That’s besides the point. Benefits of voluntary exchange have, indeed, been recognized. That doesn’t eliminate the incentives to wielding power/force/coercion which, from an evolutionary standpoint, is an institution much older than voluntary exchange. Again, are you suggesting that humans, by acquiring logic and rationality, have completely severed all links with their evolutionary legacy?
How many human societies outside of power/force monopolies have actually formed and persisted across this planet and through human history?
The moment 2 humans realize they are better off cooperating together then living is isolation, they form a society of 2 people. Now envision this social process spreading.
What.., in those societies, first a government was formed, and only then a market?
The debate is over what preceded what. The looter or the producer. Obviously, for the looter to exist, and he certainly does, the producer must also exist.
The moment 2 humans realize they are better off cooperating together then living is isolation, they form a society of 2 people. Now envision this social process spreading.
I agree… and that we can draw that line, where? Homo sapiens, sapiens, or cro-magnon? Neolithic man? Bronze Age? Homo Erectus, Habbilis, Ergaster? Australopithicus?
What.., in those societies, first a government was formed, and only then a market?
Idk, like I said, where do you draw the line? If you’re talking about the early agricultural revolution we most certainly know there were heads of house/tribe, and ritual, sometimes violent warfare.
Obviously, for the looter to exist, and he certainly does, the producer must also exist
Correct. But I think it would be safe to say that as soon as man started producing, other men started looting.
No, it’s not besides the point because you insist that institutions of violence preceded any institutions based on voluntary cooperation. Here it is again:
Any talk of institutions in any context that precedes society is nonsensical. Institutions are a function of society. And since we’ve already defined what society is and how it comes about (social cooperation), then it becomes obvious that institutions of violence (not just any violence) cannot logically precede institutions based on social cooperation, i.e., society itself.
OK, agreed. Scratch “institutions”. How about “concepts”? Btw, do you consider master-slave societies (“I’ll whip you only 10 times a day instead of 20, in exchange for your help in building my pyramid.”) to be “societies”?
How much voluntary exchange (cooperation) vs aggression (power/force wielding) do you see in the natural world around you? Do you plan to address my (twice repeated) point about our evolutionary legacy?
I did when I said that the barrel of monkeys and pre-societal man are irrelevant to the argument at hand. The argument is over institutions, which must already exist within a given society. You agreed with this already.
They are institutions within society. You basically missed the whole point. Here it is again:
Violent institutions can exist but only within society that already exists. But society comes about only by voluntary social cooperation. Otherwise, man lives in isolation or at constant war with each other, and a society can never be formed. You agreed with this already. The final step is to logically conclude that social cooperation, i.e., a market society or institution of private property, must precede any institution of violence, i.e., slavery, government, etc…
It really is no different then simply stating what should be obvious as logically unrefutable; that the looter cannot come before the producer. Or put it another way: The former needs the latter, but the latter certainly does not need the former.
So slaves building the pharaoh’s pyramid is not a society, then? You’ve reduced the argument to one about semantics. Question-begging tautology: society is whatever makes my argument logically consistent.
He can, and and he has – millions of years before “voluntary”, “cooperation”, or “production” showed up in a human mind as concepts. A banana need not be “produced” before it can be stolen. A gazelle need not be “produced” before it can be eaten.
Violence as a form of social cooperation. Glad you thought that one out…
Despite the fact the two are incompatible.
*Sarcasm**As always a humorous post. We must make society form into our mold, and give people exactly whats coming to them. What we deem is best will be law! Not what they think is best for themselves, how folly.*Sarcasm
Me? Gee, I don’t know. What the largest state you will allow in your an-cap utopia? Without your Libertarian morality to lean on, descriptively, what is the difference between property and a state?
LOL, dude, what are you talking about? So for your argument to make sense, we have to consider the situation in a vacuum, without any historical perspective?
I think your assertion depends on what you consider “society”.
Warlordism would be something in between. but it’s no different in class to thuggery, under a private property theory.
The conditions necessary to alter it are much more subtle and stable. In a direct democracy, you just need 50%+1 and it’s law.
Yes, but I also assume that the moral homogeneity of today is enough.
That is because the system today sucks balls, yet people aren’t killing one another, shooting cops, etc., most people anyway. So in a more efficient system, cooperativeness would be further enhanced.
Holy crap. This is getting out of control. So you are saying that before we “decided” to cooperate, there were just lonely individual hominids hanging around the African savanna, staring longingly at one another before running away or throwing stuff at one another?
This whole “chicken/egg”, “coercion/market” debate is a total waste of time and server space. Is it not possible they both arose before hominids were self-aware, hence “rational actors”, making the whole argument completely irrelevant to philosophy, economics, or politics?
Please, describe for me the difference between a state and a street gang with a “turf”.
So, your hypothetical an-cap society would have to have to maintain at least the moral status-quo of the contemporary US (I assume, forgive me if your somewhere else), which I suppose you could call quasi-Christian, social Humanism. How would the members of said society maintain that status quo? Through the common law?
Doesn’t really sound all that different from what we have today.
Ideas possess people
People act on those ideas
Territorial monopolies of law form
Territorial monopolies of law enforcement necessarilty form
The state is a nationwide gang, and most people see it as legitimate.
I don’t know why do I have to define these things for you lol.
Hmm if by maintaining you mean stopping private property violators, yes, through law.
Well obviously if you look from the perspective of an alien for example, all human action and knowledge is futile. It’s just a bunch of monkeys emitting sound waves to one another, some succeed doing what they want, some don’t.
I think of morality and economics as tools to discuss courses of action with other cooperative human beings. No one’s being a slave to the ideas afaik. To the sound waves, or stroke patterns in a book/screen.
No, I’ve simply made the point that society is based on voluntary social cooperation and not on violence between men. While the latter can exist within a society, it cannot be the basis for it. If it were, then no society would exist in the first place.
