Common law, merchant law and I believe maritime law are all from the private sector.
ad hominen.
Please stop spouting crap. I’m not disregarding your argument because of your person. That is an ad hominem fallacy. Just insulting you (or, as I did, questioning your understanding of economics) does not count. You’re beginning to sound like a troll on repeat.
if “taken together” why has anarchism had such a dismal record over thousands of years of recorded history?
Relative to what? But this is goalpost shifting. You asked for praxeological precepts. These are time-invariant and do not depend on the record of past societies but concern the laws of economics and allow one to pass judgement on which society would be most conducive to sating consumer wants.
Indeed, anarchism had the upper hand early on since it had absolutely no competition from competing systems!
Says who? Mere chaos and disorder does not equal anarchism.
for example, why are there absolutely no anarchic societies of note today ?
States exist in a situation of anarchism relative to one another for one, and perhaps because the movement has yet to reach a critical mass. Increasing crises of statism and the right ideological conditions (as are increasingly coming in place) may threaten the stranglehold states have over their territories.
A priori truths are value-free statements and thus cannot establish which state is more desirable then the next. I’m surprised no one has brought up this point yet. Praxeology tells us nothing about what state is better, that is the job of thymology. The understanding of human action. What and why people value things.
He has phrased it specifically as which form of organisation is more conducive to economic growth and sound defence. It is a praxeological/economic question and an answerable one. I’ve pointed out which praxeological concepts cast doubt on minarchism’s efficacy in either regard. He then switches goalposts (read above.)
‘He has phrased it specifically as which form of organisation is more conducive to economic growth and sound defence. It is a praxeological/economic question and an answerable one. I’ve pointed out which praxeological concepts cast doubt on minarchism’s efficacy in either regard. He then switches goalposts (read above.)’
No doubt he phrased it in a way in which certain value statements are presupposed in a question aimed at explaining value-free statements.
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…
please cite the precepts that I am missing
Forced monopolies cause a combination of the following. Services and goods fall in quality/abundance and rise in price.
Government has a forced monopoly on the services of justice and use of retaliatory force.
If you still insist that nobody’s answered you, you’re an idiot.
To the everybody else: this is what he means by praxeological percept, even though it’s not the correct term for it.
Spare us the insults. They are unnecessary.
I haven’t insulted him yet. It’s conditional.
There are none. Again, praxeology is the science of human action. It isn’t a bunch of statements lumped together which “confirm” anarchism over minarchism or vice versa. You’re asking if a value-free science “confirms” something that requires a value judgement (e.g. what is “better” or what is “good”).-- krazy kaju
I agree,
my point was to challenge those on this site who are unyielding anarcho-capitalists when praxeology makes no argument supporting anarcho-capitalism in providing for societal defense, much less in being able to satisfy non-economic human wants and needs.
And what measures are you using? Are you using GDP? Well, I’m sure that government could increase GDP over the long-run by a Singapore-like forced savings program. And what about societal security? If a government taxes 20% of national income and puts all of it toward security, then certainly such a society would have “better” societal security than an anarchist society that only puts forth 5% of national income towards security. The problem with both of the previous examples from a utilitarian perspective is that neither forced savings/investment or forced security payments are in line with consumer preferences. Therein lies the superiority of anarchism.-- krazy kaju
I agree,
anarchism (and to a lesser extent minarchism) are superior too competing systems in providing for consumer preferences, including defense preferences. However, i agree that you are correct that statist systems can circumvent these anarchic advantages in the short term (to devastating effects IMHO)
That said, perhaps we could state that an anarchist society would have “better” security regardless of the circumstances, if we consider taxation to be theft or extortion (which it is). To use the above example, the country with a 20% tax rate would mean that each year, 1/5th of people’s income is stolen by the government. In contrast, the anarchist society would have a 0% tax rate, meaning that no income would be stolen from the people by a government. So even if the anarchist society had a higher crime rate (which it probably would not), it would still have “better” security than the society ruled by a government.-- krazy kaj
I agree that taxes are a form of coercion, however less so within a Constitutional Federal REpublic (as opposed to pure democracy) in which society can have considerable input into this process. Moreover, I agree that taxes are generally inefficient, however the Rahn curve shows that maximal societal wealth is attained at 20% rate. For example, societal infrastructure (law, defense, free rider penalties, et al) favorable to economic growth fails when taxes drop below 20%
I think you are presuming too much when you presume that you would have 0% waste within an anarchic society, particularily among defense agencies. For example, nothing in an anarchic society would prevent a defense agency from reaching monopoly status, taking power, and forming an absolutism. Moreover, 99% of capitalist enterprises fail, when this occurs within a few critical defense agencies responsible for protecting the bulk of an anarchic soceity from outside predation the consequences are fatal.
moreover, security is not based on per capita efficiency, it is based on real output. for example, history is replete with examples of efficient, peaceful, stable, free, and prosperous societies being overrun by large, inefficient, violent, unstable, and despotic contiguous regimes.
Lastly, if praxeological a priori dont confirm anarchism, history has clearly rejected it. for example, if your arguments are true, then why havent these truths been translated into the real world in the form of myriad sustainable, secure, and prosperous anarchic societies dotting the globe?
Yes. If you have more to gain by trading with someone than by attacking them, the system does not need defense.-- seiben
If this was the case, then why has mankind experienced so many destructive wars? For example, it is painfully obvious that the leadership of inefficient statist regimes believe in the utility of annexing neighbors by force versus trading with them.
These are all exceptions. I know they stick out in everyone’s mind because we pay attention to wars, but tension and conflict between nations does not cause war 999/1000 times.-- seiben
I disagree, I believe that peace is the exception.
for example, we have had less than 150 years of peace since the advent of recorded history.
So if we live in such a peaceful world, won’t an ancap society be able to function? America won’t invade it because its not a despotic regime-- seiben
There is no evidence that conflict can be ended, nor is there evidence that this would be advantageous. For example, conflict is simply the price individuals are willing to pay to force change in an intolerable condition. In less debilitating circumstances, individuals are willing to offset war in order to force change through less violent means.
however, I agree that in a world dominated by classical liberal societies that anarchism could gain a foothold and it could proliferate and overtake liberal democracies and minarchic societies. In contrast, I dont think that this can occur without removing statist regimes. Moreover, attacking classical liberalism is anathema to the establishment of the global framework in which anarchism can establish itself in a sustainable manner. For example, if maximal capitalism is a super highway, you cant get there unless you travel the footpath of classical liberalism.
Note that I question anarcho-capitalism’s ability to defend itself within a geopolitik still dominated by statist regimes. I agree that anarcho-capitalism is obviously superior in providing for economic performance (the rahn curve notwithstanding).
Japan and china are not first order democracies. The United States attacks “not first order” democracies in south america all the time. Particularly if you think that debt slavery is aggression (I lend money to the warlord, and then pretend like the PEOPLE owe me).-- seiben
as a stated above, i dont think mankind will ever erradicate conflict – even within a totally anarchic geopolitik. Indeed, within an anarchic society you may see far more conflict than presently exists. for example, there may be tens of thousands of diverse and distinct economic/cultural enclaves that would likely come into conflict over myriad issues unrelated to economic exchange that would lead to constant, simmering, and debilitating small scale conflicts. In contrast, today’s geopolitic is really only dominated by less than a dozen world powers, hence diplomacy and peacemaking is far less problematic.
however, I dont think anyone can present a realistic case study to predict any remotely possible scenario that would lead to conflict between the USA and either Japan or Taiwan. With respect to higher order democracies like chile, costa rica, canada, et al there is little chance of conflict between these societies. for example, since the victory of classic liberalism in the Cold war – the Western hemisphere, Europe, and the asian pacific rim are more peaceful, prosperous, free, and stable than at anytime in their tumultous histories, all thanks to classical liberalism and American hegemony.
‘He has phrased it specifically as which form of organisation is more conducive to economic growth and sound defence. It is a praxeological/economic question and an answerable one. I’ve pointed out which praxeological concepts cast doubt on minarchism’s efficacy in either regard. He then switches goalposts (read above.)’
No doubt he phrased it in a way in which certain value statements are presupposed in a question aimed at explaining value-free statements.-- cain
my point is that unyielding adherence to anarcho-capitalism in a geopolitic dominated by statist regimes is not supported by either praxeological precepts or empiricism.
for example, I think that the anarchists on this site misrepresent praxeology and von MIses through their absolute adherence in the efficacy of anachro-capitalism in the absence of praxeological and empirical arguments.
moreover, this ideological rigidity and the obvious hostility toward “non-believers” damages the credibility and the promotion of the beneficial and irrefutable tenets that the austrian school outlines.
In summary, until praxeology advances an a priori that irrefutably confirms maximal capitalism – lets work within the existing framework of classical liberalism to advance incrementally toward minarchism and if viable to anarcho-capitalism.
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
the praxeological precepts you cited indeed confirm anarchism’s (and minarchism) economic efficacy relative to statist, socialist, marxist, et al systems – however they do not confirm anarchism’s efficacy in providing for defense relative to statism. For example, statist systems can temporarily “flood the market” in specific industries (defense) that would negate the overall efficiency of an anarchic system. In the case of societal defense, a “temporary” disadvantage leads to permanent extinction. For example, temporary monopolies or advantages in consumer goods and services can easily be corrected by long term machinations in the free market without serious disruptions, however in the critical area of national defense there are no long term corrections back to equilibrium since the statist regime has used this temporary advantage to destroy the anarchic society.
Please stop spouting crap. I’m not disregarding your argument because of your person. That is an ad hominem fallacy. Just insulting you (or, as I did, questioning your understanding of economics) does not count. You’re beginning to sound like a troll on repeat.–jon
futile defense of ad hominem – moreovercalling someone a troll in the absence of any substantive arguments is trollish itself.
Relative to what? But this is goalpost shifting. You asked for praxeological precepts. These are time-invariant and do not depend on the record of past societies but concern the laws of economics and allow one to pass judgement on which society would be most conducive to sating consumer wants.–jon
RElative to vituarally anyother system including marxism, socialism, fascism, et al while dismal systems have nonetheless had a more substantial record than anarcho-capitalism. of course, praxeology is not time dependent — note that if you read the posts you would see anarchists futilily trying to defend anarchism by citing historical record (iceland, celts, et al ) — for example, irrespective of whether you cite praxeology or history, anarchism has scant record on any success. Lastly, your tunnel vision on economics and consumer wants disregard swaths of human social interaction not based solely on economic wants and needs that may explain anarchism’s failure despite its ecomonic efficacy.
Says who? Mere chaos and disorder does not equal anarchism.–jon
despite the fact that anarchism was not competing with large contiguous statist systems at the beginning of civilization, it still didnt have the wherewithal to establish a sustainable system. moreover, since civilization was largely anarchical at its inception, this dynamic would tend to encourage anarchism relative to statism – yet anarchism didnt emerge and sustain itself.
In summary, if a praxeological a priori exists that would confirm anarcho-capitalism, why didnt anarchism establish itself early in history?
States exist in a situation of anarchism relative to one another for one, and perhaps because the movement has yet to reach a critical mass. Increasing crises of statism and the right ideological conditions (as are increasingly coming in place) may threaten the stranglehold states have over their territories.-- jon
hunchism.
Moreover, you are not likely to advance from statism directly to anarcho-capitalism – more likely, if anarchism emerges, it will be in a geopolitik dominated by peaceful representative governments.
for example, you have still not answered my question:
what praxeological a priori confirms anarchism over minarchism in providing for societal economic health and security from external threats?
The point is that that praxeology doesn’t confirm anything, statism nor anarchism. However, it does show that polycentrism is more efficient.–angurse
your manifestly wrong,
praxeology debunks statism, namely the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism.
moreover, cite the praxeological precept that confirms polycentrism. also, cite the praxeological precept that confirms polycentrism as exclusive to anarchism.
As well as statism. – angurse
by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure, while statist systems have failed they have undoubtedly dominated the geopolitical to a far greater extent than any anarchic systems including the isolated, tiny, insignificant, and now extincted systems you cited in earlier posts.
Note that you have engaged in a contradictory posts of both claiming (in unedited posts) that no anarchic societies have existed and then in a subsequent post (unedit) you cite supposed examples of anarchic societies (iceland, celts, et al). Moreover, you have engaged in sophmoric attempts to rationalize these contradictions by claiming that you “meant” “anarchism” as opposed to “anachro-capitalist” societies – ignorant to the fact that virtually everyone on this site rejects the effacacy of communal-anarchism or socialist-anarchism relative to anarcho-capitalism.
but the grand example of your contradictory and paradoxical posts is your claim that the forum’s primary moderator (grayson lilburne) is a fool.
The world.-- angurse
try to keep up angurse,
I responded to this in an earlier post. for example, while the geopolitik is indeed anarchic, there are exactly zero viable and independent anarcho-capitalist societies within this anarchic environment. and if any exist, they are utterly dependent on the whim and good graces of a statist host or contiguous regime.
Actually, there were agricultural and weapons developments. (I could name some particulars but I don’t think you’d really care)-- angurse
no please cite them, i would enjoy your response.
“Moreover, you cant name a single techonological advancement that was discovered within a Minarchic society.”
Even more importantly,
1500: “Moreover, you cant name a single techonological advancement that was discovered within a democratic society.”
Whats your point?–angurse
your statement is manifestly wrong.
for example, the following technological advancements were attained by tax paying, voting, oath taking, et al INDIVIDUALS working within largely classical liberal societies in the last 30 years:
The Internet (thanks al)
Cell phone
fiber optics
cable and satellite tv
Personal computers
invitro
Fiber optics
power point
human blueprint mapping
frozen food in a bag (MREs)
nanotechnology
E-mail
online trading
Commercialized GPS
lithium batteries
Portable computers
microwave popcorn
lyme disease vaccine
Memory storage discs
DNA polymerase chain reaction
Consumer level digital camera
Radio frequency ID tags
pay at the pump
flat panel TVs
MEMS
statins
50% lower infant mortality
hepatitis A vaccine
DNA fingerprinting
HPV vaccine
blackberries
minimally invasive procedures (ie, catheritzation)
caller ID
heart AEDs
Air bags
hair plugs (your welcome joe)
botox (your welcome nancy)
viagra (your welcome rush)
ATM
Advanced batteries
Hybrid car
OLEDs
Display panels
consumer debit card
I-Pods
lasik
social networking
HDTV
Space shuttle
hormonal therapy
Nanotechnology
Flash memory
Voice mail
Modern hearing aids
Short Range, High Frequency Radio
False. I haven’t praised anarchism itself, I’ve praised capitalism, which can only exist unfettered.–angurse
this statement is bizarre.
for example, if capitalism can only exist “unfettered” and you havent praised anarchism, then what system would unfettered capitalism exist within?
Moreover, since anarcho-capitalism hasnt existed in the past (by your definition in unedited previous posts), and if capitalism cannot exist unless unfettered, then by your bizarre definition – capitalism has never existed !!!
That is an unanswerable question, societies don’t accomplish anything, only individuals.–angurse
if societies cant accomplish anything then why have you cited them in your arguments ad nauseam. for example, your diversion is a sophmoric and transparent attempt to avoid answering a simple question.
Indeed, individuals living in anarchic societies have not contributed anything substantive to mankind. in contrast, the majority of life improving inventions and innovations were accomplished by individuals working within a classical liberal framework of governance.
The Internet (thanks al gore)
Cell phone
fiber optics
cable and satellite tv
Personal computers
invitro
Fiber optics
power point
human blueprint mapping
frozen food in a bag (MREs)
nanotechnology
E-mail
online trading
Commercialized GPS
lithium batteries
Portable computers
microwave popcorn
lyme disease vaccine
Memory storage discs
DNA polymerase chain reaction
Consumer level digital camera
Radio frequency ID tags
pay at the pump
flat panel TVs
MEMS
statins
50% lower infant mortality
hepatitis A vaccine
DNA fingerprinting
HPV vaccine
blackberries
minimally invasive procedures (ie, catheritzation)
caller ID
heart AEDs
Air bags
hair plugs (your welcome joe biden)
botox (your welcome nancy pelosi)
viagra
ATM
Advanced batteries
Hybrid car
OLEDs
Display panels
consumer debit card
I-Pods
lasik
social networking
HDTV
Space shuttle
hormonal therapy
Nanotechnology
Flash memory
Voice mail
Modern hearing aids
Short Range, High Frequency Radio
your manifestly wrong,
praxeology debunks statism, namely the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism.
moreover, cite the praxeological precept that confirms polycentrism. also, cite the praxeological precept that confirms polycentrism as exclusive to anarchism.
In Response to:
The point is that that praxeology doesn’t confirm anything, statism nor anarchism. However, it does show that polycentrism is more efficient.
Do you just like saying “manifestly wrong?”
by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure, while statist systems have failed they have undoubtedly dominated the geopolitical to a far greater extent than any anarchic systems including the isolated, tiny, insignificant, and now extincted systems you cited in earlier posts.
And what? Big government has undoubtedly dominated the … to a far greater extent than any small-government systems…
1500: And monarchy has undoubtedly dominated the … to a far greater extent than any democratic systems…
You are just repeating non-points like a broken record.
try to keep up angurse,
I responded to this in an earlier post. for example, while the geopolitik is indeed anarchic, there are exactly zero viable and independent anarcho-capitalist societies within this anarchic environment. and if any exist, they are utterly dependent on the whim and good graces of a statist host or contiguous regime.
The entire thing is a society.
your statement is manifestly wrong.
for example, the following technological advancements were attained within classical liberal societies in the last 30 yea
So you agree with me? None of those were invented in democratic societies pre 1500, so the monarchist is correct. And none of them were invented in a minarchist society at all. And there really hasn’t been a classical liberal society in the last 30 years, so go big government!
Perhaps you meant “manifestly correct?”
And what? Big government has undoubtedly dominated the … to a far greater extent than any small-government systems…
1500: And monarchy has undoubtedly dominated the … to a far greater extent than any democratic systems…
You are just repeating non-points like a broken record.-- angurse
you are manifestly wrong (indeed, I use this term frequently when rebutting your generalizations unsupported by fact, logic, or empiricism)
for example, monarchism has been throughly trumped by classical liberalism. Indeed, even dismal systems like marxism and fascism have removed monarchism.
your citations of oman, leichenstein, andorra, et al not withstanding.
So you agree with me? None of those were invented in democratic societies pre 1500, so the monarchist is correct. And none of them were invented in a minarchist society at all. And there really hasn’t been a classical liberal society in the last 30 years, so go big government!–angurse
i dont know what to say, other than you are wrong
if you assert that the USA (in which the bulk of these innovations were developed within the last 30 years) is a monarchy than you need to re-examine and revise your definition of monarchy and classical liberal society.
for example, what is your definition of the AMerican system – mine is classical liberal or more specifically a constitutional federal republic.
nonetheless, the myriad of beneficial innovations and technologies developed within the last 30 years were not within either marxist, socialist, monarchical, minarchic, ,or anarchic systems.
in summary, please cite the system that you think the USA now exists within.
Yep, they do.
Ugh, “flooding the market” =/= efficient. How would it “negate” the overall efficiency of the anarchic system other than throwing money at something?
futile defense of ad hominem – moreovercalling someone a troll in the absence of any substantive arguments is trollish itself.
No, it’s a correction of your sheer lack of understanding of the fallacy. And you’ve yet to come up with substantive arguments yourself.
Substantial record, at what?
Bullshit. The societies you mention outlasted the US in its period of existence, and moreover, praxeology certainly does not disfavour anarchism. You’ve yet to show an argument that it does other than purely asserting statist societies can “flood” the market, w/e the hell that means.
Sorry, we’re discussing economics here, not moonshine. What the hell does this even mean?
Ever occured to you it was because the system wasn’t envisioned yet at the time, hm? Anarcho-capitalism and indeed most forms of anarchism are positive forms, and not just sheer chaos.
What is a praxeological “a priori”? How does the latter follow from the former?
Made-up-wordism.
What does it really matter how it comes about?
I’ve answered your question. You don’t like the answer. Tough.
you are manifestly wrong (indeed, I use this term frequently when rebutting your generalizations unsupported by fact, logic, or empiricism)
for example, monarchism has been throughly trumped by classical liberalism. Indeed, even dismal systems like marxism and fascism have removed monarchis
So, in 1500, monarchism had been thoroughly trumped by classical liberalism?
your citations of oman, leichenstein, andorra, et al not withstanding.
Thorough indeed.
if you assert that the USA (in which the bulk of these innovations were developed within the last 30 years) is a monarchy than you revise your definition of monarchy and classical liberal society.
Didn’t assert that the USA is a monarchy.
for example, what is your definition of the AMerican system – mine is classical liberal or more specifically a constitutional federal republic.
Thats just it, there isn’t a single American System, the system has been changed and scrapped time and again. And classical liberalism is a political ideology a republic is a system of government. The U.S. currently is basically a corporatist state.
nonetheless, the myriad of beneficial innovations and technologies developed within the last 30 years were not within either marxist, socialist, monarchical, minarchic, ,or anarchic systems.
True. If your basis for choosing government is by looking at what has been invented within the last 30 years, big-government corporatism is the way.
Yep, they do.-- jon
Argument from Personal Incredulity
Ugh, “flooding the market” =/= efficient. How would it “negate” the overall efficiency of the anarchic system other than throwing money at something?-- jon
I have covered this repeatedly, please read the previous posts. Efficiency per capita does not equate to real output. for example, history is replete with instances of prosperous, free, and stable societies being overrun by large, inefficient, despotic contiguous regimes who had a REAL advantage in munitions and troops.
Substantial record, at what?–jon
in surviving, existing, of significance relative to anarcho-captalist societies.
Bullshit. The societies you mention outlasted the US in its period of existence, and moreover, praxeology certainly does not disfavour anarchism. You’ve yet to show an argument that it does other than purely asserting statist societies can “flood” the market, w/e the hell that means.–jon
praxeology neither disproves nor does it prove anarchism. for example, I challenged you to cite an a priori to prove anarchism’s efficacy at providing societal defense against external threats and none has been forthcoming. for example, an a priori argument is irrefutable and by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure you have provided none proving anarchism. as a result, your unyielding support of anarchism in the absence of praxeological or empirical evidence is far more flimsy than my assertion that anarchism would fail since it is handicapped by the profit motive in contrast to statist systems. Moreover, statist systems can deliver concentrations of power more effectively and quickly than a loose collection of contiguous anarchic societies.
Sorry, we’re discussing economics here, not moonshine. What the hell does this even mean?-- jon
your statement is typical of the propensity of anarchists to discount the non-economic wants and needs of individuals. For example, not all human goals involve the attainment of economic issues. otherwise, explain the “economic” motivation of suicide bombers, kamikazee attacks, christians rejecting the monarchy under sentence of death, et al.
moreover, machivelli illustrated clearly that for profit armies and troops are ineffective since there is no logic in dying in a profit motivated endeavor. hence statist armies motivated by non-economic goals have repeatedly out performed and defeated larger and better equiped private armies.
Ever occured to you it was because the system wasn’t envisioned yet at the time, hm? Anarcho-capitalism and indeed most forms of anarchism are positive forms, and not just sheer chaos.–jon
What is a praxeological “a priori”? How does the latter follow from the former?-jon
because a priori tenets need not be “envisioned” to be realized within human actions. for example, 2+2=4 did not need to be “established” or “envisioned” to be understood or realized. undoubtedly, individuals intuitively understood the fundamentals of math even before the advent of language and there actions confirmed the efficacy and utility of mathematical precepts. Indeed, everytime a primitive man threw a spear, he was consciously utilizing the irrefutable tenets of trignometry. IN addition, every primitive structure built by man acknowledged the efficacy of geometry without primitive man having a formal education in this discipline.
likewise, if there was a single a priori or series of precepts than confirmed anarchism, then presumably anarchism would have established itself within the last 40,000 years of civilization.
Made-up-wordism.–jon
your statement was not supported by praxeology or empiricism, hence it was a hunch.
What does it really matter how it comes about?
I’ve answered your question. You don’t like the answer. Tough.–jon
It matters because we both agree that statism is anathema to societal health and well being. Moreover, we both agree that the less coercion in society the better and that government/statism is the source of ALL coercion in society. however it is obvious that we disagree on the means to achieve common ends.
IN summary, the means to attain these goals are important. For example, I believe that the unyielding and adversarial posture that many anarchists have adopted on this site is detrimental to the goal of attracting converts to the austrian school and in turn detrimental to the primary goal of reducing the size and scope of government.
it is getting ponderous rebutting your misstatements. for example, I stated the demise of monarchy begin in 1776 – not 1500.
yes, monarchism has been debunked by history if the best you can do is cite a few tiny, inefficient, unstable, and/or insignificant monarchies (oman, liechtenstein, monaco, saudi arabia, luxembourg, et al)
moreover, it is becoming more apparent that you are a subject of a queen and king and therefore biased in support of monarchy’s efficacy.
For example, dont you think that continued support of the queen of england and the royalty in england is a waste of taxpayer’s money?
or like a good little royal subject, do you support continued coercion of taxpayers to support this ridiculous relic of a failed past?
nonetheless, you still have not answered the following questions that were based on your statement below:
False. I haven’t praised anarchism itself, I’ve praised capitalism, which can only exist unfettered.–angurse
are you saying that anarcho-capitalism is not pure capitalism ?
are you stating that capitalism can only exist within… what system ?
and lastly are you stating that capitalism has never existed, nor does it exist today since it is obviously not funcitioning within an “unfettered” system?
it is getting ponderous rebutting your misstatements. for example, I stated the demise of monarchy begin in 1776 – not 1500.
yes, monarchism has been debunked by history if the best you can do is cite a few tiny, inefficient, unstable, and/or insignificant monarchies (oman, liechtenstein, monaco, saudi arabia, luxembourg, et al)
You are completely missing (ignoring?) the point, use 1776 instead of 1500, it makes no difference. Before 1776, the world was dominated by monarchy. People (at the time) who advocated democratic republics would, by your standards, have to overcome the same questions of empirical evidence for it to be considered a viable alternative to monarchy. However, at the time, there had been absolutely no advances in technology or contributions from democratic societies. A democratic republic (Circa. 1776) was in the the same empirical position as anarcho-capitalism (Circa. 2010).
(Also, the idea that Liechtenstein, Monaco, Saudi Arabia, and Luxembourg, being inefficient/unstable/insignificant, is just laughable when compared to the state of modern republics.)
For example, dont you think that continued support of the queen of england and the royalty in england is a waste of taxpayer’s money?
Yes. (As is the continued support of Parliament).
are you saying that anarcho-capitalism is not pure capitalism ?
Not at all, read the quote “I haven’t praised anarchism itself, I’ve praised capitalism, which can only exist unfettered.” As I don’t use the terms anarchism and anarcho-capitalism interchangeably.
are you stating that capitalism can only exist within… what system ?
A system of private property, a system without political dominance.
and lastly are you stating that capitalism has never existed, nor does it exist today since it is obviously not funcitioning within an “unfettered” system?
Yes. I said so in my first post “No capitalist societies have existed, nor minarchist.”
Rett - “moreover, this ideological rigidity and the obvious hostility toward “non-believers” damages the credibility and the promotion of the beneficial and irrefutable tenets that the austrian school outlines.”
Where to begin with this?
Why do you think there is hostility? Could it be that forum members are provoked by fallacious arguments? Can you think of even one fallacious argument you have offered? (“X has never happened, therefore X will never happen”)
I will ask you again; why do you dismiss the week-long civilized debate between you and Grayson? I have seen page after page of civilized responses from other moderators and forum members. Why do you repeatedly throw the forum under the bus?
Damages the promotion of the Austrian school? So anarcho-Capitalists, along with those who favor no government, ought to just shut up? You do understand that the forum does not represent the views of the Mises Institute don’t you? Have you listened to the Institute’s speakers and authors? Do they sound like forum members?
The forum bashing is getting old. Please go back to telling the forum that there is no praxeological a priori or empirical evidence that confirms minarchism over anarchism, opps, got that backwards.
Please continue to explain how rude the forum members are toward “non-believers” and it is holding back the great benefits of the Austrian school. Just imagine the great strides that Austrian Economics could have made without being dragged down by this internet forum! Wow! This forum is powerful!