I’m not asking you to. Just use less pronouns, that’s all. For example:
In that passage, I don’t know what “this position” is referring to, since the quote of mine you used,
Is not a position. It’s describing the position I stated earlier in that post,
Is that what you were trying to say?
If they have no means to attain legitimacy, why presume that they can just takeover and defeat all those who actually do have the means to attain legitimacy, which you have already acknowledged to be more advantageous?
And if they do somehow take over (just for the sake of hypothetical argument), how do they sustain themselves without any such legitimacy? In other words, why do you apply different criteria for warlords and states? You still haven’t addressed the double standard.
~~
~~
Ok so your confused by my use of pronouns, because I responded to a statement of you where you used a pronoun and you lost track? I won’t requote several pages of dialogue between us because you can’t keep track. There is nothing wrong with my grammer. The above response makes no sense whatsoever. How is a position, you acknowledged, not a position all of the sudden? I’m not going to recite my interpretation of your argument on every post, simply because you dislike a convenient use of pronouns.
~~
~~
~~
~~
If you scroll up you will see what I was directly responding to. I won’t hold your hand through this sorry.
Actually I give up. This is just going to agitate Grayson and this nit picking over grammer, again, is entirely off topic. I won’t requote our historical dialogue in every post, if you have a hard time keeping up then don’t engage me. Lets try at least to stay OT.
I haven’t presumed that.
Legitimacy mollifies the populace, allowing for expansion. Would a larger state likely win a conflict against a smaller neighbor, especially if viewed as legitimate/more legitimate relative to said smaller neighbor? Yes, I think it is likely. (2nd German Reich vs. independent german states)
I also think a small, yet ideologically cohesive group can fare well against a much larger, yet unmotivated state (the US in Vietnam)
So legitimacy, and the following motivational conviction, can make or break a state.
Much like any business, a state is subject to economies of scale. Relying soley on force keeps you small, because you have to try harder to keep your subjects subjegated. If you justify your subjegation in a way that your subjects accept, you have solved that problem, allowing expansion.
As to how to gain/maintain legitimacy, that is a whole 'nother ballgame.
Honestly, I don’t know who has the means to attain legitimacy, and who doesn’t, because “legitimacy” itself is a situationally subjective term.
Hopefully, the preceding also answers this:
filc,
LOL, what’s this, like the fifth time you’ve “given up”?
The market for defense services.
How so?
People (generally) want to keep their stuff. Greed or selfishness or something.
Saying the market will defend against coercive institutions, intrinsically relies upon a respect for markets; which would be an ethical/social norm.
As soon as one person/group thinks they can find a profit in military expansion, and acts upon it, it ceases to be a market anymore. If they prove succesful in their endeavor, it is likely they will find other investors to expand their resources and continue said aggression.
What, other than assuming a respect for markets, would protect against aggression that proves profitable?
I disagree. Could we fabricate a theoretical world where markets didn’t exist? Assuming the social norms are against it? How would this world function?
I disagree. Could we fabricate a theoretical world where markets didn’t exist? Assuming the social norms are against it? How would this world function?
I don’t follow.
And no, I don’t see a world without markets as possible unless there are replicators (which my first thing I would get from it.. a replicator).
Sign me up! I also want a hover car. Weren’t we suppose to have those in the 80’s? What happened. 
At any rate I may have gone down an incorrect direction. Let me re-address the comment I was referring to.
I’m not so convinced that we need to rely on a normative respect for markets. First off because I think markets form due to praxeological reasons, not because there is a social norm which respects it. Secondly, the existence of warlordism would likely create create a large enough demand for defense of property institutions, to counter-balance the threat. The more rampant the warlordism, the more incentive people have to allocate resources into defense of property and protection. Hope that makes sense…
Sign me up! I also want a hover car. Weren’t we suppose to have those in the 80’s? What happened.
I blame the sound of a powerful car. There is just no way to get a hover car to recreate that sound, and we all know that is the only reason people drive…
First off because I think markets form due to praxeological reasons, not because there is a social norm which respects it
While I don’t deny this, wouldn’t this assume that coercion arises due to praxeological reasons as well? Otherwise, how did coercion develop?
Secondly, the existence of warlordism would likely create create a large enough demand for defense of property institutions, to counter-balance the threat. The more rampant the warlordism, the more incentive people have to allocate resources into defense of property and protection
Ok. But if said aggressor continues to find it profitable, this just sounds like a run-up to statism.
Ok. But if said aggressor continues to find it profitable, this just sounds like a run-up to statism.
But it wouldn’t (at least, financially). Just as a bakery that constantly poisoned its patron’s wouldn’t continue to earn profits. (This obviously assumes a scale economy, but thats a perfectly fair assumption).
But it wouldn’t (at least, financially). Just as a bakery that constantly poisoned its patron’s wouldn’t continue to earn profits. (This obviously assumes a scale economy, but thats a perfectly fair assumption).
I think that is basically what happened post-neolithic.
I think that is basically what happened post-neolithic.
Even if true, the evidence now shows that existing economies of scale (in defense) do not extend very far, so stable market competition is a more viable option than the formation of cartels or worlords.
Similar to this.
Competiton is a false argument. The world is anarchy… competition always exists. This is a truth.
The only thing that would prevent anything like LaRose is suggesting is if the people in society believed competiton should always be able to be present without requiring a revolution.
Ironically people believing in society is the same eternal vigilance and magic pixie fairy dust that holds up the Constitution. If people do not believe in the society intentions mean nothing.
Ironically people believing in society is the same eternal vigilance and magic pixie fairy dust that holds up the Constitution. If people do not believe in the society intentions mean nothing.
People don’t need to believe in anything beyond their own (personal) welfare in order for their competition to be upheld. A more expansionary view (norms, ethics, customs) would be more robust however.
Howdy! First post on Mises, and I have to admit that I am a “newbie” to most of the arguments on both sides of this, and have only minimal education on the subject. But after reading this thread (and all the ad hominem-ad nauseum) this quote jumped out at me:
“You cannot “assume a market” if the power/force outside its realm doesn’t allow it to exist. The market doesn’t decide if power/force/aggression exists. It’s the other way around. Lions have been killing gazelles for millions of years. Power/force is prior to voluntary exchange.” -z1235
It does because it makes some sense to me, and I assume others that are uneducated in the possibility of the quasi-utopia of anarchy. We all desire, if we were to “design” society, to attempt to reach utopia, or else the debate is moot (though interesting). The “anti-society” design of anarchy has to be defined as “design”, it seems, even to the anarchists.
The quote makes sense other than I do not believe that you cannot “assume a market” where power/force does NOT exist. In other words, my contention is that power/force is part OF the market. IE “I voluntarily exchange my goods for my safety” This is true as insurance from outside violence (defensive, or “protection”), or as payment in exchange for safety (offensive or “extortion”) What I am saying then, is that “safety” is a commodity in the market. Whether or not power/force existed first, or markets existed first is not even an argument then. If I am a self sufficient person, who lives on the resources around me, I must first create abundance in order to for me to justify selling anything. I enter the market with commodities I have an abundance of. Power/force requires me to enter the market against my will when some thief wants my goods even without me having an abundance Perhaps I can provide my own “safety” commodity, but it does take resources and time.
I have come to the conclusion, and it is my opinion, that anarchy never exists, and minarchy (at least) must and always does exist when you have a society with a market.
The answer to the question “What Would Prevent Warlordism?” (in anarchy) is NOTHING. Warlordism (I would assert) starts as thief, then a band of thieves, escalates into a tribe of militants, and if successful, becomes a state. All things are done justifiably to themselves, and “themselves” being defined as warriors, their families, and any (capital producer/slave) that capitulate to them over time. Those becoming loyalist or belligerent (even anarchist society dreaming) tolerants. The only thing that can preserve grand freedom, or utopia-anarchy, is in the hearts and minds of competing militants. Once you believe in it, it becomes a state.
“Yes, minarchy entails becoming the problem it tries to solve. Just like vaccines do. All who pushed them away as “disease” under the premise of a disease-free world are dead. Just like all anarchies.” -z1235