Rettoper, aside from all the ridiculous flaws in your plan to take over an ancap society, you realize it would never happen right? Like even if it were physically possible for states to always win against ancaps, its not the optimal plan to enrich statist societies.
Why doesn’t the united states just go take over kuwait? Or venezuela? They have lots of oil right? Explain why that isn’t a good idea, and you’ll see why an ancap society would never be attacked except by cannibal zombies.
at risk of feeding…
- statist operative buys land on the cheap on the anarchic side of the border with his statist nation
reason to expect that land in the wealthiest and freeest region of earth would be ‘cheap’ ? but ok whatever they pay for it.
- operative informs his co-conspirators in the statist military high command when the real estate deal closes.
cool
- Statist military forces stage monthly military exercises directly opposite the recently purchased land
why not on the land, since its their land? but anyway, they march around next door to land that they own. ok.
- “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.
so, if the statist landowner does not wish protected at low cost, the defence agencies can tell him he is unprotected, his neighbours may yet want protection and allow the appropraite forces onto their lands. so whats the problem? so far all you have is that statist agents may purchase land.
Do you know what methodological individualism is?–liberty student
I have only perused this site for a little over a month. however, from past readings and a recent review — methodological individualism is the tenet that states the actions of individuals in the market must be analyzed to determine the macro-economic outcomes.
for example, understanding broader aggregate economic outcomes is dependent on examining the individual in this process.
how is that description?
Nonetheless, methodological individualism is not an a priori that confirms anarchism relative to minarchism in providing societal prosperity and security.
SO for the 5-6th time, I ask you:
what praxeological precept(s) confirm anarchism relative to minarchism in providing societal prosperity and security to external threats?
Still? Really?
Retopper, I need more to laugh at.–olovetto
are ad hominens really necessary?
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.–olovetto
I didnt develop the criteria. It comes from freedom house. the following page explains the methodology:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=35&year=2005
based on their analysis, there are over 50 higher order democracies scoring (1) for civil liberties and political rights
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.–liberty student
red herring.
nonetheless, here are two contributors (and anarchists) to the forums that repeat the naive fallacy that anarchic society would be protected from predation by hostile statist regimes due to market forces
The people who run states, assuming states exist, benefit more from peace and free trade, than they would from military and trade wars. Google “comparative advantage” and “law of association”.–grayson lilburne
Do you agree that human beings in most situations realize that they can benefit from exchange? And that, out of their own self interest, they will most of the time (but not all the time) seek to engage in peaceful voluntary cooperation as opposed to the very costly alternative of constant war? --DD5
moreover, both hoppe and rothbard assert the same thing.
again for the 6-7th time, you have still not answered my question:
what praxeological precept(s) confirm anarchism over minarchism in providing for societal prosperity and protection from external threats?
Rettoper, aside from all the ridiculous flaws in your plan to take over an ancap society, you realize it would never happen right? Like even if it were physically possible for states to always win against ancaps, its not the optimal plan to enrich statist societies.-- sieben
subjectivist fallacy — for example, your statement is purely opinion unsupported by any fact, logic, or empiricism.
if anarchic societies are so effective at providing both prosperity and defense — why do none exist?
moreover, statist regimes have myriad motives for dispatching potential enemies — do I need to recite the history of warfare to you?
its not the optimal plan to enrich statist societies.-- sieben
hunchism.
for example, provide the praxeological precept or empiricial evidence that confirms your opinion.
We’re working towards that, keep your diapers on.
Not bad. So now I want to ask you, are you applying methodological individualism to your analysis? And do you feel your question to us, is consistent with methodological individualism? If not, why?
reason to expect that land in the wealthiest and freeest region of earth would be ‘cheap’ ? but ok whatever they pay for it.-- nirgrahamUK
the statist cartel wouldnt need to purchase ALL of the anarchic land — only a single center of gravity would suffice to destroy or seriously degrade its defenses.
for example, a statist cartel could purchase energy resources, food supplies, water resources, transportation infrastructure, et al.
In summary, an anarchic society would be incredibly and dangerously vulnerable to infilitration that would not be present in a minarchic society.
why not on the land, since its their land? but anyway, they march around next door to land that they own. ok.–graham
cool, your promoted. Indeed, statist enemies could buy land anywhere they wanted with impunity.
so, if the statist landowner does not wish protected at low cost, the defence agencies can tell him he is unprotected, his neighbours may yet want protection and allow the appropraite forces onto their lands. so whats the problem? so far all you have is that statist agents may purchase land.-- graham
the problem is that the statist regime doesnt need all of the land on the border to initiate a successful invasion — they only require a corridor to advance. the simplicity of this approach is that an anarchic agency would have absolutely no recourse other than to spend prodigious amounts of money or capital to purchase statist land in the anarchic enclave.
note that the free rider problem is present – for example, the anarchic inhabitants in the interior of the enclave would be loath to spend money providing for the defense of those living on the borders of statist regimes – moreover, all of the defense agencies would be restricted by market forces – meaning the more they spent on building a credible and effective defense, they higher their fees, the more customers they lose.
In contrast, the statist regimes can fund defense for years at a deficit thereby more then offsetting the anarchic efficiency advantage.
subjectivist fallacy
This isn’t even a proper use of this term at all.
We’re working towards that, keep your diapers on.-- liberty student
why is it necessary for you to engage in ad hominens?
Not bad. So now I want to ask you, are you applying methodological individualism to your analysis? And do you feel your question to us, is consistent with methodological individualism? If not, why?–liberty student
red herring.
for the XX time, what is the praxeological precept(s) that confirms anarchism over minarchism in providing societal prosperity and security from external threats?
for the XX time, what is the praxeological precept(s) that confirms anarchism over minarchism in providing societal prosperity and security from external threats?
Can you name any “praxeological precepts”?
It’s not a red herring. You made a specific claim, and I am asking you to clarify it with a source. Expecting us to defend a position without a source is unreasonable and debating in bad faith.
Either indicate which two anarchists (to achieve your plural use of anarchist) made the claims you have indicated, and where, and I will proceed to address your question. If you cannot show us who made these claims, then from where did you get them, and why have you characterized them as anarchist positions?
Neither is claiming what you claimed they did.
Would you like to adjust your claim, so we can restart from a sincere position?
I do very much want to educate you, and I realize answering your questions is part of that process. But until you ask questions based in reality and logic, we can’t make progress.
So please help me help you.
olovetto,
sieben made no effort whatsoever to rebut my assertions other than to simply disagree with them.
perhaps the logical fallacy of “personal incredulity” is more appropriate.
nonetheless, your post is simply a red herring since neither you or sieben have answered the following question:
what praxeological precept(s) confirms anarchism over minarchism in providing for societal prosperity and security against external threats?
olovetto,
the higher the price of a good, the lower the demand.
the increase in a product, the lower the marginal value.
an exchange in the free market can only occur if both actors benefit.
division of labor increases productivity.
free trading nations benefit from comparative advantage
socialism fails since it cant determine prices/wages for scarce resources.
increasing minimum wage costs jobs,
et al…
Note that these tenets are irrefutable. they dont require testing or research to prove as correct.
please cite the precepts that I am missing
for example, anarchists unequivocally support the free and unencumbered exchange of capital, goods, and services across former national borders.
This example is false. Most anarchists here believe in absolute or near-absolute property,
hostile non-state or state actors could infiltrate and destroy, or in the very least severely destabilize, even the most prosperous anarchic society.
Minarchists also support free trade, as do most constitutionalists, are they insane as well?
IN summary, zero anarchists adopt zero provisions to defend itself from outside threats.
One of those underpants gnomes summaries?
please challenge the following case study, one of an infinite number debunking anarchic security (hypothetical since no anarchic societies have ever existed
Blatant lie. The World, the Ifugao, the Yurok, the Icelandic Commonwealth, the Kuikuru, the Santals, Gaelic Ireland, the Tiv…
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:
Are they obligated to sell?
- statist operative buys land on the cheap on the anarchic side of the border with his statist nation
Fine, fine.
- operative informs his co-conspirators in the statist military high command when the real estate deal closes.
OK.
- Statist military forces stage monthly military exercises directly opposite the recently purchased land
Getting a little creepy, I’d be calling my PDA, or alerting the local militia.
- “efficient” anarchic private defense forces rush to meet potential threat
OK.
- undercover statist landowner refuses to grant anarchic forces access to his land unless he is paid an exorbidant fees, rents, and royalties.
He obviously, isn’t undercover anymore. And if he’s a threat they don’t need to act with his permission.
- In the name of national defense, the rich anarchic forces grudgingly accede to the landowner’s demand for payment.
Nope. See response to 5.
- Anarchic forces expertly deploy forces in an impenetrable defense
Good. I like the sound of impenetrable.
- 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.
Nope. See response to 5.
- After cookout, hung-over statist troops “Moon” anarchic forces and withdraw
Brilliant tactic.
- Anarchic forces withdraw
Problem solved…?
- 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.
But it clearly wasn’t vital, a bunch of soldiers just got drunk and exposed themselves, the value would probably go down.
- Repeat steps 1-11 until:
a. Anarchist society collapses and institutes a Federal republic to provide for defense against external threats
Why would it just jump to Federal Republic, there are other forms of organization, how about a confederacy?
b. Anarchist society collapses by forming statist bureaucracy to oversee border with statist provocateur.
Why would it just turn to statism to oversee a border? the U.S. is a state and they fail miserably at doing it.cannot even watch its own borders as it is.
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.
If its their job to investigate threats, they’ll just become better at it.
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.
Steps 1-12 have failed, see my responses, think of a new tactic general. How a minarchic society is more formidable rests on delusion or confusion, as I said above they also believe in free trade. My anarchist army could do the exact same tactic of buying property, except instead of standing around getting drunk (the classic statist approach) we’ll build factories, power plants and other useful facilities, and we’ll even hire minarchist citizens.
This example is false. Most anarchists here believe in absolute or near-absolute property, – angurse
of course that is what I said too ?!? here is my original post:
for example, anarchists unequivocally support the free and unencumbered exchange of capital, goods, and services across former national borders.-Rettoper
and absolute property rights means that an anarchist can sell his land to the highest bidder, even if those bidders are islamic extremists with WMD’s.
Minarchists also support free trade, as do most constitutionalists, are they insane as well?–angurse
anarchic societies have absolutely no restriction on capital inflows, while a minarchic and of course representative governments have authority to check this from happening. Moreover, representative governments and minarchic regimes maintain borders, anarchists dont have borders – hence anyone with a buck can enter and exploit the anarchic society from within. By any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure – infiltrating a minarchic society is far more problematic for hostile actors than infiltrating an anarchic society.
Blatant lie. The World, the Ifugao, the Yurok, the Icelandic Commonwealth, the Kuikuru, the Santals, Gaelic Ireland, the Tiv..-- angurse
if it is a lie, then why have these anarchic societies become extinct. Indeed, this would prove the vulnerability of anarchism to external threats. In reality, all of those societies had some measure of government, albeit small. Many anarchists on this site would support my assertion that no anarchic societies have ever existed, including this one:
No capitalist societies have existed, nor minarchist. --angurse
in summary, you have continually rebutted yourself on this forum.
Are they obligated to sell?-- angurse
if the price is right. moreover, the statist regime wouldnt be worried about profit or consumer goods. they could deficit spend in the short term (years, perhaps decades) while the anarchic society would be constrained by the profit motive.
He obviously, isn’t undercover anymore. And if he’s a threat they don’t need to act with his permission.-- angurse
if you believe this then you dont understand anarchism. for example, in an anarchic society private property is sacrosanct moreover – there is precious little provision for violating someone’s private property rights if they do not sign that right away. lastly, the statist infilitrator would obviously not announce himself – he remains covert.
Why would it just jump to Federal Republic, there are other forms of organization, how about a confederacy?–angurse
your statement confirms that you are not an advocate for anarchism. by submitting to a central authority for defense, the anarchic society ceases to exist. it becomes a minarchism.
Why would it just turn to statism to oversee a border? the U.S. is a state and they fail miserably at doing it.cannot even watch its own borders as it is.-- angurse
just because the USA doesnt have the political will to oversee its border, doesnt mean that other nations have been equally as dismal. for example, most nations do a pretty good job at policing their borders. Indeed, the USA has the technological wherewithal to seal the border with mexico, however it has not done this because of the benefits of both legal and illegal immigration far outweigh the costs, namely lower cost goods and services and a steady supply of young, motivated, and talented labor and consumers.
teps 1-12 have failed, see my responses, think of a new tactic general. How a minarchic society is more formidable rests on delusion or confusion, as I said above they also believe in free trade. My anarchist army could do the exact same tactic of buying property, except instead of standing around getting drunk (the classic statist approach) we’ll build factories, power plants and other useful facilities, and we’ll even hire minarchist citizens.–angurse
you miss a fundamental difference between anarchism and minarchism – namely minarchist maintain borders and control entry from foreign nationals into the country. anarchism has no such centralized control on who enters or leaves its enclaves. moreover, there is no eminent domain laws in an anarchic society.
I do very much want to educate you, and I realize answering your questions is part of that process. But until you ask questions based in reality and logic, we can’t make progress.-- liberty student
by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure… a red herring.
moreover, it is obvious that both grayson and DD5 are claiming that market forces deter aggression.
i will post their responses again and you tell us what is the “hidden meaning” behind their posts:
The people who run states, assuming states exist, benefit more from peace and free trade, than they would from military and trade wars. Google “comparative advantage” and “law of association”.–grayson lilburne
Do you agree that human beings in most situations realize that they can benefit from exchange? And that, out of their own self interest, they will most of the time (but not all the time) seek to engage in peaceful voluntary cooperation as opposed to the very costly alternative of constant war? --DD5
moreover, you have incorrectly cited methodological individualism as an a priori confirming anarchism over minarchism.
it is not even an a priori or irrefutable precept ! It is simply a theoretical construct or framework in which to analyze human actions from the perspective of the individual as opposed to the collective.
furthermore, red herrings notwithstanding, you have still not answered the question:
what is the praxeological precept(s) that confirms anarchism relative to minarchism in providing societal prosperity and security against external threats?
I didn’t say they were. I’m saying even if they are lousy at defense, it does not mean the failure of ancapland.
Well, its a very different world we live in now. I think that barbarians are capable of invading and conquering peaceful non-state agricultural societies. But in recent times, wars have always been fought between beligerant states, not against peaceful anarchist communes or peaceful states.
The fact that sometimes states don’t go to war.
You’re basically predicting that there would be a war between peaceful anarchic societies and states, but in modern times there aren’t even regular conquests of smaller states by larger, more powerful ones. Why do you think this is? Why does germany not invade switzerland and enslave them? Why does china not crush japan? Why does america not loot canada for its rich coal deposits? Please figure this out, and you will see why states will not attack peaceful ancaps.
You’re basically predicting that there would be a war between peaceful anarchic societies and states, but in modern times there aren’t even regular conquests of smaller states by larger, more powerful ones. Why do you think this is? Why does germany not invade switzerland and enslave them? Why does china not crush japan? Why does america not loot canada for its rich coal deposits? Please figure this out, and you will see why states will not attack peaceful ancaps.
He has all of the answers right in front of him, but just refuses to acknowledge it. Anyhow, keep in mind that all of these states who don’t invade each other are in a state of anarchy amongst themselves.
of course, and absolute property rights means that an anarchist can sell his land to the highest bidder, even if that bidder is an islamic extremists with a WMD.
Nope. People don’t have to allow threats into a society. However accepting property is almost the polar opposite of “unequivocally support the free and unencumbered exchange of capital, goods, and services across former national borders.”
anarchic societies have absolutely no restriction on capital inflows, while a minarchic and of course representative governments have authority to check this from happening. Moreover, representative governments and minarchic regimes maintain borders, anarchists dont have borders – hence anyone with a buck can enter and exploit the anarchic society from within. By any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure – this is far more problematic for the enemy intent on attacking a minarchic society
What? The property lines are borders, there would literally be millions of borders. Further, you don’t know what minarchy is, the government only has authority to protect from invasion (an individual buying property isn’t violating any borders) and protect people from one another, foreign people buy land in modern republics almost daily. You seem to be advocating a fascist state.
if it is a lie, then why have these anarchic societies become extinct. Indeed, this would prove the vulnerability of anarchism to external threats. In reality, all of those societies had some measure of government, albeit small.
Well, the world still exists. However, you cannot name one society that hasn’t fallen either to outside forces or internal ones. You’re critique of anarchism for being vulnerable is just as viable for states. All have been toppled.
In reality, all of those societies had some measure of government, albeit small.
More blatant lying. Why don’t you read up on them, all of them, before continuing make completely false assertions?
Many anarchists on this site would support my assertion that no anarchic societies have ever existed, including this one:
No capitalist societies have existed, nor minarchist. --angurse
While your reading up on anarchist societies look up Capitalism (and minarchism), as anarchism doesn’t necessarily mean capitalism.
if the price is right. moreover, the statist regime wouldnt be worried about profit or consumer goods. they could deficit spend in the short term (years, perhaps decades) while the anarchic society would be constrained by the profit motive.
More lying? You aren’t obligated to sell if the price is right. The deficit spending statist-society just makes itself more vulnerable. Look up Operation Bernhard.
if you believe this then you dont understand anarchism. for example, in an anarchic society private property is sacrosanct moreover – there is precious little provision for violating someone’s private property rights if they do not sign that right away. lastly, the statist infilitrator would obviously not announce himself – he remains covert.
You don’t seem to understand the complexities of human culture, nor the commonsense reasoning of libertarianism. Aggressors don’t have liberties, people who are threatening are aggressors. How does the infiltrator, the man having cookouts on the property remain covert, how is any property owner covert, his name has to be on the deed.
your statement confirms that you are not an advocate for anarchism. by submitting to a central authority for defense, the anarchic society ceases to exist. it becomes a minarchism.
You have poor reading skills. I asked you to explain why they would just jump to federal republic, and not a confederacy. Further, a confederation does not mean submission to a central authority at all, thats a federation, confederation generally means voluntary union, which is definitely anarchist.
your previous statement suggesting a confederacy represents a move toward statism. many anarchists suggest that any move in this direction will eventually lead to absolutism.
It wasn’t a statement, it was a question, which you haven’t answered.
you miss a fundamental difference between anarchism and minarchism – namely minarchist maintain borders and control entry from foreign nationals into the country. anarchism has no such centralized control on who enters or leaves its enclaves. moreover, there is no eminent domain laws in an anarchic society.
No, they don’t. minarchism does not prohibit foreign nationals from entering or buying property in a country (nor are there eminent domain laws), you are thinking of fascism.