Rettoper, you don’t seem to have had much success. Will you answer and be as civil and thoughtful as possible if I start a new thread for your ideas?
Preferable is entirely subjective but… monarchy.-- angurse
amusingly, you support monarchy over a Constitutional Federal Republic. are you aware that monarchism has been on the decline for a few years, namely since 1776 ? Indeed, it is a paradox that you are critical of representative governance for (1) allegedly being in decline despite its unquestioned global ascendancy and (2) leading to despotism or absolutism when monarchism is both in decline and has been far more identified with absolutism than representative governance.
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.–angurse
thanks for answering my question regarding the absence of praxeological proof of anarchism’s confirmation relative to minarchism. However, read my replies, I acknowledged in an earlier post that both minarchism and anarchism were not confirmed by praxeology. Moreover, I acknowledge that neither are they dismissed by praxeology.
However, it is without question that the incredible achievements in human freedoms, prosperity and technological advancements since 1776 have not occurred within a statist vacuum. Indeed, free markets, individual freedoms, property rights, free trade, life expectancy, et al have increased as civilization has marched closer to a minarchic form of governance.
lastly, I offer this relative to your advocacy of monarchism:
You are making no point at all. As advocating monarchy puts you in a far more precarious position then the ancap. Its HAS been tried, proven a FAILURE, nor is it popular. All you seem to be saying is that you are as “irresponsible” as people you disagree with.–Rettoper
Rettoper, you don’t seem to have had much success. Will you answer and be as civil and thoughtful as possible if I start a new thread for your ideas?-- seiben
I didnt realize I was being uncivil.
Please reference the post in which I was out of line?
why is it necessary to start a new thread to answer the simple question already answered by angurse. INdeed, he was correct to point out that any similar argument confirming minarchism over anarchism was equally as fallacious from a praxeological viewpoint.
again, what praxeological precept(s) confirm anarchism over minarchism (or minarchism over anarchism if you like) in providing for societal economic prosperity and security from external threats?
strawman- liberty student
argument from ignorance - liberty student
I could pick apart the rest, but what’s the point - liberty student.
Interesting how you can switch domains like that without actually establishing what the subject is which you feel belongs in a different domain.-- liberty student
liberty student,
your impressive citation of logical fallacies notwithstanding, can you answer the following question:
what praxeological precept(s) confirm anarchism relative to minarchism in providing societal economic prosperity and societal security from external threats?
praxeology and a prioiri economics alone can not do it. the question of whether this or that person value security is going to be key if addressing questions like yours which concern the provision of security.
amusingly, you support monarchy over a Constitutional Federal Republic. are you aware that monarchism has been on the decline for a few years, namely since 1776 ?
Constitutional federal republics have been on the decline as well, are you ready to abandon ship?
Indeed, it is a paradox that you are critical of representative governance for (1) allegedly being in decline despite its unquestioned global ascendancy and (2) leading to despotism or absolutism when monarchism is both in decline and has been far more identified with absolutism than representative governanc
Are you just making things up? I didn’t criticize representative governance for being in decline at all (thats a criticism you made of monarchy) nor could I care less that about its global ascendancy. There was a period when slavery was a growing phenomenon, times change.
thanks for answering my question regarding the absence of praxeological proof of anarchism’s confirmation relative to minarchism. However, read my replies, I acknowledged in an earlier post that both minarchism and anarchism were not confirmed by praxeology. Moreover, I acknowledge that neither are they dismissed by praxeology.
Previously you said the exact opposite “not only are arguments for anarchism praxeologically unsound”
However, it is without question that the incredible achievements in human freedoms, prosperity and technological advancements since 1776 have not occurred within a statist vacuum.
That can be said for the millennia of monarchy before it as well. In fact, the entire world didn’t just transform into republics in 1776, most of it was still ruled by monarchy, yet the Industrial revolution still started (within a monarchy!)
Indeed, free markets, individual freedoms, property rights, free trade, life expectancy, et al have increased as civilization has marched closer to a minarchic form of governance.
Are you blatantly lying? The U.S. was as close to minarchy (and therefore anarchy) for about ten years, then the Constitution was ratified and its been going downhill since. Concurrently, life expectancy increased, its still increasing now as the U.S. creeps toward fascism. Attributing such feats to government in no way helps your case. Progress has come from technology, which grows best when government is away.
You are making no point at all. As advocating monarchy puts you in a far more precarious position then the ancap. ItsHAS been tried, proven a FAILURE, nor is it popular. All you seem to be saying is that you are as “irresponsible” as people you disagree with.–Rettoper
Retopper, I’m not advocating monarchy. You asked me to name a more preferable system that has existed “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?” And I did. If you’d rather I ignore your requests please say so now. If you’d like to debate the merits of monarchy start a new thread or just say so. However, calling it a proven failure is pure lunacy, not only is it in existence right now, it is by far the longest reigning system of governance. Constitutional Federal Republics are a tiny blip, smaller than even that of anarchism.
We can’t put them aside. Nearly every single one of your posts is riddled with them. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously in debate, when your claims are illogical?
It is impossible to substantively rebut a fundamentally fallacious position but to call it out as a logical fallacy. I am supplying the best possible argument I can.
Methodological individualism.
Methodological individualism.-- liberty student
methodological individualism is not an a priori to confirm anarchism relative to minarchism. Indeed, it is not even an a priori.
for example, explain how methodological individualism specifically confirms anarchism over minarchism
We can’t put them aside. Nearly every single one of your posts is riddled with them. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously in debate, when your claims are illogical?–liberty student
subjectivist fallacy
It is impossible to substantively rebut a fundamentally fallacious position but to call it out as a logical fallacy. I am supplying the best possible argument I can.–liberty student
subjectivist fallacy
Again, you have still not answered the question of what praxeological precept(s) confirm anarchism over minarchism in providing societal economic prosperity and societal security from external threats?
We can’t put them aside. Nearly every single one of your posts is riddled with them. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously in debate, when your claims are illogical?–liberty student
subjectivist fallacy
How?
It is impossible to substantively rebut a fundamentally fallacious position but to call it out as a logical fallacy. I am supplying the best possible argument I can.–liberty student
subjectivist fallacy
How?
Constitutional federal republics have been on the decline as well, are you ready to abandon ship?-- angurse
manifestly wrong. cite your source.
moreover, representative governance has increased significantly since 1776 from (1) to over (100). Moreover, there are over (50) higher order representative governments, many constitutional federal republics.
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/democracy_index_2007_v3.pdf
Are you just making things up? I didn’t criticize representative governance for being in decline at all (thats a criticism you made of monarchy) nor could I care less that about its global ascendancy.-- angurse
my assertion that monarchy is in decline is correct. indeed, it is virtually extinct. for example, how many monarchs maintain real power today?
moreover, you criticized representative government in the following quote
"Constitutional federal republics have been on the decline as well, are you ready to abandon ship?-- angurse
are you seriously claiming that a constitutional federal republic is not a representative government ?!?
There was a period when slavery was a growing phenomenon, times change.-- angurse
irrelevent straw man.
That can be said for the millennia of monarchy before it as well. In fact, the entire world didn’t just transform into republics in 1776, most of it was still ruled by monarchy, yet the Industrial revolution still started (within a monarchy!)-- angurse
appeal to tradition.
for example, are you seriously asserting that monarchism is more viable and sustainable than representative government based on its past success prior to the emergence of representative governance?!. Moreover, the origin of the industrial revolution (England) is a monarchy in name only — the queen is a mere figure head today in contrast to the real power the royal family held prior to the emergence of representative government.
However, calling it a proven failure is pure lunacy, not only is it in existence right now, it is by far the longest reigning system of governance. Constitutional Federal Republics are a tiny blip, smaller than even that of anarchism.–angurse
again, i think many of the anarchists on this forum would call your assertion a fallacy, namely appeal to tradition.
Are you blatantly lying? The U.S. was as close to minarchy (and therefore anarchy) for about ten years, then the Constitution was ratified and its been going downhill since. Concurrently, life expectancy increased, its still increasing now as the U.S. creeps toward fascism. Attributing such feats to government in no way helps your case. Progress has come from technology, which grows best when government is away.–angurse
note that for thousands of years mankind saw little improvement in living standards and technological advancement. however, with the emergence of classical liberalism, capitalism, and representative governance there was an exponential growth in human advancement. While I acknowledge that statist structures are/were anathema to these advances – representative government was the framework in which capitalism provided these advancements.
angurse,
read the posts.
liberty student has unsuccessfully and feebly tried to rebut both of our assertions that there is no praxeological precept that confirms anarchism over minarchism.
he fallaciously cited a theoretical framework (methodological individualism) as an a priori that supports anarchism over minarchism.
for example, I am trying to understand the rationale behind the anarchists unwavering adherence to anarchism in the absence of any praxeological precepts confirming anarchism relative to minarchism.
How does statist provision of defence circumvent the calculation argument? Moreover, how does it evade the problems monopolistic provision of a good does…?
Argument from ignorance.-- liberty student
how can a question be considered a logical fallacy ?!!
liberty student dont you think you have abused the use of this logical fallacy ad nauseam argument when you cite it on a question ?
Interesting how you can switch domains like that without actually establishing what the subject is which you feel belongs in a different domain.-- liberty student
please explain the statement above, it does not make sense.
Strawman.
I could pick apart the rest, but what’s the point?
no, feel free to “pick apart” my assertion that anarchists discount coercion by force by the oft repeated hunchism that market forces will deter coercion by force from statist regimes and monopolistic defense enterprises.
the point is that you cant rebut my assertion in the absence of a praxeological a priori confirming anarchism’s efficacy at deterring statist threats.
moreover, empirical evidence confirms the inability of anarchic societies to defend themselves from predation since the nominal anarchic regimes that have existed are now extinct.
lastly, you have still not answered my question:
what praxeological precept or a priori confirms anarchism over minarchism in providing societal wealth and security against external threats?
I am eagerly awaiting your “logical fallacy” citation in the absence of any substantive rebut.
jon irenicus,
in the short term, a statist regime could malinvest resources into the defense industries to temporarily offset the anarchic advantage in efficiency.
however, the rationale for this thread is my question of :
what praxeological precept confirms anarchism relative to minarchism for providing societal wealth and security against external threats?
for example, I am surprised at the vehement anarchist defense of anarchism in the absence of any praxeological a priori that confirms anarchism over minarchism.
indeed, one anarchist (liberty student) claimed that methodological individualism is a praxeological a priori that confirms anarchism over minarchism ?!
manifestly wrong. cite your source.
moreover, representative governance has increased significantly since 1776 from (1) to over (100). Moreover, there are over (50) higher order representative governments, many constitutional federal republics.
http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/democracy_index_2007_v3.pdf
Democracy index 2006 by regime type
Countries % of countries % of world population
Full democracies 28 16.8 13.0
Flawed democracies 54 32.3 38.3
Hybrid regimes 30 18.0 10.5
Authoritarian regimes 55 32.9 38.2
More countries are non-democratic than democratic, and there are almost double the amount of flawed democracies than the alternative, Further, let’s see how many of those “full democracies” actually follow their Constitutions, aren’t in massive debt, aren’t becoming police states, etc… I can think of several that are.
my assertion that monarchy is in decline is correct. indeed, it is virtually extinct. for example, how many monarchs maintain real power today?
Liechtenstein, Vatican City, Jordan, Kuwait, Andorra, Oman, Brunei, Morocco, Bhutan, Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia… but who denied that monarchy was in decline? Minimal states are also in decline. So what exactly?
moreover, you criticized representative government in the following quote
"Constitutional federal republics have been on the decline as well, are you ready to abandon ship?-- angurse
That isn’t a criticism at all.
are you seriously claiming that a constitutional federal republic is not a representative government ?!?
Sorry, I haven’t made any such statement.
irrelevent straw man.
Not at all. Your entire pro-democracy, anti-monarchy argument has based entirely on trends. I’ll quote you:
moreover, representative governance has increased significantly since 1776 from (1) to over (100).
are you aware that monarchism has been on the decline for a few years, namely since 1776 ?
it is a paradox that you are critical of representative governance for (1) allegedly being in decline despite its unquestioned global ascendancy
I’m not one for fads, if I must choose I’ll stick with the classics.
appeal to tradition.
Appeal to popularity:
moreover, representative governance has increased significantly since 1776 from (1) to over (100).
are you aware that monarchism has been on the decline for a few years, namely since 1776 ?
it is a paradox that you are critical of representative governance for (1) allegedly being in decline despite its unquestioned global ascendancy
Honestly, why do you keep referring to trends? They mean absolutely nothing.
for example, are you seriously asserting that monarchism is more viable and sustainable than representative government based on its past success prior to the emergence of representative governance?!.
Where is the example? To answer your question - no. I haven’t been defending monarchy on any grounds other than the ones you have been using for representational democracy, namely history. Although, monarchy certainly has a robust theoretical and economic defense against democracy. (See: transaction cost, time-horizons, voter irrationality, etc…
Plato put it well:
“just as it would be madness to settle on medical treatment for the body of a person by taking an opinion poll of the neighbors, so it is irrational to prescribe for the body politic by polling the opinions of the people at large.”
Also de Maistre:
“False opinions are like false money, struck first of all by guilty men and thereafter circulated by honest people who perpetuate the crime without knowing what they are doings”
Moreover, the origin of the industrial revolution (England) is a monarchy in name only — the queen is a mere figure head today in contrast to the real power the royal family held prior to the emergence of representative government.
The industrial revolution didn’t start today, it started in the early 18th Century when the Royal family held much, much more power. The Monarchial age of Europe ended in WWI, after the revolution had ended.
again, i think many of the anarchists on this forum would call your assertion a fallacy, namely appeal to tradition.
And they’d be right if I was using it as an appeal, good thing I’m not.
note that for thousands of years mankind saw little improvement in living standards and technological advancement. however, with the emergence of classical liberalism, capitalism, and representative governance there was an exponential growth in human advancement. While I acknowledge that statist structures are/were anathema to these advances – representative government was the framework in which capitalism provided these advancements.
“Little improvement”, thats just pure nonsense. Technology hasn’t stopped advancing since the stone age. Trying to package capitalism with representational government is a just a weasel move. The industrial revolution occurred throughout the western world, it was capitalism in spite of government, of every form.
While I acknowledge that statist structures are/were anathema to these advances – representative government was the framework in which capitalism provided these advancements.
What is this newspeak? Representative government is a statist structure, how could it be an anathema towards capitalism and its supporting structure?
liberty student has unsuccessfully and feebly tried to rebut both of our assertions that there is no praxeological precept that confirms anarchism over minarchism.
he fallaciously cited a theoretical framework (methodological individualism) as an a priori that supports anarchism over minarchism.
Has nothing to do with the question I asked. How were those points quoted subjectivist fallacies?
We can’t put them aside. Nearly every single one of your posts is riddled with them. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously in debate, when your claims are illogical?–liberty student
subjectivist fallacy
Especially with consideration of:
how can a question be considered a logical fallacy ?!! – Rettoper
Please explain.
for example, I am trying to understand the rationale behind the anarchists unwavering adherence to anarchism in the absence of any praxeological precepts confirming anarchism relative to minarchism.
Answer: Economic theory/moral code/philosophical beliefs. Relative to minarchy, anarchism is on a much more solid ground praxeologically, and equal empirically. A better question is how could anyone possibly be a minarchist.
Ok, which anarchists discount coercion by force bla bitty bla bla? Name them, and provide a source where they have discounted “coercion by force by the oft repeated hunchism that market forces will deter coercion by force from statist regimes and monopolistic defense enterprises.”
Since you said anarchists (plural) I will accept two anarchists as proof this statement has some value as a generalization.
Names and sources please.
Do you know what methodological individualism is?
Ok, which anarchists discount coercion by force bla bitty bla bla? Name them, and provide a source where they have discounted “coercion by force by the oft repeated hunchism that market forces will deter coercion by force from statist regimes and monopolistic defense enterprises.”
Since you said anarchists (plural) I will accept two anarchists as proof this statement has some value as a generalization.
Names and sources please.–liberty student
I will do better than cite two anarchists to support my argument that anarchists put an unrealistic and naive faith in the free market to deter aggression.
for example, anarchists unequivocally support the free and unencumbered exchange of capital, goods, and services across former national borders.
this is insanity squared.
hostile non-state or state actors could infiltrate and destroy, or in the very least severely destabilize, even the most prosperous anarchic society.
IN summary, zero anarchists adopt zero provisions to defend itself from outside threats.
please challenge the following case study, one of an infinite number debunking anarchic security (hypothetical since no anarchic societies have ever existed). Indeed, a large statist alliance could simply “buy-out” an emerging anarchic state or in the very least purchase the defense agencies protecting anarchic society:
statist operative buys land on the cheap on the anarchic side of the border with his statist nation
operative informs his co-conspirators in the statist military high command when the real estate deal closes.
Statist military forces stage monthly military exercises directly opposite the recently purchased land
“efficient” anarchic private defense forces rush to meet potential threat
undercover statist landowner refuses to grant anarchic forces access to his land unless he is paid an exorbidant fees, rents, and royalties.
In the name of national defense, the rich anarchic forces grudgingly accede to the landowner’s demand for payment.
Anarchic forces expertly deploy forces in an impenetrable defense
Undercover statist land owner cashes checks, dispenses cut to military co-conspirators, we in turn use a small fraction of the proceeds for a beer and steak cookout on the border.
After cookout, hung-over statist troops “Moon” anarchic forces and withdraw
Anarchic forces withdraw
Undercover statist landowner sells land, tripling his original investment by touting the value of “strategically vital” terrain contemplated as a staging ground for a possible statist attack.
Repeat steps 1-11 until:
a. Anarchist society collapses and institutes a Federal republic to provide for defense against external threats
b. Anarchist society collapses by forming statist bureaucracy to oversee border with statist provocateur.
c. Anarchists society calls statist’s “bluff” by refusing to deploy forces for an attack that never materializes – and statist take opportunity to mount a devastating blitzkrieg penetration deep into anarchic land supported by hundreds of sapper sleeper cells resulting in a quick and decisive victory.
Repeat steps 1-12 on the nearest adjacent surviving anarchic society and continue until they are all destroyed or until the surviving anarchic societies dissolve and establish more formidable minarchic states.
hypothetical since no anarchic societies have ever existed
Still? Really?
Retopper, I need more to laugh at. Where did you get the criteria for “higher order democracies” again? There might be what we could call “working democracies”, but none actually meet your criteria.
You didn’t do better.
Simply identify and cite two anarchists in order to substantiate your claim. If you can’t do this, retract or rephrase your assertion.