Primarily, the USA must eliminate statist abuses at home. I have advocated a rollback in the powers of the central government including a balanced budget amendment and the elimination of the “commerce clause” via Constitutional means
I’m sorry if you truly think this might happen (which I don’t actually believe).
How? If you mean the state responds better to emergency situations than the market, take a look at Hurricane Katrina or similar events (e.g. Wal-Mart did a lot more here than the state can be credited for.) Moreover, a malinvestment is inherently an inefficient, negative outcome as it is one made at odds with the desires of consumers. It deprives other market activities of needed funds, and with no price signal to guide it, there is no sense of how much, or even what kind of defence is adequate.-- Jon
I agree, however history is replete with examples of prosperous states or enclaves being overrun by inefficient, statist, and warlike regimes that have focused societal efforts on warmaking and plunder at the expense of market efficiences.
statist provision of “defence” is what is pure “Hunchism”.
– jon
considering that there are exactly ZERO viable or significant anarchic societies today and myriad of viable and significant statist regimes, your statement is on shaky ground at best.
Moreover, I will ask the question again – name the praxeological a priori that confirms anarchism over minarchism for providing societal wealth and security from external threats?
I agree, however history is replete with examples of prosperous states or enclaves being overrun by inefficient, statist, and warlike regimes that have focused societal efforts on warmaking and plunder at the expense of market efficiences.
Put this picture with that in your travel brochure.
Hail Comrade!
olovetto,
liberal democracies have begun significant efforts to cut back on government largesse, starting with the scandanavian states in the late 1990’s.
http://www.financialpost.com/news/Global+leaders+attempt+spending+still+grow/3186039/story.html
Indeed, the swedish example is described on this site:
Moreover, I expect the socialists now in congress to be replaced by politicians more inclined to reduce the size and scope of government. FOr example, the Tea Party movement is indicitive of a growing consensus in the USA of the need to significantly reduce government, including defense expenditures
In summary, a moderation of positions and the manner in which you defend them might be more constructive to achieving your ends.
You say this In spite of the chief moderator taking the better part of a week to debate you in a civilized manner?
Wrong — in an ancap society a private property owner can sell to whoever he/she wants, including an islamic extremist if that individual or group is the highest bidder.
Are you sure this is a response to what I’ve said? I didn’t say he couldn’t sell to an Islamic extremist at all. I said people (i.e. neighbours) don’t have to allow threats in a society (i.e. an Islamic extremist with WMDs). Moreover there are libertarian methods of controlling whom one can and cannot sell to in convenant agrrements, homeowners societies, and land groups.
Wrong — within a representative government and minarchic society (if necessity dictates) in the name of national security, the government can restrict or prohibit sales to foreign nationals, period. Examples of this were the dubia ports deal and laws against the transfer of techonology to foreign states.
No, period. You are confusing minarchism (government has three functions: defense, police, and courts) economic sanctions, and discrimination are a product of a functional state or worse.
Within an ancap society, there are no such restrictions on direct foreign investment, trade, or technological transfers. Moreover, these transactions would be largely motivated by profit.
Same for minarchy, see above.
Wrong, the United States
It fell within the first ten years. Then again less than 100 years later.
Wrong, there are plenty of examples of large, relatively prosperous, technologically advanced, viable, secure, and functioning nations led by representative governments. There are exactly ZERO large, prosperous, viable, and secure anarchic states.
Yet all forms of statism have collapsed. If speaking purely relatively than representative democratic states have less ground to stand on than even anarchist ones, and both fail miserably when compared to monarchial ones.
Praxeology, austrian theory derived from praxeology, and empiricism confirms this fact.
Um no. Remember praxeology doesn’t confirm a thing about anarchism:
indeed, there is no praxeological precept to discount or confirm this eventuality, hence it is in the realm of empiricism. – retopper
And, as von Mises taught us, nothing can be confirmed empirically.
Lastly, there are exactly ZERO viable, large, prosperous, secure, and functioning anarchic societies.
Lastly, there are exactly ZERO viable, large, prosperous, secure, and functioning minarchic societies. (And there never has been one, ever).
1500: Lastly, there are exactly ZERO viable, large, prosperous, secure, and functioning democratic societies.
So your point is?
ad hominen.
Not at all.
Ad hominen: appealing to personal considerations (rather than to fact or reason);
Example “Retopper has written several posts arguing that anarchism is impossible. But Retopper is an obnoxious American so you shouldn’t listen to him.”
Put that with the Subjectivist Fallacy (and please look them up).
I did.
All of the anarchic “paradises” are either extinct or dependent on the whim of some statist government for survival.
Who called them paradises? First point, moot, no society has lasted forever. Second point - false, many didn’t exist with even the knowledge of states, and vice versa.
For example, if any exist, they exist within a statist framework that either ignores their existance or the statist regime could dismantle it in a few hours.
That isn’t an example, nor did they exist within a statist framework. Ironically, all states exist within a anarchist framework.
Btw, your icelandic anarchic society had a 1% tax, had a “volunteer” government in which citizens could not opt out of choosing a thain, degenerated into conflict and chaos from the machinations of a few Christian missionaries, and eventually begged the Norwegian king to rescue them.
Wait, there wasn’t a central government, so no state. Whats the term for a stateless society? More importantly, they lasted longer than the United States, so you have about 100 years before you can gloat over them. However, I never claimed them to be anarcho-capitalist or libertarian, in fact, I’ve stated that there has never been a capitalist society, their culture isn’t something I’m promoting as such, so your source is attacking a strawman. Lastly, you said you read up on ALL of them, so lets hear about ALL of them.
It does on this site.
for example, anarchism = anachro-capitalism = maximal capitalism on this site. the “anarchists” on this site reject communal-anarchism or any other hybrid of anarchism that is not based on the free market. And I agree with them. If you have a problem with this definition, take it up with olovetto, seiben, skyler, et al.
Nobody on this site ignores the fact that anarchism means more than just anarcho-capitalism (except for you maybe), the topic has been explored extensively on the boards and articles.
are these ad hominens necessary – simply because I offer a position different then yours does not mean I am a liar.
First, these aren’t ad hominems (see above) second, that was a question (?), third, you didn’t offer any position.
I asked: Are they obligated to sell?
You replied: if the price is right
That however, is either a blatant lie as libertarianism doesn’t consist of positive obligations (i.e. selling), or confused cry for help, you may answer when ready.
Wrong, your premise is seriously flawed if you think that anarchic citizens will not sell to the highest bidder.
Wait a minute, I asked are they obligated to sell (see above) not could they sell. There is a big difference. And as I explained above, there are contractual methods to prevent them from selling to the highest bidder. (Not that they are necessary)
MOreover, they wouldnt know or they couldnt be sure that they are selling to hostile sleeper cells. Lastly, depending on the good will of profit driven actors is naive at best. THis sentiment is probably why there are exactly ZERO anarchic societies in play.
This is equally true for a minarchist society, information is assymetrical and people don’t become more benevolent because of regime change, study AE of Public Choice Theory.
Wrong, I am continually amused by the anarchic fringe that they seem to believe that when/if an anarchic society emerges it will be populated by 325 million people and possess a GDP of $15 trillion in a fortnight, thereby making it immune to the machinations of the hated statists.
Where did I say any of that? Moreover, actually explain how deficit spending doesn’t make a nation vulnerable.
This is a presumption that challenges even the most optimistic prognosticators. For example, the notion that anarchism will metastasize into a overpowering behemoth overnight when we have exactly ZERO anarchic societies of worth or significance in play today – is not supported by either praxeology or empiricism.
I haven’t made that presumption, I doubt anyone here has made such a huge presumption, “please quote people saying that anarchism will metastasize into an overpowering behemoth overnight.”
red herring
Red Herring: any diversion intended to distract attention from the main issue
“I know your car isn’t working right. But, if you had gone to the store one day earlier, you’d not be having problems.”
Sigh, add red herring to the list.
Operation bernhard was an unsuccessful counterfeit scheme. It has nothing do to with a foreign national purchasing private property in a legitimate transaction.
Nor was it presented as such, it has much to do with exploiting economic vulnerabilities though.
statist sleeper cells are not aggressors per se. They simply purchase land in a strategic location or center of gravity and refuse entry unless paid a handsome fee, rent, or royalty by an anarchic defense agency.
This is the first you’ve mentioned such sleeper cells to me though. The statist infiltrator of your example hadn’t been identified as a sleeper at all. In fact, military drills were being performed right beside the newly acquired land, then having cookouts and moonings. Assuming a new scenario, where he’s keeping his plans a secret it still doesn’t mean he’s anonymous by any stretch, as he still needs to sign the deed and things like title-insurance (a practical must have in a newly created libertarian society!) make his secrecy even less easy to maintain.
Moreover, thousands of these sleeper cells could infiltrate an anarchic society with impunity. Until they execute their missions, they would not be aggressors and therefore not subject to any sanctions. IN contrast, foreign spies in a liberal democracy are subject to harsh penalties, even death, irrespective of whether they engage in any aggression.
No, conspiracy could still be considered aggression. Your contrast however has made the assumption that the spies will be exposed, which is just a baseless guess. Foreign nationals by huge tracts of land in the U.S. and looking at the history of spies that have been caught in the U.S. they got off fairly lightly compared to less-liberal democracy, are you just asserting that your society won’t be as kind and stupid as they U.S?
is it necessary to repeatedly engage in ad hominens ?
See above.
presumably, a central agency or authority would be formed to administer the business of the conferation.
And? (From Wiki)
By definition the difference between a confederation and a federation is that the membership of the member states in a confederation is voluntary, while the membership in a federation is not.[4][5][6][7] A confederation is most likely to feature these differences over a federation:
Central agencies are perfectly compatible with anarchism as long as they are entered into voluntarily
For example, I challenge you to name a confederation today that doesnt have a central governing authority.
Where is the example? See above, simply having a central governing authority isn’t pertinent, its how you came to have it.
Moreover, anarchism rejects ALL central government.
Some forms maybe, definitely not anarcho-capitalism. Voluntary arrangements are perfectly acceptable, read some Auberon Herbert.
By any objective, rational, and indepedent thinking measure the United States is not fascist — yet our government reserves the right to deny foreign nationals from entering or buying property under law. In addition, the US COnstitution allows eminent domain. Note that when I refer to minarchism, it implys the ability of these states to adopt measure similar to these to insure national security. For example, a viable minarchic society that recognized an external threat would be unquestionably more likely to adopt these type of measures than an anarchic society.
Is this a response to me? “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.”
The U.S. isn’t a minarchist state by any objective, rational and independent thinking measure.
Caley,
I’ve challenged his notion of “minarchism” multiple times now:
“What praxological precepts confirm minarchism’s efficacy at providing both economic prosperity and soceital security relative to the functional state, the welfare state, etc…”
“No capitalist societies have existed, nor minarchist.”
“Of course it isn’t confirmed, nothing is confirmed. Minarchism has never existed, functional states have never lasted, welfare states are fairly new and already crippling, socialist ones are… however anyone pushing for any system is is equally as guilty as anarchists in that regard.”
“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.”
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.”
It seems “minarchy” is his pet definition for fascism.
I agree, however history is replete with examples of prosperous states or enclaves being overrun by inefficient, statist, and warlike regimes that have focused societal efforts on warmaking and plunder at the expense of market efficiences.
Just as it is replete with the concerted efforts of individuals overthrowing would-be oppressors/tyrannical home governments. So what’s your point?
Moreover, I will ask the question again – name the praxeological a priori that confirms anarchism over minarchism for providing societal wealth and security from external threats?
Theory of monopoly + the calculation problem + the subjective theory of value.
angurse,
the fundamental point is that there is no praxeological a priori that confirms anarchism as the most viable system for providing both economic prosperity and societal security against internal and external threats.
moreover, there is a wealth of empirical evidence that shows anarchism to be a failed system.
for example, you cant even name a single anarchic society of significance that exists today.
Moreover, you cant name a single techonological advancement that was discovered within an anarchic society. Indeed, you cant cite anything of significance that was contributed throughout history by an anarchic society.
and yet, you continue to sing its praises. For example, what has anarchic society ever accomplished other than to exist in tiny insignificant enclaves for a time only to be rendered prostrate and extinct at the slightest provocation from religious, economic, or statist influences ?
Theory of monopoly + the calculation problem + the subjective theory of value.-- jon
these tenets are not exclusive to anarchic societies. Nor do they confirm anarchism over minarchism (or even liberal democracies) for providing societal economic wealth AND societal security from external threats.
Rettoper,
How would you rate Angurse’ reply? It was reasoned and civilized, exactly the kind of tone you said this forum lacks. You have received dozens of well reasoned replies like this from members and from moderators.
I think you ought to consider revising some the words you threw out there awhile back regarding conduct on this forum.
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
not true, there is logic and empirical evidence to suggest otherwise, although it is not mine.
http://biggovernment.com/dmitchell/2010/06/29/the-rahn-curve-shows-government-is-far-too-big/
these tenets are not exclusive to anarchic societies. Nor do they confirm anarchism over minarchism (or even liberal democracies) for providing societal economic wealth AND societal security from external threats.
I’m beginning to wonder whether you know what you’re even talking about. They’re economic concepts, so no, they’re not exclusive to them. Taken together, though, they do show that statist provision of defence is economically suboptimal relative to anarchist means of providing the good. That should answer your question as to which praxeological precepts affirm anarchism > minarchism.
chloe,
angurse has called me a liar over a half dozen times for stating that no purely anarcho-capitalist societies have existed. Note that I am repeating the same claim offered by others, including grayson lilburne – I guess by angurse’s reasoning, grayson is a liar too.
Indeed, I pointed out that iceland had a tax and required compulsory membership in a local clan.
Moreover, you can see the examples of ad hominens against me in just this thread.
nonetheless, I am all for civil discourse, even with those I disagree while acknowledging that I do surrender to retailation when the ad hominens become more frequent and they are deviod of any fact, logic, or empiricism.
I’m beginning to wonder whether you know what you’re even talking about.-- jon
ad hominen.
They’re economic concepts, so no, they’re not exclusive to them. Taken together, though, they do show that statist provision of defence is economically suboptimal relative to anarchist means of providing the good. That should answer your question as to which praxeological precepts affirm anarchism > minarchism.-- jon
if “taken together” why has anarchism had such a dismal record over thousands of years of recorded history?
Indeed, anarchism had the upper hand early on since it had absolutely no competition from competing systems!
for example, why are there absolutely no anarchic societies of note today ?
angurse has called me a liar over a half dozen times for stating that no purely anarcho-capitalist societies have existed. Note that I am repeating the same claim offered by others, including grayson lilburne – I guess by angurse’s reasoning, grayson is a liar too.
I haven’t once called you a liar for that. Anarcho-capitalism doesn’t equal anarchism. If Grayson, or anyone else, says differently then they are fools not to be taken seriously.
Minarchism is not in ascendancy. Your standards are in descendancy.-- caley
ad hominen.
Ad hominem means" to the man". You are a man and I am speaking to a man. Very good. Mundane observations and superfluous latin aside, declining expectations do not constitute progress. Reference to the Rahn curve was inevitable following the topic post. It is exactly what I had in mind. There can be no doubt that 500 years ago when 15% of GDP was regarded as the pinnacle of tyrannical taxation, and barely survivable as well, some Rahn of the day would have conjured a mystical curve depicting the parabola around some substantially lower number such as 2 or 3.
not true, there is logic and empirical evidence to suggest otherwise, although it is not mine.
http://biggovernment.com/dmitchell/2010/06/29/the-rahn-curve-shows-government-is-far-too-big/
So, life expectancy has increased because the government has been growing? The article linked states nothing of the sort.
My original post:
please challenge the following case study, one of an infinite number debunking anarchic security (hypothetical since no anarchic societies have ever existed-- Rettoper
Your response:
““Blatant lie. The World, the Ifugao, the Yurok, the Icelandic Commonwealth, the Kuikuru, the Santals, Gaelic Ireland, the Tiv..””.-- angurse
Angurse,
I posted the link to show evidence of empirical research that shows a maximum level of societal growth at a level of government as a percentage of a nation’s GDP.
i dont know where you came by the illusion that I posted the link to assert a coorelation between life expectancy and increased government.
Indeed, I reject that assertion. For example, increased government is not a causal factor in increased life expectancy.
go back and read my posts carefully.
