed to inspire emotion, content, and resentment.
Whats more ironic is that your statement, “Absolute power corrupts” really irradicates your own stance far more then it irradicates ours. In an Ancap society a Hegemonic PDA must go through next to impossible provisioning to obtain it’s hegemonic status. So as an alternative you wish to give Hegemonic status to the state as a given. You think absolute power corrupts, but not when it’s a state? Do you think about what you write before you post it?
To the contrary, the only one here with an illusion is you. Your in the delusional mindset that if you re-package and repeat the same exact assertion in colorfully different ways, that it will somehow be less fallacious, and that you can somehow avoid explaining the logic behind your reasoning.
Says the guy who refuses to argue honestly.
Yea yea yea, call us ignorant, then accuse of ad-hominems. You keep saying you use Fact, Logic, and Empiricism.
EMpiricism: Have you even cited anything? I’ve requested several times.
Fact: You keep calling your assertions facts. But assertions by very definitions are unknown as fact
Logic: If you can’t even tell the difference between an assertion, and fact, and you use the word “strawman” like you have tourettes, then what does that say about your ability to deduce things logically?
In a free market any industry could bring security/defense in house. Furthermore any company that choses to partake in illegal activity is likely to lose it’s customer base, funding, and all associated parties are likely also to run the risk of being criminalized, introducing ostracism. The fact that you think this is a viable business model is just simply funny.–filc
The naive ancap notion that the use of armed force to obtain valued resources is “illegal” is prove of the myth of anarchism – namely the economic calculation problem. Note that if a valued asset can be annexed by force at a net profit then a PDA will use force to obtain this valued resource if it cannot be obtained by peaceful means. This truth confirms that there will be continuous armed conflict within ancap society as valued resources trade hands by both voluntary means and coercion.
In sum, it is absurd that ancaps think that society can dismiss the use of armed force to obtain security, power, and wealth. Armed force can be a legitmate and beneficial tool for change in society. Moreover, a group of lawyers armed with briefcases and blackberries challenging the legality of a dominate and aggressive cartel of PDAs is laughable.
Walmart may for example decide to exploit it’s massive capital base to jump into the security market, offering immediate alleviation from any antagonistic security agency that operates outside of the law. No rogue PDA could go up against the resources of a massively succesfully capitalist business, which specializes in satisfying consumers. Walmart would reap immediate profits, and grow it’s business, at the expense of some warlord idiot who likely won’t live much longer, not to mention an almost immediate bankruptcy of his PDA’s business operations.
Walmart management/employees/investos does not have the requisite skill set to effectively challenge a dominate PDA. It is laughable that your “army” of blue smocked warriors bearing price guns can challenge tanks, bombers, battleships, et al command and manned by professional warriors. Moreover, the expertly led PDA cartel will not be led by “some warlord idiot” – study history to learn the myriad methods that brilliant, ambitious, and charismatic leaders gain and hold power.
This is an example of why ancaps will never secure power.
You also just assume that people will sign up for antagonistic PDA’s. What kind of insurence company would offer financial security for an agency without good reputation? Why would people sign up to a PDA that was un-insured? You just assume willy-nilly that people will randomly choose evil warlords to handle their property defense and law-enforcement. That is your whole argument, one huge gigantic assumption that is literally unprovable. – filc
People, investors, mercenaries, customers will support the dominate PDA irrespective of the moral value judgments you place on actions in the defense industry. a “good reputation” equates to growth, security, power, et al – not moral judgments from pacifist ancaps who dangerously and naively discount the utility of using armed force to obtain valued resources, security, power, et al
In sum, profit is king – not morality or revulsion to the use of armed force. Indeed, many customers, investors, mercenaries et al will approve and admire the successful application of force while disapproving of the actions of poorly led PDAs who allow their customers resources to be plundered.
using your value based judgment, effectiveness in battle is less desirable then ethics and morality. History has shown that this polyannish view is absurd.
Praxeology makes no such assumptions where force is applied.
absurd. Praxeology makes no such value judgements on the morality of armed force – only its efficacy at obtaining valued resources that otherwise could not be obtained by peaceful means.
the pacifist ancap doesnt understand the utility of using armed force to gain profit. within ancap society, armed conflict would be frequent until a dominate cartel assumed absolutist power.
You are incorrect in your understanding of what praxeology actually states. Consider a man that puts a gun to your head, and forces you to trade his banana for your apple. Praxeology does not state that the trade was in the best interest of both parties. Praxeology only states this when the trade is mutual. When coercion is applied all bets are off. How many different ways must we word this? You can continue your assertion but stop saying “Praxeology says this”, because you haven’t a clue as to what praxeology actually is.
manifestly absurd.
if a PDA determines that a valued resource that cannot be secured by peaceful means can be annex by armed force at a profit for the agency, its investors, mercenaries, customers, et al — then that PDA will use its tanks, ships, planes, et al to take the valued resource. Moreover, competitor agencies will not intervene if the action is not profitable irrespective of the moral implications involved.
ancaps are of the naive notion that armed conflict in ancap society will be based on moral motives, not profit.
In sum, ancaps are deluded to reject the utility of armed force to obtain valued resources that cannot by negotiated by peaceful means. when this occurs, the PDA has the option to take the valued resource by force if this action insures a profit.
You don’t seem to be very well informed on the subject of Praxeology, otherwise you would know the problems coercion implies. It seems to me you are confusing Whig theory with Praxeology. You should probably read up on Whig Theory.
At any rate I find it humorous that you use the word, praxeology, in such error. Just because we don’t have anarchism today, or that because democracy is widely used, does not in any way mean that it was praxeologically preferred. Thats called Whig Theory.
praxeology does indeed cite the effectiveness of peaceful exchange as the most efficient and beneficial means of transaction. However, you are deluded to think that peaceful exchanges are the only means of exchange.
if peaceful voluntary exchange cannot be negotiated then force is an option. Praxeology does not reject this truth.
The more valued the coveted resource, the weaker its defense, the more likely armed force will be used to obtain it.
IN sum, you have repeatedly cite praxeological arguments where praxeology does not belong, namely in interactions that are not voluntary.
using your naive, flawed interpretation of anarchism, the utility of armed force is eliminated.
Very enlightening. It explains why you are entrenched on this topic and have not moved on to something else. You are on a mission. – chloe
I am always amused when the faith-based marxist or ancaps on the fringe of political and economic thought state that my thinking is “entrenched” when I am debating on their website.
Note that those faithbased ancaps would be better served spending their time learning opposing views versus reinforcing rigid positions on a site that they favor.
Read my sentence again. I did not say your thinking was entrenched. I said you are entrenched on this one topic because you are on a mission to save the ancaps from their ignorant, dangerous political theory. Right?
It does not logically follow that if it is profitable to steel, than that will be the case in alls situations. This is called a non-sequitur. So again, your arguing that you use logic, but you can’t even follow basic deduction.
A PDA who acts violently to gain a parcel of land, will pay the financial costs once everyone boycott’s it’s service. Not too mention that since they are now likely un-insured, they probably won’t be getting any new business.. I skipped most of your other sentences as they didn’t make any sense, or again were just unecessarily verbose.
We don’t assume such activity won’t occur. As I have stated, and others have stated numerous times, the market’s built in mechanisms will deal with these problems. Whats obsured is your position that security agency’s somehow operate outside of the laws of markets. As if they were “magical”.
Like any business they buy the skill. Besides, your going back to the fallacy of assuming that there is a hegemonic PDA already in power. But if thats the case all your describing is a state.
A monopoly on force is a state.
Hegeomonic PDA = State. They terms are synonymous. You don’t fix the problem of hegemonic PDA’s by making a single Hegemonic PDA and giving them unlimited power
No it’s not absured and I am bothered that dissmissed my point so irresponsibly. Praxeology is not Whig Theory. Go learn the difference before you assert again that Praxeology proves Democracy is praxeologically preferred.
here’s a link for you since your too lazy to look it up before you respond in petty haste.
The problem with your argument is, your taking your assertions as given facts. But you have not yet proven that it can be done at a profit. For every move there is a cost implied. Engaging in violence is going to jeapordize your entire enterprise, and likely in a short period of time. It’s not worth to steal a million dollar home, if your insurance provider drops your support and your customer base shrinks by 50% over night. It’s also not going to look good if the CEO of said PDA is now a public criminal.
Think Retropper. Think.
My whole post went entirely over your head, and now your spinning off on some tangent. All I was doing for you was explaining to you how to use the word “Praxeology” of which you have little knowledge of.
Please cite a passage where Praxeology says anything like this?
If that were the case things would operate in this manner today, with a state. THis point does not defend the need for a state. All it does is grant the state the ability to exploit this problem. However your point in and of itself is another assertion, one that could be disputed at length.
No in Sum, you do not even know what Praxeology is. You also don’t know what a strawman is, and you repeatedly confuse Assertions with Facts. As a result your logical deduction is using Assertions in the place of facts, and your coming to really hysterical conclusions! Anarchy != Mad Max.
Take a note of the things I crossed off. It’s an example of where you wrote something, but could have spared us the length in time in writing. You didn’t need to write it, you did it to inspire a fight.
You accuse us of being antagonistic, but you come to an Austrian Economics forums, and call us blind adherants. Earlier you were counting the number of “unsubstantive posts”. Can we start counting yours now? Like this one? How about the number of ironic remarks you make, like the one above.
Also you have yet to start debating. All you do is re-state your same assertion over and over with different words. You do not explain any of the logic under-neath it, but instead resort to re-packaging the same argument ad nauseam.
We know your position better then you do. I do realize thats aarogant, but I believe it to be true.
Retropper your still assertion. The market does not “dictate” this. Your re-stating your opinion. This is an example of you being evasive. Assertions are not facts. You have to PROVE how the market dictates this. --filc
absurd, those individuals who gravitate to work in the defense industry will have a natural or acquired skill set that makes them lethal. In contrast, those that dont have the skill set to engage in armed conflict will gravitate to other industries.
In sum, it is logical that in a free market the most skilled at wielding armed force will naturally work in the PDA industry. This will lead to a lethal group of warriors led by an equally skilled and lethal group of commanders. The implications of all of these skilled warriors in a single industry is dangerous
Now to the contrary of your claim, any PDA that excersizes force beyond what the law permits is likely to find itself bankrupt and un-funded almost over night. Additionally, no antagonistic PDA is ever going to get a solid customer base, more importantly they won’t get any kind of insurance coverage. PDA’s of all organizations will need to pay the highest premiums on insurance. No insurance provider will back such a company. They would never be able to afford it. And no consumer is going to subscribe to a security service thats not properly insured.
The market dictates that consumers are sovereign, thats all we can say. You need to turn your assertions into actual arguments, and not just re-packaged assertions.
the ancap notion that a group of lawyers and insurance agents can challenge a group of warriors with tanks, battleships, bombers, et al from using their natural and acquired skill set to obtain security, wealth, and power is absurd.
moreover, insurance companies and arbitration agencies are motivate solely by profit – not the subjective value judgment that the use of armed force to obtain security, power, and wealth is “immoral”
by using your flawed reasoning, PDAs in ancap society would not be necessary since (1) armed conflict is immoral or illegal and (2) a group of lawyers wielding briefcases and blackberries can force their will on men armed and trained in the use of tanks, bombers, battleships, et al.
Any time you use the word “Dictate” it makes me cringe. Your still asserting, and not actually creating anargument. Furthermore Economies of scale are just dissmissed here. Even outside of AE it’s a highly debated concept. At any rate we have not seen such behavior in markets at all. Logically it does not follow that the fruits of the division of labor, amplified in specialized business’s will coalesce to single instituttes and monopolistic monolithic agency’s all over the place. Markets have shown that the opposite occurs. I don’t even know how you think you can use such a silly argument.
the allure of absolutism, security, and profits will intice the dominate PDAs to form an all powerful cartel. The ancap notion that corporations act in the best interest of society at large is absurd. When possible they will form unholy unions with government and competitors to gain market share and increase profits at the expense of the consumer. WHen this occurs in other industries, competition can emerge. however, when a dominate PDA emerges it directly impedes the ability of a competitor to emerge.
Business’s specialize in specific services, and partner or trade with others. Walmart does not go into software development for example, they leave that to Adobe and Microsoft. Likewise MIcrosoft does not try to sell bulk retail. But even still, the economies of scale argument is mute. Any agency that begins illegal activity, specifically violent activity, is likely to see it’s customer support drop immediately. Not only that it’s likely to lose any market partnerships its created and lose all credibility it created up to that point.
again, you make a value judgment when you claim that armed force is illegal. irrespective of what handwringing ancap moralists think about the use of armed force, if a PDA cartel determines that armed force can be used to gain a profit – then they will use it . moreover, competitor PDAs will not expend company resources to defend a competitors resources or customers for moral reasons.
Cartelization of security agenciess does not auto-magically mean that prices will fall or that security will increase.
it doesnt matter what happens to security or prices – a dominate PDA will assume absolutist power and use this power to deter competitors. However, with the emergence of a dominate PDA, competition for hegemon control will cease hence armed conflict between competitor PDAs will decrease. SOciety as a whole will welcome the reduce costs associated with continuous armed conflict. internally statist regimes are generally very stable and peaceful irrespective of the detrimental long term consequences of statism
First off it doesn’t logically follow that the more security you offer, the happer consumers will be. If a place is already fairly secured, why is more security necessary? Does it logically follow that I as a consumer will be more happy when there are 1000 militant agents walking down my street? That is a breakdown in understanding logic, and how to properly deduce things. Furthermore Austrian Economics has already addressed the cartelization/monopoly issue. Especially in the way of security, a monopoly or cartel is far less likely then in other industries.
your assertion that increased security doesnt make the consumer happier is absurd. Moreover, not all PDAs will be based on defense. The largest PDAs will possess aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, battle tanks, bombers, et al. These PDAs will be the geopolitical players that emerge as the dominate agencies. These PDAs will be in the business of taking and defending strategic centers of gravity that are worth hundreds of billions in value and determine whether a society is viable or fails.
Lol this is hilarious. Your repeteated statement has nothing to do with anything. It’s a rhetorical statement designed to inspire emotion, content, and resentment.
Whats more ironic is that your statement, “Absolute power corrupts” really irradicates your own stance far more then it irradicates ours.
it is dangerously naive to reject the tenet that power corrupts. It is human nature and empiricism and logic support it. For example, the primary reason why most people follow societal norms and rules is because of sanctions against them if they dont. Your notion that people will act in the best interest of society when it conflicts against their own self-interest is absurd.
why do so many embrace socialism when it is apparent that this system damages overall societal health and well-being ?
moreover, why do some many corporations accept government largesse in the form of damaging regulations and tax preferences when doing so damages the free and efficient functioning of the market ?
they do so for self-interest.
In an Ancap society a Hegemonic PDA must go through next to impossible provisioning to obtain it’s hegemonic status. So as an alternative you wish to give Hegemonic status to the state as a given. You think absolute power corrupts, but not when it’s a state? Do you think about what you write before you post it?
Numerous industries are dominated by a few large firms. The defense industry with its dependence on billions of dollars in capital and munitions would be dominated by a few large firms. Hence, it would be easy for these CEOs to establish a dominate cartel to decrease competition, increase security, and profits.
of course, power corrupts on the state level. however, unlike ancap society, liberal democracies create extreme checks, balances, decentralization, and transparency in the defense industry that forestalls the emergence of absolutism
indeed, our founding fathers creating these extreme checks and balances because they understood the dangers of absolutism emerging from the defense industry, if ancaps like yourself dont.
To the contrary, the only one here with an illusion is you. Your in the delusional mindset that if you re-package and repeat the same exact assertion in colorfully different ways, that it will somehow be less fallacious, and that you can somehow avoid explaining the logic behind your reasoning.
ad hominem deviod of fact, logic, and empiricism.
Says the guy who refuses to argue honestly.
ad hominem deviod of fact, logic, and empiricism.
Yea yea yea, call us ignorant, then accuse of ad-hominems. You keep saying you use Fact, Logic, and Empiricism.
ad hominem deviod of fact, logic, and empiricism.
EMpiricism: Have you even cited anything? I’ve requested several times.
Fact: You keep calling your assertions facts. But assertions by very definitions are unknown as fact
Logic: If you can’t even tell the difference between an assertion, and fact, and you use the word “strawman” like you have tourettes, then what does that say about your ability to deduce things logically?
ad hominem deviod of fact, logic, and empiricism.
In sum, read your last 3-4 posts and look in the mirror – they apply to you.
Take a note of the things I crossed off. It’s an example of where you wrote something, but could have spared us the length in time in writing. You didn’t need to write it, you did it to inspire a fight.
You accuse us of being antagonistic, but you come to an Austrian Economics forums, and call us blind adherants. Earlier you were counting the number of “unsubstantive posts”. Can we start counting yours now? Like this one? How about the number of ironic remarks you make, like the one above.
Also you have yet to start debating. All you do is re-state your same assertion over and over with different words. You do not explain any of the logic under-neath it, but instead resort to re-packaging the same argument ad nauseam.
_
_
We know your position better then you do. I do realize thats aarogant, but I believe it to be true.
again you havent adequately challenged any of my substantive assertions with this last rant.
it is simply another ad hominem or exercise in attacking the messenger, the manner in which the message is delivered – and not the actual message.
moreover, the manner of my arguments is based on the numerous ad hominems that were directed against me throughout this thread by the faith-based ancaps who cant rebut my assertions using fact, logic , and empiricism.
indeed, there is no praxeological tenet that rebuts my assertion that a dominate PDA cartel could emerge and assume absolutist power.
go back and read the posts in this thread and see how the faith-based ancaps were the first to resort to ad hominems, I have simply responded in kind when necessary.
later, I am off to a movie.
i will respond to your ad hominems deviod of fact, logic, and empiricism later in the week.
It is easy to get caught up in a swirl of labels and definitions in arguments of this sort. John Hasnas provides as clear a distinction as I’ve read insofar as the anarchism/minianarchism/statism debates go: “The Obviousness of Anarchy”:
Early in the essay he deals with Government vs Governance. Society without governance does not exist – the term “society” implies certain rules of conduct and commerce among and between its members as well as a means by which infractions can be dealt – Governance. Government, no matter how “small” the government, is a different matter: a certain number of individuals enjoy a monopoly upon violence (“for the good and the safety and the security of the governed”).
If you read through this and another of Hasnas’ essays: “The Myth of the Rule of Law”:
however, they provide nothing than hasnt already been discussed. namely that mankind is flawed and certain elements of humanity have the propensity and skill at using armed force to gain personal power, security, and wealth at the expense of society at large.
Also, both articles parrot assertions I have made repeatedly, namely that coercion and governance does not disappear with the emergence of anarchism. Indeed, these enterprises only become more efficient. however, the utility of armed force to obtain postive societal change, power, security, and wealth does not disappear with anarchism.
Moreover, large PDAs would be motivated to form an all powerful cartel to guarantee security, power, and wealth at the expense of smaller PDAs.
The ancap notion that this is not possible is debunked by the propensity of private enterprises to use whatever leverage they can to gain market share and advantage over competitors. Indeed, corporations and private citizens act in their own self-interest – not society at large. Our founding fathers understood this fact as well as von Mises.
Our founding fathers created a system that attentuated the power of government to use the defense industry to establish absolutism. IN contrast, anarchic society has absolutely no safeguards deterring the dominate PDAs from assuming hegemon status and later absolutism.
Unlike liberal democracies who provide myriad checks, balances, decentralization, and transparency of the defense industry – within ancap society all elements of armed coercion reside within the PDA industry without any substantive checks, balances, decentralization and transparency.
“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public" – Adam Smith
Take a note of the things I crossed off. It’s an example of where you wrote something, but could have spared us the length in time in writing. You didn’t need to write it, you did it to inspire a fight.
You accuse us of being antagonistic, but you come to an Austrian Economics forums, and call us blind adherants. Earlier you were counting the number of “unsubstantive posts”. Can we start counting yours now? Like this one? How about the number of ironic remarks you make, like the one above.
Also you have yet to start debating. All you do is re-state your same assertion over and over with different words. You do not explain any of the logic under-neath it, but instead resort to re-packaging the same argument ad nauseam.
_
_
We know your position better then you do. I do realize thats aarogant, but I believe it to be true.–filc
there are numerous examples on these forums of a few ancap adherents engaging in ad hominem attacks against visitors.
anytime a vistor offers a view supported by fact, logic, and empiricism that challenges the efficacy of anarchism they are generally met with invective and vitriol.
read the forums for examples.
a core of young emotionally driven ancap adherents actually hurt the reputation and efficacy of mises.org from gaining potential converts to AE by engaging in ad hominems while crying to the moderators to censor when they are given a minute dose of their own medicine.
they hypocritically attack a system in which many of them benefit in the form of tenured academic positions and government funded student loans. Moreover, they question the efficacy of an existing system in which many brave and talented young men and women have died defending while these bellowing hypocrites wouldnt even risk a single government handout to defend a system that has never existed and is rejected out of hand by elites and citizens in business, science, arts, et al.
if these ancaps didnt have double standards, they wouldnt have any standards.
In sum, I recognize and oppose the abuses of statism. Moreover, I acknowledge the severe shortcomings associated with liberal democracy, namely the propensity of central governments to redistributed societal wealth from the private sector to favored constiuencies at the expense of overall societal health and well being. However, I recognize the danger associated with not providing substantive checks on the emergence of absolutism through an unrestricted defense industry. Indeed, this industry will be efficient and non-coercive at its inception – however, without forced inefficiencies on this industry, society has no checks, balances, decentralization, and transparency on the emergence of a hegemon PDA cartel and subsequent establishment of absolutism.
our founding fathers recognized this threat, if ancaps dont.
You’ve posted this complaint before. In fact, I think I responded the same way. But here it goes again -
Regarding the forum hurting the reputation of Mises.org: Leave that to the moderators to sort out.
Regarding cries for censorship: That was a long time ago (in internet time). There is now a Member’s Issues forum, and you were never censored. In fact, you were defended. Lilburne took the time to debate you in an effort to demonstrate to the forum how to maintain civility in a debate.
Regarding gaining potential converts to AE: Nobody here that I am aware of is trying to gain converts to AE. AE is not something one converts to. Nobody converted me. I was thrown up against the wall by the collapse of Lehman Brothers in Sept. 2008. I made my own conclusions about which scientific method better explains the real world.
Also, it would take a rather childish person to read posts on a forum and then make conclusions one way or another about AE.
Those are examples of debates / discussions that are constructive. Filc has made a recent attempt to debate with you, Samarami threw in his two cents which you promptly threw out the window, and I monitor this thread because it teaches a person how NOT to debate.
The reputation of Mises.org will survive just fine.
Your theory only holds true if the production of security magically does not behave like a standard economic good. In order for your theory to be correct, it must somehow be immune to economic factors of markets.
But let me guess, this is devoid of logic, and empiricism AMARIGHT?
IDK, you tell me? Your the only proponent of socialism here.
But let me guess, this is devoid of logic, and empiricism AMARIGHT?
No it’s entirely acurate. Whats absured is you thinking that consumers want 1000+ militants constantly walking down their streets with AK-47. As if somehow that would satisfy consumers even more. And whats more absured is your use of the word absured, like every 2 lines.
But let me guess, this is devoid of logic, and empiricism AMARIGHT?
Most if not all PDA’s will be based on defense and preservation of property. There simply is no other function or reason behind a PDA.
But let me guess, this is devoid of logic, and empiricism AMARIGHT?
This is an assumption you make. Your basing your judgments on how an Ancap society’s defense system would work, based on the statist model of preemptive aggression. Consumers cannot afford and will not pay for such activities. I as a consumer would not be interested in funding a pirate group.
You assume that all PDA’s will be pirates, and bandits, and that consumers would be happy to subscribe to their services of banditery.
But let me guess, this is devoid of logic, and empiricism AMARIGHT?
Theres that word again, absured. Stop saying my statements are absured. It’s annoying because you aren’t reading them or honestly considering them, and it clearly shows that your trying to find a cop-out to the traps you keep setting for yourself. The only one here espoused to an idea is you. You make it VERY obvious that your wedded to socialized defense when you don’t even take the time to read your opponents points, and properly address them.
At any rate to answer you, your assumption that consumers will fund bandits, pirates, and hooligans is paramount to your argument. Your whole argument depends on this concept, that consumers WANT pirate agency’s. You assume that PDA’s will specialize in killing, murdering, and pillaging, and those who are the most aggressive or hostile will win market share. Why do you assume that consumers will sponsor bands of pirates? Do you think consumers have a subjective desire to sponsor thievery? Do you not think it is likely at all that perhaps consumers are MORE concerned with defense of property. Why wouldn’t consumers just gravitate to firms which haven proven to best maximize the security of their own property, therebye squelching the funding and insignificant bands of pirates.
In fact, depending on cultural norms killing and stealing of any type may be held in highest regard. A PDA’s entire reputation would gravitate around it’s ability to prove to the public that it is extra careful with human life, even towards criminals.
You assume society wants to sponsor pirates. I have a less pessimistic view so I’ll agree to disagree with you. But make no mistake, your assumption has no concrete foundation, it is nothing beyond an opinion based on emotional fear.
But let me guess, this is devoid of logic, and empiricism AMARIGHT? Can you offer a reason why consumers would be interested in subscribing to pirate services?
How does an unfunded group of pirates, thieves, and bandits obtain these expensive pieces of equipment? How do they get past the security of legitimate property defense providers that likely own a much larger part of the market, and have far more capital at their disposal.
But let me guess, this is devoid of logic, and empiricism AMARIGHT?
Every liberal democracy that has existed lives in moral hazard. And those checks and balances have failed on all accounts. Police brutality runs rampant and un-controlled. Abusive officers get paid vacations when they are caught doing their dirty work. Aggressive wars are fought non-stop. Your statement here is dwindled by the state of reality that liberal democracies have created for us.
But let me guess, this is devoid of logic, and empiricism AMARIGHT?
Well we don’t see Walmart trying to kill everyone but according to you it’s in their nature to do so.
But let me guess, this is devoid of logic, and empiricism AMARIGHT?
You are certainly just as guilty my friend. Lets see
We are faith based worshipers according to you
We are on the fringe, which is somehow relevant to anything.
We are naive and ignorant according to you
You cannot deprogram us. We believe what we believe based on a crap load of self study. No one taught this to us, there was no anarchy propoganda taught to us in school. On the flip side, how much economic/political theory textbooks have you yourself read? How many of them were not state biased?
Also note you called us adherents again, and said we were naive. yet we are the ones throwing ad-hominems.
You accuse us of calling you names in every response. Yet your hypocracy precedes you. We have offered reasoning, outlined in cold logic which you have rejected, ignored, and dissmissed in every occasion. What you offer us is a repeated/repackaged assertion that PDA’s will just naturally become hegemonic. Why we ask? You cannot say, you simply state that they will. “Economics of Scale” or whatever.
Now before you respond, let me respond for you.
That is the traditional Retropper response is it not? Earlier I made a very substantive post, outlined with reasoning that you HAD to address for your theory to hold up. You dismissed it out right. Though I don’t blame you for wanting to touch some of these points with a 9 foot pole. Your argument clearly fails on multiple accounts.
The only thing you have to offer here is an opinion founded in unsubstantiated fear, backed by a poor understanding of markets, and a very pessimistic view of man kind.
I’m sure somehow you think this is all one big ad-hominem. Either you start to address these points, or you drag us on for another 15 pages evading every little detail we throw at you.
Now lets get back to the topic of this original post.
You stated that praxeology confirms that liberal democracies are preferred over markets and anarchy.
Please explain how Praxeology confirms this. (Not markets, Not economies of Scale, but praxeology alone.)
Explain to us how Praxeology ALONE confirms this. Also provide us a definition of Praxeology. If you cannot defend your stance on praxeology this whole thread will become zombified immediately. You used Praxeology in the title of this post. Now back up your assertion and tell us what you think Praxeology is. Explain to us how Praxeology differs from Whig Theory, and how Praxeology confirms Liberal Democracy’s over Markets. Explain to us why Aggression does not alter the praxeological state of affairs as you stated.
Again explain to us what you think Praxeology is, and how Praxeology confirms that hegemonic PDA’s are more efficient then any others. According to Praxeology what is the ultimate judgement on what or who is the most effecient? If you cannot answer this then the framework for your entire praxeological argument comes crashing down before your eyes.
In short how much time do I need to invest into you before you actually start to read my posts?
I’m almost willing to bet someone money that you’ll respond by accusing me of using Ad-Hominem and being devoid of fact, logic, and empiricism. That or you will repeat your original assertion, that a Hegemonic PDA will just simply spontaneously form, even if against consumer preferences.
Hmm in the Grayson vs Rettoper thread, Grayson also addressed this point with Rettoper. It seems he either ignored it, like usual, or something else but I’ll touch on it again.
Exactly, so again. Praxeology is not Whig Theory. It would behoove Rettoper to read up on Whig Theory, review Praxeology, and see why they are entirely two seperate things.
I’ve gotten too old (74) to attempt to appear intellectual or to attack or to smear other posters who might take a different slant on what has becoma an endless thread of infighting. It is no longer necessary for me to impress you with my vast knowledge of labels and definitions, or for me to become angry when you challenge my superior intellect.
If I’m going to BE free I must ACT free. Here…let Mises (much smarter and more highly educated than I, but dead sad to say) state it:
The starting point of all praxeological thinking is not arbitrarily chosen axioms, but a self-evident proposition, fully, clearly and necessarily present in every human mind…The starting point of praxeology is a self-evident truth, the cognition of action, that is, the cognition of the fact that there is such a thing as consciously aiming at ends. There is no use cavilling about these words by referring to philosophical problems that have no bearing upon our problem. The truth of this cognition is as self-evident and as indispensable for the human mind as is the distinction between A and non-A. http://mises.org/books/ufofes/prelim4.aspx
I am a sovereign state. Each time I say this I sense the avalanche of diatribe coming down from the “cerebrals” in the group. But that, to me, is what anarchy is all about. I am free. If you acquire freedom as a result of my example, more the better; but I am still free. I teach my family to be free (to the extent they can refrain from telling me to go to hell – many of them are ardent Ron Paul supporters and simply cannot fathom why I refuse to register and “vote”, even though I give them all the love and support possible in their endeavor by performing “grandpa duty”, farm chores, etc).
I do not have to impose anarchy here or there or anyplace else. I do not need to join or be a part of any “movement”. I accept the fact that I am sovereign in an occupied state. But I am no more “slave” to the Great White Father than I am “slave” to the weather. I try to stay out of the rain and out of the white man’s way wherever possible. Although I and my family are armed to resist most incursions and have developed means by which to provide for our own safety and security, we might find it advantageous to use his fire and/or police “protection” at some point, since he maintains a monopoly upon those “services”.
It’s a fun and exciting time to be alive. More and more ordinary folks are looking directly into the eyes of the beast and declaring him impotent.