I have plenty of books that say the opposite of what you say. Rousseau’s Social Contract, Hobbes’ Leviathan, Sun Tzu’s Art of War, Machiavelli’s Prince, 48 Laws of Power…I mean even Road To Serfdom and Economics in One Lesson don’t talk about anarchy. Neither does any of Milton Friedman’s writings, I’ve got Capitalism and Freedom, he talks about the necessity of the state in maintaining a free society. And he’s the father of conservative thinking!!
I think that Darwin’s concept of random mutation applies to anarchy. It’s a random mutation of conservatism. If it works, people will try it. If it continues to work, more people will try it until everyone uses it. Economics and Politics are not outside the realm of biology because they are merely disciplines that describe human development and existence. If it doesn’t work, the random mutation will be discarded. Like communism. Good idea. Doesn’t work. End. Anarchy. Sounds kinda nice. Obviously won’t work. No one even really wants to try it. lol. End.
my proof for what in particular? ask me a question that admits of a possible proof moron.
you have failed to even attempt an economical analysis of provision of security services whereas I have not.
from analysis. which is something you seem to be incapable of.
im sorry but the prince is not a book on economics or even political theory, but rather a guide for a ‘prince’ to consult when administering his territory. its not relevant you moron.
But since you advocate hate and are scared, then no wonder you are incontinence. I’m focused on definition 2, but do you do 1 as well (scientific inquiry)?
incontinent |inˈkäntənənt; -ˈkäntn-ənt|adjective 1 having no or insufficient voluntary control over urination or defecation.
You seem to like arguements from authority. I’m not sure why you invoke the Art of War, which oftentimes undermines your idea that inevitably the people with the best guns will win out. Yes, I have read AoW, and the 48 Laws of Power, and Capitalism and Freedom, they have done nothing but further solidify my belief in a voluntary society. You could note that the 48 Laws of Power would seem to show that (Given it’s cynical view of human nature) people w/o competition are not only immoral and mavolent, but lazy and indolent.
Both of us can lit. spam. I can scream “Chaos Theory” “The Myth of National Defense” “Man, Economy, and State” “Anarchy and Law” “Machinery of Freedom”. The difference being you haven’t read my spam, while most everyone has read yours.
For a cynic, you seem to adhere to a very optimistic view of humanity in the bottom paragraph. Suddenly the societies that come out are surely the best for everyone as opposed to the best for the people with guns.
Alright, first question, how many different courts will there be in your system and what authority will they have over other court rulings? If court A finds me guilty, can I just go ask court b? If court b agrees with me, does that overrule court a? Why or why not?
Every human is capable of analysis. However, the results that any given human arrives at through analysis can be vastly different from what another human decides based on myriad factors. For one, you and I haven’t read the same books. We haven’t lived the same life. So right away, we will look at situations through different lenses.
The Prince is a book on political theory. It’s a book on how to govern people. What is politics? Governing people. It’s just that the Prince is told from the viewpoint of the prince as opposed to the people. But his advice to the Prince implies his view of human nature. Which is that they are basically just a bunch of fools who can be controlled through fear and deception and through instilling pride and ego and hatred. But he’s right. So what does that say about humanity?
What have you found to be true about humans. Are they A.) Usually reasonable creatures that are calm, logical and deliberate or are they B.) Sometimes calm and deliberate but given to periods of “irrational exuberance” and “inexplicable downtroddenness” with a strong bit of irrationality and unreasonableness thrown in to boot?
What idea is the most powerful idea when it comes to controlling humans? Are humans more pro-gain or anti-loss? We can see in markets how people won’t sell stocks after they’ve lost more than half their value because they fear acknowledging the loss but with even a small gain, they’ll sell and feel like they’ve really won something. So which is it, pro gain or anti loss?
Best for everyone is not what Darwin’s random mutations figure out. It’s “what works?” Very simply, biology plays a game where it throws new systems at a wall and the one that sticks stays around. I make a point of investigating how philosophies effect the people who subscribe to them before I myself start programming my mind to think with that given philosophy. I’ve seen nothing on this forum that makes me want to read your books. Nothing. If anything, it makes me want to be anti-Rothbard. Hayek, Mises and Friedman I’ll read. Rothbard and whatever other anarchists I won’t. You might ask “why?” Because look at what these ideas have done to you people!! It’s horrible.
When you say “best for everyone” do you literally mean “every single person in the system?” Because if you do, then you must believe in some kind of anarchic utopia. I don’t believe in 100 percent or 0 percent happiness in a society. But I think with my system, you’ll get more satisfied people than you will under your system. I feel that history proves this because very few people are clamoring for anarchy right now and we are approaching fascism and totalitarianism. What does that tell you about what people want?
If you want my really honest opinion, this forum has actually made me more of a statist than when I first got here because I realize now how necessary the state is to protect me from lunatics like you guys. No offense, I’m just being honest.
I have self restraint. But I’m a opportunist as well. If I see a chance to take something I want and feel no fear of retribution, I’ll do it. And I’ll take full responsibility for what I did. But I don’t think I should sit around and pass up opportunities if they come my way.
I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged and you will find yourself on the looter side talking about love and courage as opposed to reason and logic.
I’m not saying you guys have to agree with me. What I’m saying is that unless your ideas get way more workable and way more appealing then you’re just going to be part of an idea that gets thrown at the wall and doesn’t stick. Like communism, except worse, because at least communism got a chance to show people it could work. I think Rothbardian Anarchism will go the way of the dodo if it doesn’t start making way more sense much sooner.
Look at what Obama is doing, how are you going to fight it? By saying the government should be dissolved? You think that’s really going to stick???
so you arent asking me for things capable of proof but rather my musings on possibilities…
wrong. its administration theory.
no, politics is th strong against the weak, its the antithesis of the economic means, it is tyranny and immorality. but home turf for you, eh, slaver bloom?
that people who are or would be princes are bad. that should be obvious from having read the book
obviously a false dichotomy, but its because its irrelevant to the topic of the possibility of anarchy that I will not respond fully. try to stay on a topic. if you can.*
well by composing a frequency analysis on powerful ideas that control humans we see that the median is love, whereas the mode 6 times from 10 is fear and the other 4 out of 10 it is appeal to sophistic fallacy. the ideas express a non-normal distribution whose tail is heavy… etc. etc. ask a stupid question get a …
avoiding a gain is a loss, avoid a loss is a gain. what are you talking about? can you stick to a topic???*
So…generally implies that something follows from what came before it. How does the non-existence of morality follow from the existence of mistaken views about morality? If there are people who think the earth is flat, it doesn’t follow that geography is a subjective field.
Why would anarchy and markets arise out of primitivism instead of the more likely communism? I never understood this point of view.
In order for social progress to be made, there must be people in a society who understand the benefits of this social progress, and are willing to fight their society to achieve it. That is why no society has yet to become a purely free market society.
I do not need someone scaring me into not murdering, raping and stealing…
No, fear is the best animal control, are you a baseless animal?
I am sorry, I have no such fear…
Just an aversion to going to jail, been there, it is not as bad as everyone thinks, I just prefer not being there, it allows me to sperad the idea that government is a sham upheld by little pissants that cannot control themselves, and their megalomaniac desire to have others pay for their desires…
No Jacob, we are not the same thing, humans are not equal, we have the same rights (those things you wish to ignore) but after that none of us are equal… (Careful Jakob, your socialism is showing)
Obviously you cannot, you can barely wait for us to start an anarchist experiment so you can go on a killing, raping, robbery spree without fear of consequence…
Rest assured it is in my self interest to sell my marksmanship to prevent the likes of you from doing such…
“Weird Set of Morals” It is lovely how you consider respect a wierd set of morals… but is suppose that is not uncommon for people with no self respect…
All this tirade of yours shows is that you are indeed like Taggart as well…
Relevance? How many individuals killed other individuals, how many people were killed in the name of a government? Take up on history, there has been war almost all of state histories, governemnt disputes happen just as often, last longer and rack up an impressive body count compared to individuals…
Anarchy is not something humans are capable of and neither is communism. The reason the systems we see as being prevalent are so prevalent is because they fit human nature. Obviously, if anarchy were the best fit for humans, we would be doing it right now. Everywhere. But it’s not. And neither is communism. The only reason communism even got a chance was because someone was able to sell it. And it’s an easy sell for some people: “peace, love, brotherhood, unity.” There is nothing within anarchy that is either an easy sell or resonates with a large percentage of humanity. That’s why it doesn’t happen and that’s why it probably never will.
Yes, there will always be people fighting for what they consider progress. But anarchy looks to be regression to me. I’m probably not alone in this diagnosis.
yes lots of satisfied people could be found amongst slaving societies, not so much in the salve demographic. isnt that so mr slaver bloom?
here you show further ignorance of fundamental economics. mere declared preference is nothing but pie i’d talk. go out and ask everyone you meet if they would all like lambourghini’s… thne think about how you would implement their uniformally positive desires.. you would have to enslave them all in lambourghini producing factories, and more than likely never achieve your goal of providng one lambourghini for each living person until you’d killed off a few billion. peoples desires that they are willing to pay for… is another story..
yes its necessary to enslave innocent people so that they can’t threaten you even if they never said they would threaten you, isnt that right mr slaver bloom?
Anarchy isn’t about communist unity and brotherhood. As to those first two words, that are not solely communistic. But again the incontinent person you are is all about murdering, slavery and not peace - therefore War, and not love - therefore Hate. We get that. You’ve said repeatedly you would rape, murder, and steal if nobody stopped you. We get it, we get it.
I see you read that with as great comprehention that you display here…
Do you remember the Machine, meant to control people through FEAR?
Do you remeber the Torture, how they were attempting to get Galt to submit through terror???
Look in the Mirror, you are the looter, advocating the looting of Americans to pay for things they do not want for your benefit…
Threatening strong arm tactics if you do nto get your way, simply because opportunity arrises…
You are the worst of their kind, you think you are not the enemy, you really believe you are not the enemy, you build a dogma around this fact, and in the end, you deny your hypocrisy…