I just read the short Hoppe article and found this illuminating passage by Rothbard that so clearly makes my point that Rothbardian Anarcho-capitalist has no idea of how to get to their goal. The only way is for the state to miraculously disappear, vanish in thin air.
I laughed as much when I read Rothbards rebuttal to Nozick “Robert Nozick and the Immaculate Conception f the State” A rebuttal to his rebuttal could be labeled “Murray Rothbard and the Immaculate Conception of the Anarcho-capitalist society” or to use Long’s phraseology. What is more likely the Rothbardian version or the Nozickian one when you move from todays status? QED!
Hence, Rothbard pointed out, it follows that
just as socialism cannot be reformed but must be
abolished in order to achieve prosperity, so can the
institution of a state not be reformed but must be
abolished in order to achieve justice and protection*.*
“Defense in the free society (including such defense services to person and property as police protection and judicial findings),”
Rothbard concluded,
“would therefore have to be supplied by people or firms who (a) gained their revenue voluntarily rather than by coercion and (b) did not—as the State does—arrogate to themselves a compulsory monopoly of police or judicial protection
. . . . defense firms would have to be as freely competitive and as noncoercive against non invaders as are all other suppliers of goods and services on the free market. Defense services, like all other services, would be marketable and marketable only.”
Lol. But you can’t ever predict what people will do. You can only look at what incentives they face as a way to predict outcomes. Long is saying that many bad things are still possible under anarchy, but far less likely than under the state. With a state, you have a higher propensity for destructive war, rights violations…etc
It is typical of a statist to want an absolute guarantee of something happening. This is why they invoke the state, because they think they can control it on paper. Its like you don’t know exactly how something is going to work out so what if you plan to use fiat to make it happen anyway…
Fine.
Nozick is worried that private protection agencies will battle.
So idk what your issue is with the probability argument. Care to rebutt it? Do you think you can have a political philosophy that is airtight with not possiblity of deviating from its intended course? Give me a break.
I don’t know what other problems you’re having, but Long goes on to the other arguments of Nozick in his 10th point.
We won’t let you make baseless assertions and get away with it. Tough.
Well what do you consider moral
Misesian Calculation Problem, Hayekian Knoweldge Problem, Hoppe/Long’s Political Philosophy/Game Theory. Do you not pay attention? Also history.
If we had a plan that would work we’d have implemented it by now. We’re still working on this. Doctors are still working on a cure for cancer. I don’t know why you need to be able to get rid of something before you can prove its worse than the alternative.
Why not? Education is the most important tool for social change. We’ve reiterated this millions of times, and you’re going to have to actually explain why you think its irrelevant. These baseless assertions from you are really too much…
Really? I am not enough of a jerk to say “NOPE ANARCHY WNIS U LOSE HAHA” at the end of my posts.
Yes I’m sure if you asked Rothbard he would have admitted this. He would have said “yeah you’re right. I have no clue how to get an ancap society”. You’re cherry picking mate. You don’t even explain how the passage you cited demonstrates impracticaly. Rothbard has written numerous essays on how to get to ancapism.
There is no argument for there being less bad things happen in pure anarchy that in Nozicks’s Minarchist position. Nozick argues very persuasively that the moral position is his minimal state. Less or more is not moral. You may hold your opinion but it is in fact not more valid than mine. You say that but yet I don’t understand you and your compatriots reasoning. If you hold that the question of the pure anarchist state contra the minimal Minarchist state is only like “He says, she says” why on earth do you denounce me and other Minarchists so strenuously? It’s both irrational and illogical! We both want a much smaller state. Further as you pointed out there is no perfect solutions for change however why do you and ypur compatriots so strenuously oppose my Minarchist opinions on gradual change, they are one way forward and as you say no ideology is perfect,
The issue of Protection Agencies, PA, going to war or using negotiations to resolve disputes is in my mind the same as states going to war. It will depend on the economy of the individuals that pay for protection and also their views on what kind of security is needed, defensive and/or preemptive. An example is the US contra EU contra USSR contra Sweden. During the Cold War the US spent 4 % of GDP, EU on average 2 %, Sweden 8 % and USSR 50 %. Growth rates US 5 %, EU 2 %, Sweden 3.5 % and USSR 0%, some say negative during the Cold War.
My argument is that the more affluent individuals become the more esoteric their needs and demands become. It is also the inherent problem with capitalism, hedonism and materialism takes over the entrepreneurial instinct. What I’m saying is that individuals in a larger and more affluent society getthe less concerned they are about how money is spent on the margin, but not only that they become more security prone and risk averse they become. The latter is a very well researched psychological phenomenon. It seems contra intuitive. The richer you are the more risk you would be willing to take since you have so much resources and a loss doesn’t matter that much to you.
What I’m saying is that PA would go to war as long as the resources of different PA and their underlying subscribers differ. They will. Nozick points that out very clearly. There is not one society like the other even if they are based on anarcho-capitalist t principles. As we can see from this discussion there are those that hold a near pacifist and/or purist isolationist position and those that hold a very strong interventionist position whilst all are being very close ideologically in the size of the state and that no intervention should be made into the workings of the free market, economy.
I will end this discussion by saying that I have come t the conclusions that anarcho-capitalist theories and solutions in the Rothbardian traditions are legitimate and valid. However the latter day followers are not. Seldom have I had discussion with so single minded and bigoted individuals. They completely lack perspective. As most of them are Austrian Economist as well I fail to understand their complete lack of understanding of historical facts. Austrian Economics is a investigation of what was, what happened so as not to make the same mistakes again.
/Old Whig( formerly known as Illuminatus?)
I no longer can call myself an libertarian. The US libertarian movement has been hijacked by radical and dogmatic Rothbardian Anarcho-capitalist and/or Tea Partiers. I have reverted to the term invented by F.A Hayek when faced with the same problem, when he didn’t want to be linked to the US Libertarian movement or the US Conservative movement. He called himself in his famous article “Why I’m Not A Conservative” an Old Whig - classical liberal in the tradition of the US founding fathers. I rejoice that we now see a movement emerging for limited government and lower taxes but despair when seeing it’s self-proclaimed advocates, Rand Paul and Sarah Palin. One dogmatic purist that have no clue of political reality and one blatant opportunist..
Actually, there are scores of arguments. Bet you’re getting pretty sick of this piece.
So there’s a moral problem because you’re attacking innocent people, and incentive problem because you have a monopoly, and the calculation problem because you’re nonprofit.
My claim is that you’re mistaken about your means, not your ends. I don’t know what your ends are, but the market can provide it more efficiently than the state. Unless you want mass poverty and warfare… people aint gonna roll with that under anarchy.
Yes Ron Pual >> all other candidates. If I were president, I would also implement change slowly. However, I would not stop at minarchy.
iirc i said that in practice, you cannot achieve the sort of edenic perfection critics of anarchism hold it to. The same is true of all systems, but anarchism gives humanity its best shot.
So by this logic you should have no problems with PAs. Furthermore, PAs are a superior for funding large scale defense because they are directly accountable to consumers either directly or indirectly through insurance. They suffer no incentive or calculation problems that your state does.
This is imagining the world like its command and conquer or something. You know how corporations can go bankrupt overnight through the stock market? If a PA ever undertook a massive warmaking campaign for some reason, its stocks would plummit. Another PA could easily offer much cheaper protection to its clients. Forecasters would anticipate the stupid decisions of PAs just like they do every other firm and the price system communicates the information necessary for capital restructuring. The original PA’s troops wouldn’t even make it to their destination because they would be bid away by a new PA. Or any other creative things you can think of.
Furthermore, this problem you are talking about is HUGE with states, because consumers can’t change governments. Government has a captive consumer-base, so they can just charge whatever and people have to eat it. Its what you get for saying an entity should be judge in its own case. Its why the military industrial complex earns some $400 billion a year. There aren’t any institutional incentives for the government to do what you want it to, and even then it still couldn’t because of the calculation problem, which you should be familiar with since this is mises.org.
Lastly, and Im sure you will derride this point because you’ve completely ignored it before, but people won’t stand for mass slavery. Which people? The people on both ends of the stick. It will be very obvious to the oppressed that the guys with guns are bad. No state can last any length of time without the popular support of its subjects. Its going to be a giant failure trying to occupy an actively resistant region. See modern war in iraq or vietnam. If it doesn’t work when the freaking USA does it against some third world country, what makes you think Texas PA will be able to dominate NYC?
Additionally, the “oppressors” have whatever morals, and I’m sure you are imagining they are barbarian raiders, but the reality is that 99% of humanity opposes mass slavery. Its so obvious there’s probably not even a gallup pole anywhere showing how many ppl oppose the holocaust. In the past it might have been possible to enslave black people because of prevailing opinion, but this fell away under classical liberal teachings. It reveals that education really does have the power to change the world.
Actually, you’re the one who ignores citations and provides none…
__
*__ Yeah its not very fashionable is it. Drop the label, so that way maybe people won’t pidgeonhole you with all their preconceptions when they ask your politics. Many are afraid of this reduction. But you shouldn’t cop out on an idea just because you think its adherants are off base. I’d be more ashamed to hold an inconsistent set of beliefs than to be found in agreement with incoherent madmen.
“What ought to be” is the meaning of the word “idea”. An idea is a goal, a purpose, a destination. So, your criticism of anarcho-capitalism is that is a goal. I thought that goals did have use in “real life” and “real situations”, such as to have a reason to act. Having been so enlightened by this great sagely wisdom, we shall mend our ways immediately and have no goals and have no reason to do anything. We shall resolve to instead… um… well… um… what is the alternative to having goals, oh, wise one?
Well the bombings did prevent a full scale invasion of the Japanese mainland, saving the lives of millions of both Japs and Americans, and ending the war years earlier than it would have…
…However that said, if Roosevelt(and later Truman) hadnt insisted on ‘unconditionaal surrender’(meaning that the US could force any provisions on the Japanese, no matter how harsh or downright ridiculous), things would have worked out better still. The Japanese government wanted to surrender, they knew they were losing the war, but they wanted to be able to negeoiate the terms rather than having them forced upon them.
So whatever you think of the bombings, necessary evil, or just plain evil, they could have been avoided if the US President hadnt tried to force them into giving up unconditionally.
You shouldn’t read through the rest of this thread, but its been brought up that the notion the bomb saved lives vs invasion is bunk. Its based off a comparison between operation downfall, an intentionally terrible plan, and the bomb. More intelligent military plans kept estimated troop losses around 70,000. Read the wiki on it.
Although I still maintain that the bombings were unnecessary because Roosevelt could have allowed the Japanese to negotiate their own surrender. Or better still he could have not provoked them into attacking us…
Oh so this is also not addressing the competence of US military dudes. There’s no automatic weeding out of lousy commanders. I guess if you really suck you might die as a private but…
Before you can change “what is” Status Quo you must have a theory of “what ought to be”. In that you are correct. You must however also have an action plan of implementing your “what ought to be” into 'what is", if you don’t your theory is useless. (Education is not an option, it is not a plan for action).
However my contention was on this particular subject the uselessness of discussing what ought to be on a real life situation. How where the Allied High Command to act during the planned invasion of Japan? How to minimize Allied lives as well as Japanese military and civilian life? It is not a discussion on “what ought to be” it is a discussions on how to act in real life. It can be a discussion on a counterfactual level but most certainly not a discussion on “what ought to be”
A recently published award winning book “Hell to Pay” by D.M. Giangreco, watch a discussion with the author on C-SPANs BookTV, discusses the isue we are talking about and gives a better understanding of the loss of lives predicted in the invasion of Japan.
D.M Greico after intense studying of both the Allied High Command intelligence predictions of the campaign to take Japan 1945-1947 as well as intelligence reports from the Japanese high command have the following statistics::
Allied losses per month 100,000 during a 1945-1947, actual casualties in early 1945 was 80,000/month (1 mn plus predicted)
Loss of Japanese lives; civilian and military estimated to 5-10 mn by the Allies High Command and by the Japanese high command at 20 mn. (The high loss of Japanese life was going to be due partially to famine, starvation.)
The bombings killed approx 250,000 compared to estimated losses of Allied soldiers lives 1 mn. and loss of Japanese life in the span of 5-20 million. Does this change your view on the bombings? Is the loss of 250,000 worth saving 20 mn? I make no moral case but a utilitarian case since I consider all wars inherently immoral it is only possible to make utilitarian decisions in war time. Some wars even though immoral are necessary wars. The war against the Nazis and the Tojo were necessary wars if there ever were one.
On a personal level when I read that the Japanese high command was prepared to sacrifice 20 mn. to “save face” rather than surrender unconditionally it shows that the Allies made the right decision of giving the Japanese the Potsdam Declaration (ultimatum on unconditional surrender or annihilation) and when Japan didn’t surrender the atom bombings. It doesn’t make the moral but it makes them justified. A leadership that is that fanatical cannot be persuaded by diplomacy, can only be persuaded by brute an relentless force.
The flaw here is your conception, not the idea. The proper question is, “What ought you do (or not do)?” Libertarianism does not say what ought to be in in the sense you are using. That you don’t know this shows that you have never read anything on this website explaining what the libertarian idea is. This is the thing that annoys me most. People come to this nises.org, skip all of the content and go straight to making pointless ignorant arguments the forum. Waste of our time, waste of the site.