”I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.” -Étienne de La Boétie
Previous post: Tuesday Links: Banks Smell the Coffee, Malls Sit Empty
Next post: Mises Daily: Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Ludwig von Mises Institute • 518 West Magnolia Avenue • Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 • Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@mises.org • webmaster • mises.org sitemap
{ 174 comments }
I like this.
It brought to mind a weakness of the ship-of-state analogy: it ignores the necessity of land and a port.
Could you elaborate further on this extension to the ship of state analogy, please?
Yes. A ship-of-state analogy embraces the centralization of power in a captain and crew. Leaving the ship – withholding consent – is not considered an option. Survival is limited to submission or mutiny.
At times when I have been speaking to others about political means vs. economic means being a choice between aggression and cooperation someone will bring up the necessity of the state, likening society to a ship requiring a captain and crew to steer it – (a centralization of power as it relates to the daily article). I am not a student of Plato, but I understand he used this analogy.
I have often thought that this is a very narrow view of society.
The first objection I have is that the analogy assigns to the word society a definition that requires the word to be a noun – a closed physical object identified as a ship. I disagree that the word society is properly used as a noun. I base this on Mises’ enlightening definition of society in Human Action: “Society is concerted action, cooperation. Society is the outcome of conscious and purposeful behavior.”
The word ‘society’ is correctly understood as a verb. It follows that one ought to utilize it as such.
My second objection to the analogy of a ship of state is related to the first. Society, properly understood as a verb denoting cooperation, has no zero-sum, closed-ended finality. To re-define the word society as a physical system like a ship implies a collective noun with limitations to the benefits of cooperation. Society (verb) is mutual benefit – a non-physical, positive sum, unrestricted by the bounds of a vessel.
A third objection to the analogy of society likened to a ship of state – and the one to which I refer in the post above – is that it ignores that a ship floating on a body of water must have come from somewhere. (Heaven forbid otherwise!…we can only trust that the analogy is not some land-locked vessel trussed up on a rocky crag filled with lost souls convinced by its captain and crew that it is actually going somewhere!) There must have been land, a forest of trees or other material from which to build a ship, and a port or other access point from which to launch. The fact of the existence of a ship does not conclude that it embodies or originated as a result of the existence of a state. The analogy simply assumes this.
Prehaps I have misunderstood how Plato intended the analogy to be used. If it is to be used as a proof of the necessity of the state, as others who bring it up in discussion have done, I say that it is poorly constructed. The analogy certainly applies as a metaphor of the restrictive physical bonds of state, but it ought not be used to conclude the necessity of state.
Where can I get a relatively hi-res image of this? It’s Awesome.
Ditto. I’d like to make a poster of it if possible. Where’d you get it?
I would like a copy of the image..’”.POWER’..Where can I get one.
The largest image TinyEye could find was this: http://fotos.sapo.pt/2s4Z79SBgPj4YbaAUM3f/x435
Here is what google image search found: http://tinyurl.com/6nfvf2g
From the quality it seems the larger images are just scaled up versions of a smaller one.
The spelling needs to be corrected, though…
Absurd pacifist notion.
By definition a despot cannot gain power with the support of a significant percentage of societies parasites. Indeed, autocratic regimes are among the most longstanding civilizations in history if not confronted by armed force.
This non-violent naivete is among the many reasons why anarcho-capitalism resides on the ash bin of history only to be advocated by a tiny cabal of faith-based extremists.
There have been successful “anarcho-capitalists” societies in the past. So you’re wrong. I’d list them but you can suck my balls.
However, I’d say we’re both wrong; I’m wrong for referring to these as anarcho-capitalist even these did not possess any sort of anarcho-capitalist or even libertarian zeitgeist and you’re wrong for the same reason.
In the end, your “hur hur peace doesn’t work” diatribe is weak considering black markets work without coercion (internally, since you can’t “go home crying” to the [a] state(
ah me, daniel you haven’t learned a thing.
first, I never stated that anarcho-capitalist societies have existed. I stated that anarcho-capitalism resides on the ash-heap of history. More specifically, the dogma or anarcho-capitalism faith resides on the ash-heap of history.
second, by definition black markets function within a state or government host.
third, temporary anarchist societies have always/will always evolve into territorial monopolies of armed force.
Why?
Because defense is a territorial industry that is best served by proximity to the ‘customer’. In addition, cartels of armed force within a given geographic area will emerge ostensibly to reduce costs to the consumer from conflict.
In addition, unlike liberal democracy, there are no institutionalized mechanisms within anarchist society to limit, balance, decentralize and make transparent the elements of armed force within society.
Moreover, we both know that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely — hence these private military cartels will quickly evolve into territorial monopolies of armed force with statist political structures to solidify there hold on power.
“I stated that anarcho-capitalism resides on the ash-heap of history”
And you know this … how, exactly? Can I borrow your crystal ball for a minute?
“by definition black markets function within a state or government host”
Since you surely understand that this site generally considers (most, if not all) government to be a parasite upon the actual productive sector, you are obligated to explain your “government-as-fount-of-all-good” theory. At least explain the gist.
“Because defense is a territorial industry that is best served by proximity to the ‘customer’. In addition, cartels of armed force within a given geographic area will emerge ostensibly to reduce costs to the consumer from conflict.”
Agreed! But I’m not a customer of the government’s dubious services. I am a captive. Again, surely you know that Mises.org’s general position clearly differentiates between the two. So you are again at obligation to explain your insistence is with the State and not this private option you have just described.
And finally, where do you get your “absolute power corrupts absolutely” bit? Then why support a monopoly of coercive power at all? Your whole point here seems to be that government is inevitable – so get used to taking shit. Care to explain?
Also, I figure that you’re trying to say that governments have to be toppled, not simply made irrelevant by market processes. Ok. Let’s replace force with force. One government for the next one. Yippee. But what in the world does that have to do with anarcho-capitalism being on the “dust bin”? What is this faith nonsense you keep spouting?
“Liberal democracy” requires government to interpret and direct. If you value force to get what you vaguely want in life – great. Democracy is your ticket. If you value “live and let live,” try freedom instead.
Simple – all cites for actual “anarchic” societies were all small and short-lived.
330 years
1000 years
say wha?
@Jim
Within liberal democracies, the elements of armed force within society are intentionallly and institutionally decentralized, balanced, limited, and made transparent.
Hence, we have seen significant increases in civil, political and economic rights increased over the last 230 years. Of course, statists have found some fissures in our Constitutional Federal Republic that makes the citizenry vulnerable to economic coercion. However, this shortcoming can (and probably will) be addressed within the Constitutional structure — a balanced budget amendment, limits on govt. spending as a % of GDP, supermajorities to raise taxes, et al.
In contrast, there are absolutely no provisions within anarchist society to limit the size and scope of the elements of armed force in society — so naturally through economies of scale and specialization of labor — these forces coalesce within a single geographic area. Moreover, when a single entity gains this much power over the rest of society, the allure of despotism is too great to resist. Unless you discount the adage that ‘power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. And if you discount this truth — then doesn’t responsible goverance become possible ?
In sum, liberal democracy does not seek to strengthen or empower government — it seeks to limit it with negative rights. In contrast, anarchism has no such mechanisms that deter power.
Indeed, if market forces were a viable deterrent to statist power — then autocratic regimes would not be so prevalent throughout history since the free market would have undermined and removed them via market forces.
Fantastic! Well said, sir!
“Moreover, when a single entity gains this much power over the rest of society, the allure of despotism is too great to resist.”
The unintentional irony is strong in this one.
“the free market would have undermined and removed them via market forces.”
Clearly market forces have been undermining them, over the long term, since the 17th century. In the short term, in our lifetimes, it’s not so clear. But the expansion of free action, due to its phenomenal success, at the expense of state action in recent centuries gives reason for hope that the process will continue, and the enculturation of nation statism–and the absurd economic contradictions such indoctrination instills–will become less and less blinding to the increasing first-hand realities of a free market. The day may come when people such as yourself no longer feel compelled by status quo bias to embrace clear economic contradictions regarding freedom vs compulsion and monopoly vs competition.
“by definition black markets function within a state or government host.”
Incorrect. By definition, markets are the set of voluntary transactions. Where markets conflict with, but proceed in spite of the threat from, state action, the market is black. The voluntary interactions of individuals (markets) are the primary and unavoidable result of any group of free people unhindered by violent aggression. The complex institutions of the state are necessarily a later and secondary form of organization. It is the state then that defines what portions of the already existing and everpresent market are black. The state declaring war upon those portions of the market thereby makes the state, by definition, a burden upon the black market, not a host to it.
“Because defense is a territorial industry that is best served by proximity to the ‘customer’.”
Private defense is not. A single security company (and many exist) may serve a particular region, as is common with any type of company, but its customers within the region they serve are frequently quite scattered and disconnected. And yet, somehow these companies are profitable.
State defense need not be. The UK may choose to defend the Falklands or Gibralter. The US may choose to defend Midway Island, or Hawaii, or Kuwait, or Grenada, or Guantanamo, or South Korea, or South Vietnam without defending surrounding territories.
Your economic theory about how it is “best served” is naive and has failed repeatedly because it ignores more important factors.
“In addition, cartels of armed force within a given geographic area will emerge ostensibly to reduce costs to the consumer from conflict.”
“Ostensibly” means that you consider the masses of customers to be more economically naive than you, since they ostensibly are unaware that cartels, both in intent and result, INCREASE costs. You I am sure are also aware that economics teaches us that there is an entity that is even more inefficient and abusive than a cartel–a monopoly. A state, being a monopoly, can be expected to be a poorer defense service even than a cartel. And as history shows, the ultimate result of cartel is more commonly cartel defectors and competitive enterprises, rather than monopoly. Therefore, if your natural cartel theory is correct (and for reasons not mentioned, it makes little economic sense) then it would be a protective mechanism AGAINST state monopoly formation. So either you believe state defense monopolies are unnatural, or you have yet to explain why they have come to exist.
“In addition, unlike liberal democracy, there are no institutionalized mechanisms within anarchist society to limit, balance, decentralize and make transparent the elements of armed force within society.”
Clearly there are far more–competition, withdrawl of support, need to persuade (customers, suppliers, investors, employees, reviewers), incentive to continue a successful business model (startups would obviously have to prove nonthreatening to customers, debtors, and arbitrage services, and be adept at avoiding costly violent conflict resolutions). I’m sure you can think of other ways transacting parties commonly employ to peacefully defend their interests in a free market.
To speak of a monopoly as being decentralized is to not understand what a monopoly is. To think that state democracy serves the interests of, or distributes any substantial authority to, individual citizens, is to have an impossible vision of democracy even at its theoretical best.
“Moreover, we both know that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely”
Precisely why no single individual should hesitate to oppose any violently aggressive action taken to oppose competition in any service, or prevent any person from freely and unilaterally refusing participation in any transaction.
” — hence these private military cartels will quickly evolve into territorial monopolies of armed force with statist political structures to solidify there hold on power.”
Oh. So you don’t understand cartels afterall. Cartels do not tend to evolve into a monopoly. In fact, they tend, out of pure profit motive, to resist monopoly. And although not inconceivable, it is also unlikely that a statist political structure would emerge from a successful organizational structure built from its inception upon the voluntary attraction of investors, customers, and suppliers. Modern states are not the children of the merchants of yore. They are the children of violent gangs of yore. Marx’s theory of the natural evolution of free markets into monopoly was long ago discredited as very bad economics indeed.
@ Viking vista,
Every single black market has operated within the framework of the state since society anarcho-capitalist society has never existed. No matter, even in a theoretical anarchist society — violence would be present.
Indeed, violence would not only be present, it would be an essential and beneficial means to acquire and redistribute resources.
Why?
Because the most economically profitable actors in society would have the most capital which in turn could be used to acquire the machinery of war which provides its owner with the best means to win wars. Hence, America is the global hegemon, not because of its population or the ardor of its warriors — it is because of its economic power.
Moreover, violence will be used in a theoretical anarchist society under the following conditions:
1) peaceful exchange to acquire valued resources is not possible.
2) peaceful exchange is more costly then the use of armed force.
3) the gains from using force to acquire resources is less than the costs.
Moreover, society will benefit from this action since resources that were denied to the marketplace by inefficient managers would now change hands to more productive managers.
Indeed, if an actor that seeks the maximum return on his capital and labor does not adhere to these three tenets — then he is an irrational actor or economic goals are subordinate to some aesthetic goal.
If this last condition is true, then the aesthetic actors will soon see their capital decline relative to economically motivated actors, we in turn will be able to acquire the means to wage war.
“peaceful exchange is more costly then the use of armed force”
how entertaining
@ civic
Of course, you missed the fact that many actors in society will not sell or want exorbidant prices for their resources.
For example, environmentalists holding an oil rich region refuse to sell this bounty under any circumstances for aesthetic reasons. Hence society is denied this resource until a private military agency and its investors annex this resource by force thereby transferring management from an economically inefficient manager to an economically efficient manager.
Society benefits with lower fuel costs. Moreover, because of this, it is highly unlikely that many will protest or object to this action.
Also, coercion is always economically beneficial when it reallocates mismanaged resources from unproductive actors or managers to efficient managers thereby increasing societal growth and living standards. In addition, capital and resources will naturally gravitate to economically efficient actors since they will have the means to fund stronger military forces.
centinel,
Your economics are atrocious. Competition is not inefficient. Rather, it is the cause of economic efficiency. A coercive monoply is coercive BECAUSE it is inefficient (and undesireable). An organization that cannot fail has every incentive to become more wasteful and abusive. Perhaps you also believe that profits in a competitive market raise prices rather than being both the reward and incentive for LOWER prices. Cartels form FOR THE PURPOSE of raising costs. Cartels almost always suffer defectors because cartels create and raise the reward for defecting. Almost nothing you say about economics makes any sense or bears any resemblance to historical observation.
@viking vista
Your assertion that defense is not based on proximity is absurd. Of course, any military agency whether private or public best serves its ‘clients’ when it is centralized and enjoys shorter interior lines. Hence, within anarchist society, a single defense or military agency will coalesce within a given geographic region for the following reasons:
1) proximity, centralization, and interior lines do matter in matters of war — any strategist or tactician understands this a prior even if pacifist anarchist who have never held power anywhere do not.
2) a single cartel will eventually emerge to reduce the costs associated with conflict. In addition, economies of scale and specialization of labor will drive this end too.
3) once a cartel emerges, the allure of absolutism will be too great unless you discount the universal truth of power asserted by Acton: ‘power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely’. And if you are foolish enough to discount this adage, then by defintion responsible and fair government would be possible — and we both know this is not true.
centinel and centinel1,
Does it not matter to you that my post contains counterpoints to each of your claims? Simply repeating your original claims does not a discussion make. It leaves us wondering how you might address my points. If a response like mine is too long to hold your interest, it would make more sense to ignore it, than to respond without reading it.
If any other reader is curious as to how I would respond to anything this person has yet written, simply read my original post–in its entirety instead of selectively as this person did. I would then be grateful for any actual counterpoint or questions.
Your economics are atrocious. Competition is not inefficient. Rather, it is the cause of economic efficiency. A coercive monoply is coercive BECAUSE it is inefficient (and undesireable). — viking vista
strawman — produce the quote in which I stated that competition was inefficient.
moreover, there is no guarantee that a firm that gains over 50% of market share will continue to satisfy consumer preferences — indeed, many seek out the assistance of government to ensure their hold on market dominance. Similarly, a firm within the defense or military industry would likely use this temporary advantage to eliminate the competition through direct military action.
In sum, it is supremely naive to assert that
1) it is impossible for a military agency within a hypothetical ancap society to gain a large enough market share to gain hegemon status or a territorial monopoly by force.
2) it is impossible that this firm would continue to act in the best interests of consumers by allowing inferior or weaker competition to continue.
Hence, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Yet the faith-based anarchist is of the opinon that only government entities engage in corrupt and aggressive uses of armed force — using their bizarre logic once government is removed from the market place all of societies actors become angels and all industries are populated by 1000′s of companies all with a near equal share of the market ??!!
And you wonder why anarchism resides firmly on the ash heap of history.
“produce the quote in which I stated that competition was inefficient.”
Easy:
“cartels of armed force within a given geographic area will emerge ostensibly to reduce costs to the consumer from conflict”
Now why don’t you produce the quote where I said anything was “impossible” for any military, firm, or any organization whatsoever. False absolutes are more your penchant than mine. And you don’t see the irony of you accusing me of posing a strawman?
Look, if you are trying your best, then I suppose I can’t ask for anything more. But if you are intentionally trying to not be taken seriously, then you’ve got your wish. Nobody is required to care about his own reputation.
“In addition, unlike liberal democracy, there are no institutionalized mechanisms within anarchist society to limit, balance, decentralize and make transparent the elements of armed force within society.”
Strange how some people think competition means diddly-squat in a market society. They seem to be so used to to government’s restriction of competition that they are completely unable to imagine a society where such restrictions do not exist, or how such competition effectively works to limit, balance, decentralize, and make transparent the elements of force within society.
@ clem,
Yours is a strawman argument. Please produce the quote in which I stated that competition wasnt important ?
what you dont understand is that a monopoly of armed force restricts all other industries and can utterly undermine the entire market.
Moreover, capitalism exists within autocratic societies to a great extent in many cases, particularily within many authoritarian regimes (see pinochet)– yet these market forces have largely been unable to dislodge the government monopoly on force by peaceful means.
Indeed, if market forces are so effective at undermining the government’s monopoly on the elements of armed force why are there so few examples of this occurring?
Now you’re the one engaging in a strawman argument. You said that “there are no institutionalized mechanisms within anarchist society to limit, balance, decentralize and make transparent the elements of armed force within society.” You did not say this armed force has to be a government. I did not say market forces are effective at undermining the government’s monopoly on armed force. I said that within anarchy, competition is the mechanism that provides limits, balance, decentralization, and transparency.
Come back when you have a coherent argument.
“”I did not say market forces are effective at undermining the government’s monopoly on armed force. I said that within anarchy, competition is the mechanism that provides limits, balance, decentralization, and transparency. “” — clem
Absurd, monopolies of armed force can easily occur within the free market. Indeed, there have been numerous examples of monopolies where one company controls over 75% of the market (microsoft, standard oil, vanderbilt lines, intel, ford circa 1900′s, IBM, walmart, sirius satellite radio, boeing, et al) which is more than enough of an advantage within the military industry to guarantee the ability to destroy the competition in a conflict.
and since a monopoly is assured (indeed do some research even the most ardent anarchists accept this fact) then you have to be incredibly naive to think that the warriors who gain a territorial monopoly on armed force will not use it to gain and hold power against the will of the citizenry.
and to reject the truth that power encourages corruption indicates that you are beyond redemption.
hence to support anarchism you have to
1) reject the notion that monopolies can occur in a free market
2) reject the notion that once a monopoly of armed force occurs that it will not become corrupt.
either way your clueless.
“numerous examples of monopolies where one company controls 75% of the market.”
Within which definition of monopoly are you operating? Doesn’t this statement imply oligopoly, if anything at all? I am under the impression that a monopoly exists only on the condition that there is one supplier and one supplier only.
“a monopoly is assured (…even the most ardent anarchists accept this fact)”
How can that be true, if an anarchist is telling you that he doesn’t? Doesn’t the very fact that your response was necessitated serve as the counter argument to the claim? Or are you referring to influential anarchist thinkers? And if so, which ones? There are a number of individualist thinkers who don’t agree with that statement. Or, if they do then they agree only that monopolies might arise, but that they will soon enough be undermined by the market. So are you saying that they are assured to arise, or that they are assured to persist? The implications of the two are very different, I think, especially where your argument is concerned.
CFB,
The most useful definition of a monopoly is “an organization that effectively employs the violent suppression of its competition”.
Otherwise the usual adverse economic effects of monopolies don’t exist to any significant extent. For instance, if I start selling VV Mood Altering Ointment, which clearly nobody else could have for a time, it makes little economic sense to refer to it as a monopoly. Likewise if a natural disaster wiped out all of your competitors. Likewise if one producer was increasingly so good at what he made that nobody wanted to buy from any of his existing competitors.
The issue with monopoly is not the existence of competing goods and services, but their possibility of existence. Competition is the key, and in a free market you are always competing against not just what is, but what might be. For most things you are also competing against the consumer’s choice to reject any and all such products.
Violence is how you prevent general economic benefits by suppressing competition and/or compelling “customers” to pay.
And…you keep straying farther from any relevance to my comments.
Strawman? You’ve built an entire house of straw, just to knock it down! Too bad I’m not in it.
“This violent naivete is among the many reasons why statism resides on the ash bin of history only to be advocated by a tiny cabal of faith-based extremists.”
There. Fixed your typos for you.
@ jim
amusingly, you condemn both statism and violence as ineffective, yet it is the very system and means that is used to subjugate you!
In sum, it may be ineffective by your definition — but what of your anarchist system ??
Agreed, most of the power derived from dictators was because the masses did nothing and merely went with the flow. It’s akin to a boxer in the ring who refuses to fight back – he only makes it easier for the other guy to win.
There is nothing inherently pacifistic/non-violent about de la Boettie’s realization/the “withdraw your consent” strategy towards ending the state. Pacifism CAN be a part of it, but is not necessary.
I’ve yet to meet a person who can coherently explain how the state is any different than a “gang of thieves writ large”. Unfortunately, their failure to justify a moral distinction between, say the Mafia and the US Gov doesn’t immediately convert them to libertarians. Instead, most will still stammer “it is TOO different!” thus proving the point I set out to make: the only difference between the state and a criminal gang is PERCEPTION. Though its actions are the same as any other group of slavers, extortioners, murderers and thieves, the state is PERCEIVED to be legitimate and thus considered non-criminal.
If enough people (a “critical mass”, a number I’m not sure can be known in advance) were disabused of this unfounded perception and saw the state for what it really is, they’d begin to respond to the state as they would any other criminal gang.
And this is where someone’s views on violence come into play. For an actual pacifist, they will be unwilling to use violence to resist criminals (including those comprising and employed by the state) and rely solely on social pressure like ostracizing, boycott, shaming, etc. Whether this will be effective or not is not an absolute given and would appear to depend on a lot of different variables such as size of the community, the solidarity of communal support for non-violent “resistance”, cultural homogeneity, etc. A small community like the Amish seem to demonstrate that when certain factors are present, the threat of shunning is enough to prevent widespread criminality. I’m not 100% convinced that would “work” in a much larger scale, and culturally diverse society. But it’s not a open-and-shut case that non-violent recourse to aggression is necessarily impotent. Don’t underestimate the power of guilt/shame on most people. I’m convinced that one of the main “purposes” of the state is to serve as a moral facade to provide cover for people to engage in immoral activity without suffering the personal (conscience) and communal condemnation that such activity normally results in. While few people are willing to put the hard work in to actually be moral, most are unwilling to be perceived (by themselves and others) as “bad people”. The state is that fiction that allows them to have their cake and eat it too. But only if the rest of us buy into it.
For the standard (non-pacifist) libertarian, the right of violent self-defense is not in question and thus can be employed against the state no differently than against “private” criminals. Individual armed resistance, cooperative armed resistance, market defense agencies, etc. There are volumes already written on how the provision of security (which includes defense against criminals of all types, including those called “states”) could function when provided by the market. People arguing these predictions are unrealistic are essentially arguing that monopoly provision is superior (from point of view of the “consumer”) to market provision; an assertion that must be made arbitrarily in reference to the “services” monopolized by the state, since in all other services considered, solid theory and experience prove this to be a laughable and baseless claim.
But the first step is that the state must be recognized as being just another criminal organization. It must be de-mystified. And not just on an individual level, though that’s the necessary first step. What the illustration in the post beautifully shows is that if one by one, we step off the “law-abiding, tax-paying citizen” side of the scale, then there will eventually come a tipping point where the state’s claims of legitimacy lose the necessary support to persist; when the claim of “authority” is (rightfully) met with derision and laughter and the agents of the state are treated the same as all other criminals. At that point, the numbers are not in favor of the rulers. With a population of around 310 million in the US, there are — I would generously guess — 3-4 million armed members of the state (law-enforcement of all levels, military). If, let’s say, even 10% of the population stopped believing the legitimacy of the state, then that’s 30 million that need violent subjugation. 30 million with no moral obligation to obey the “laws” of the state, such as those restricting what means “citizens” may defend themselves with (hint: means that will no longer be limited to pleading your case in a state-monopolized court system). 30 million who do not grant “sovereign immunity” to employees of the state and thus hold EVERY SINGLE soldier/cop personally responsible for his/her crimes. 30 million who have a good chance at winning the PR battle since they will not be guilty of any actual crime (aggression against others), and simply be guilty of saying “I don’t consent. Leave me alone.”) and it will be more difficult (though not impossible; e.g., USSR and China) to simply eradicate these people (if possible) and still claim moral standing with the remaining citizenry (who will actually know these 30 million personally, not just think of them as “brown people across the sea”).
To keep this somewhat brief, I’ll again reiterate that the idea that the state cannot survive without us collectively contributing to it’s perceived legitimacy is not inherently non-violent. It’s simply a recognition that a people that are psychologically disarmed are in no position to resist the state and thus the first, and most effective step towards defeating the state is to no longer contribute to the collective delusion that sustains it.
And this is not just solely theory. Look at what happened in Egypt. Now it’s true, it was not a libertarian revolution in content, but it was one in form. Only about 2-3% of the population was all that was necessary to overthrow an entrenched regime and they did it completely non-violently by simply saying “NO. Mubarak is not our legitimate ruler.” The eroded perception of Mubarak’s legitimacy, coupled with the hesitancy (and outright declaration of intent to refuse orders) of those in the army to open fire on peaceful protesters (something that would exist in a significant percentage of American soldiers/cops) and viola… goodbye Mubarak. Unfortunately, since the Egyptian “critical mass” was still statist in mindset (the “content” I referred to), they’ll simply get another state to replace Mubarak. But imagine if that 2-3% were actual libertarians who said “Mubarak or anyone….we don’t recognize your right to rule us”.
As for a violent example: a while back I saw a YouTube video of a football (soccer) match where a man streaked across the field and was then caught and savagely beaten by a group of security guards (I assume they were private security, they could have been police). This outright brutality against an unarmed man so enraged the crowd, that hundreds of them stormed the field and beat up the armed guards. That’s the truth de la Boettie (and others) recognized… the rulers are always VASTLY outnumbered by the ruled, and thus it is not superior force that accounts for their reign. It is the perception that they have a right to rule. If that perception changes, the true balance of power (which is on the side of the ruled) is quickly made apparent.
Hear, Hear! Well spoken!
“People arguing these predictions [free market protection] are unrealistic are essentially arguing that monopoly provision is superior (from point of view of the “consumer”) to market provision.” –Seems like a straw man to me. I don’t argue state provision of force is superior, simply that human nature and 6000 years of history is a lot of evidence to overcome.
I disagree with you that the state couldn’t violently subject a 10-1 ratio of citizens withholding consent vs military/police.
Considering that the Libertarian candidate in Presidential elections consistently gets less than 1% of voters and the Free State Project is just over 10,000, I despair of even getting close to 30 million anti-statists.
Centinal (a.k.s. rettoeper) trolls the Mises forums all the time conflating anarcho-capitalism as pacifist.
Somehow he believes modifiers like ‘absurd’ and ‘moreover’ turn his assertions into proofs.
He cannot conceive that social change can be motivated by anything other than incentives. He often uses the incentives of wealth and power embodied in profit and might-makes-right stratagies to prove his position.
His proofs completely ignore that a change in perception exists as a motivation to cooperate rather than aggress.
It is also obvious in almost every one of his posts that he does not know the difference between theory and history.
He has been coming here for a couple years and has not learned a thing.
Replying to him is futile if the object is to hope that he will learn something but his blatant logical fallacies and gross economic error are good learning tools for those of us who mostly lurk around here.
“”He cannot conceive that social change can be motivated by anything other than incentives. He often uses the incentives of wealth and power embodied in profit and might-makes-right stratagies to prove his position. “”– g8r hed
within a hypothetical anarchist society (none have ever existed in practice) — economic profit seeking actors will undoubtedly resort to violence to obtain desired ends.
To do otherwise would be irrational for these actors.
Moreover, even the faith based anarchist recognizes that security and defense will be necessary within anarchist society.
Hence, as the level of profitability of a given enterprise declines, the ability to adequately fund security declines thereby increasing the chance that the resources of this inefficient manager will be plundered by more efficient managers who possess more miiltary hardware.
“”It is also obvious in almost every one of his posts that he does not know the difference between theory and history.”" — g8r hed
it is obvious that the only retort you can muster is an ad hominem devoid of fact, logic and empirical evidence.
Indeed, I have provided a logical rationale (one of many) for disproving anarchism above and of course empirical evidence abounds that rejects it.
In sum, you have nothing but faith.
Indeed, if capitalism is the most effective system and peaceful exchange is the most effective means to obtain desired ends — then why do both struggle within society?
The reason is obvious — violence is an effective means to obtain power otherwise how would statists gain power since they are both illegitimate and ineffective at managing the economy.
You are absolutely right! Violence is an effective means to obtain power. But is it effective for doing anything else? Violence tends to destroy wealth, for example. If we want to achieve a progressive and peaceful society, then violence is far from effective. So maybe we should look at not only what is happening, but what we want to happen. Maybe what we want is not be King of the Hill, but to reduce societal parasites, and other diseased factions of our society. Violence does not seem to be an effective way of doing that, either.
Michael,
Why do you suppose such people think that violence is effective for bad people to seize power, but ineffective for good people to defend against such invasions? Are there two races of humans–those who are bad and capable of effective violence and those who are good and ineffective?
Clearly capability of violence is a human trait that knows no ideological boundaries. What differs is only the ideology. One ideology leads to judicious defensive uses of violence and the financial means to make it more safe and effective. The other leads to a growing parasitic power magnet for the least judicious to lust after.
Who says defensive violence is ineffective? Libertarians are the first to call Afghanistan the “graveyard of empires”.
Trolls do have their uses, especially those who consistently repeat the same logical fallacies.
They volunteer as a consistent target for us to practice our refutation of those fallacies on. Over in Daily, Couter, provides an entry level sparring partner, who has still to understand the difference between the use of praxaeology in historical interpretation and post hoc ergo propter hoc.
I’m probably not ready to take Centenial onsingle handed, but at least I can see that he has yet to understand Rothbard’s analysis of cartel and monopoly in MES+P&M, and Rothbard’s insight that, like socialism, big cartels and monopolies are unable to calculate and hence economically unstable.
As to a monopoly of force; I spent long enough in Ireland to do some amateur and peripheral research into “The Troubles”.
A group of probably no more than 200 active at any one time, in an area of only six counties, and with the active and violent opposition of at least half of their population, and only possible sympathy from the other half, ranging between opposition through shades of warmth to passive and active support, was able to tie one of the top five armies in the World up for over quarter of a century.
Not that I have sympathy for the thugs on either side of that conflict, or for violent conflict as a means, but the empirical evidence certainly points to the great difficulty of imposing a monopoly of force on a population which does not want it.
@Brutus
“Seems like a straw man to me.”
I didn’t give a name, so if the shoe doesn’t fit. But it’s not a straw man in general. MANY people, if not MOST, who object to anarchism do so under the argument that the market cannot provide the services the government currently does (minarchists stick with provision of security/arbitration; other brands of statists include a much longer list like roads, schooling and food quality certification, etc.). Though they don’t put it in the terms I did, the core of what they’re arguing is that a monopoly (the state) can better provide consumers than a competitive market. When put in those terms, anyone with the most basic understanding of economics can see how uneducated such an assertion is.
“I don’t argue state provision of force is superior, simply that human nature and 6000 years of history is a lot of evidence to overcome.”
I don’t understand the “lot of evidence to overcome” argument. Are you saying that since the state has been providing certain services for “6000 years”, that’s evidence it must be the best method of providing those services? Would you have made the same argument at the turn of the industrial revolution? “Manual labor has a lot of history going for it, I’m not so sure about these labor saving machines you’re talking about.” ??
“I disagree with you that the state couldn’t violently subject a 10-1 ratio of citizens withholding consent vs military/police.”
Why?
And then, if you think that 30 million libertarians (people not enslaved mentally) could really be subjugated by 3 million, why would you “despair of even getting close to 30 million anti-statists”? 30 million won’t be enough to do anything, your “disagreement” asserts, so why would there be any hope to despair towards that end?
@ drake,
I wish i had a dime for everytime I have heard an anarchist lament:
‘ if only the citizenry shared the same subjective moral value judgments as me ‘
hypocritically, whenever a despot goes on a genocidial torture and killing spree abroad — these same anarchists are the first to condemn any AMerican action to protect innocent life.
No wonder, these anarchists represent a tiny fringe cabal of the population when they have demonstrated that they are unfaithful allies who wouldn’t life a finger to defend innocents abroad even when subject to the brutal policies of dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Taliban, Castro, Kim, Mugabe, et al.
Indeed, throughout this site, there are numerous examples of anarchists criticizing US efforts against slavery, fascism, communism, islamists, et al.
In contrast, where liberal democracies hold sway — society is relatively peaceful, prosperous, free, and stable. Indeed, liberal democracies are utterly peaceful to like minded societies.
“anarchists … are unfaithful allies who wouldn’t life a finger to defend innocents abroad even when subject to the brutal policies of dictators like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, Taliban, Castro, Kim, Mugabe, et al.”
If the foreign wars you approve of are so moral and beneficial, then people like you should have no trouble at all raising the armies you want solely through volunteers, and likewise pay for it all through voluntary donations.
But you don’t. You use conscripts, and even when you don’t, you use institutionalized theft — wealth collected at gunpoint — to pay for your mercenaries.
You’re scum. Admit it.
liberal democracies are utterly peaceful to like minded societies
General Smedley Butler disagrees with you.
@ phinn
Last time I checked the US military was an all volunteer force .
“You’re scum. Admit it.” — phinn
the predictable ad hominem. Thanks I won a fin for that one.
Smedley Butler was traumatized by war. Moreover, there were few if any liberal democracies around when he was alive.
Today there are over 50
Indeed, I issued a challenge on this very website a few weeks ago:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/26853/445848.aspx#445848
I invite you to hand over $1000 and back your rhetoric with cash!
“Last time I checked the US military was an all volunteer force .”
No it is not. Soldiers get paid. It’s a job. People also “volunteer” to become accountants, electricians, network engineers, etc.
This is propaganda spread by the State to prop up soldiers as heroes. I have a brother-in-law in the Army, so spare me your “you obviously don’t know anyone in the military” speech.
Since there’s no such large scale voluntary army freeing the people of the world from dictators we then can assume people don’t value freedom and thus “anarchism” can’t exist.
General Smedley also had the chance to oust F.D.R. but didn’t so he’s not much of a freedom-lover.
centinel,
‘ if only the citizenry shared the same subjective moral value judgments as me ‘
You are confusing subjective and objective.
If person A wears a blue shirt, it is not subjective but rather an objective recognition of reality to declare “person A is wearing a blue shirt”. If person A then gives person B the blue shirt to wear, it is still objective to declare “person B is wearing a blue shirt”. It is only subjective when it is declared “it is good when person A is wearing a blue shirt, it is bad when person B is wearing a blue shirt.” It would be objectively false if it were declared “it is a blue shirt when person A wears it, it is not a blue shirt when person B wears it.”
The state-is-legitimate myth does not rely on subjective moral judgment, it relies on a false claim about objective reality.
The vast majority of people already do share the prerequisite subjective moral judgment: “it is BAD to commit aggression”. The myth of the state is not that is is “GOOD for the state to commit aggression” (a subjective judgment), but rather the myth is “it is not aggression when the state does it” which is an objective claim, and one that is false. People don’t think “it is BAD to steal, but it is GOOD when the state steals”. Rather, most think “it is BAD to steal; it is not stealing when the state does it.”
I do not have any designs on changing the subjective moral judgments of others. If you think it is “good” for some people to commit aggression, that’s your subjective point of view and I can’t disagree with that per se (anymore than I would argue over which is the “best” ice cream flavor). My argument is that the reason the state can exist (the few rule over the many) is that the many believe something that is objectively false (that it is not aggression when the state does it; thus the state is not criminal).
The libertarian strategy is not to convert the statist’s subjective moral judgments, but to simply deny them the euphemisms they hide behind. The state is criminal, that is objective. Do you have the guts to out yourself as a supporter of criminality? Some will, yes. I argue that most won’t when the anonymity of taking refuge in the zeitgeist is gradually removed from them.
You seem to be arguing that the sword is mightier than the pen, while refusing to see that the sword is always directed by the pen. Other than cases of actual insanity, there is no such thing as non-ideologically directed force.
The state has existed not because it is the most powerful criminal gang, but because it is not perceived to be criminal, and is thus not generally resisted as such. The “pen” of the idea the state is legitimate ensures that the “sword” of resistance is not directed against the state and thus it persists.
Nicely said.
@ centinel
you seem quite obviously to be against anarchy, and state that anarchists lament that others do not hold the same subjective values as they do. but how is that more defensible than our democracy, by which a small number of individuals forcibly impose their subjective values on others? logistical arguments of anarchy aside, this argument on your part against anarchists is confusing, since it applies to the liberal democracies of which you are in favor as well
The equilibrium forces are far too great for a puny tyrannt to resist. The moment the pendulum begins its swing back towards entropy the weakness of the tyrannt’s grip causes it all to slip away.
right ?!
how many generations is society supposed to weight for this slow moving pendulum to bring justice in the absence of armed force ??
Moreover, the pendulum has never swung in the anarchist’s favor.
@ the anarchist faithful,
monopolies and competition can exist together within a prosperous free market framework since monopolies that are unresponsive to consumer preferences can be undermined by competition, substitute goods and services, et al.
However, when a miltary cartel gains hegemon status within a given geographic region, then it can force its will across all industries. Indeed, that is why statists are so prevalent in society and so difficult to remove from power.
Also, I understand the distinction between government enforced monopolies and free market monopolies, the former do not allow for competition, the latter does.
In sum, the state or government doesnt have to be efficient, moral or just to gain and hold power since armed force overcomes these shortcomings.
Moreover, anarchists who reject the utility of armed force to obtain desired ends are severely limiting their options because of emotional and subjective value judgments. This is one of the many reasons why anarchist society resides firmly on the trash bin of history.
To the Statist Faithful, Centinel,
Everything you say is wrong. Monopolies and competition do not exist together. Monopolies are, by definition, the absence of competition. “Monopoly” means “exclusive control of a commodity or trade.” It dates from the 1500s, and is Greek in origin, from “monopolion,” or the “right of exclusive sale.” Accordingly, to the extent a monopoly exists, competition does not. It’s a simple calculus, when you think about it.
Also, there are no free market monopolies. No one can point to one. Much like unicorns and leprechauns.
I would also submit that no cartel has ever had total control over any area. Even in prisons, where statism is at its fullest, there is anarchy. Anarchy is an essential, unavoidable condition of mankind. It exists wherever people are, the way that gravity exists wherever matter exists. One does not need to argue it into existence. It is a feature of all human society, arising from our ability to predict, make decisions, choose our goals, and act. Anarchists have already won the debate, because there is nothing we need to do in order to bring anarchy about. We simply want the level of institutionalized violence to be lowered by showing people that their devotion to (and moral and economic approval of) statism is based on lies.
Statism cannot be efficient, moral or just. This is self-contradictory. Statist violence necessarily destroys the information needed for efficiency. As for morals, statism is predicated on a fundamentally nonsensical moral proposition — the idea that some select group of persons has more rights and powers than others. That’s not morality, but its opposite — power.
Anarchists do not reject the utility of armed force. I happen to like armed force, and have used it to great effect. I, however, reject the moral propositions of statism as the patent nonsense they are, and further reject the supposed economic benefits of statism, for similar reasons.
@ phinn,
Absurd, standard oil had a defacto monopoly in the oil industry in the 1800′s and they were still subject to competition.
However, they were so effective at lowering prices and providing quality that no company could compete on a level playing field.
Monopolies can easily form within a free market and still be subject to competition if they become unresponsive to consumer preferences. However, if they utilize their economies of scale to continue to faithfully serve the consumer then there is no logical or empirical proof that they cannot continue to prosper.
Your assertion that this is not true is illogical and empirically disproven.
See the following source which debunks this leftist nonsense — yes you are parroting leftwing fallacies.
http://mises.org/daily/621
“”I would also submit that no cartel has ever had total control over any area. “”– phinn
absurd, every single government on the planet has a cartel on armed force. Moreover, market forces rarely have removed these cartels without the use of armed insurrection.
“”We simply want the level of institutionalized violence to be lowered by showing people that their devotion to (and moral and economic approval of) statism is based on lies.”" — phinn
it is grand optimism and naivete that faith-based anarchists believe that they only need to educate the masses to the efficacy of anarchism to make it a reality
However, virtually all the masses and elites in politics, science, business, arts, et al reject anarchism out of hand — indeed, even Mises, Hayek, Jefferson, et al rejected it — yet somehow the anarchist utopians believe that the rest of us can be swayed?!
MOreover, under liberal democracy civil, economic and political freedoms have flourished since 1776 — indeed standards of living, life expectancy, technological innovation, et al have expanded significantly.
Why?
Because liberal democracy is the most effective system yet devised to enhance and preserve the engine of capitalism. Nonetheless, the statist have undermined this system to engage in economic coercion — hence an economic bill of rights is in order. But to gut this effective system and replace it with the pipe dream of anarchism is folly.
“”Statism cannot be efficient, moral or just. This is self-contradictory.”" — phinn
The statist doesnt care, so long as he and his cronies benefit from this arrangement. Moreover, if this system is so ineffective then why do you live under it against your will ?
Indeed, do you pay exorbidant taxes because you like it ???
Do you surrender you right to health care choices because you like it ???
Do you fund the wars in Afghanistan and IRaq because you like it ??/
Or are these actions, funded by you, being executed against your will ?
“”Anarchists do not reject the utility of armed force. I happen to like armed force, and have used it to great effect. I, however, reject the moral propositions of statism as the patent nonsense they are, and further reject the supposed economic benefits of statism, for similar reasons. “”– phinn
Your engaging in a strawman argument here. I have never advocated for statism, moreover I recognize that statism is inefficient and requires coercion to gain and hold power.
What is folly is the notion by anarchists that violence will disappear in the absence of the state — this is absurd since violence is simply a means to achieve a desired end — a very effective means.
Moreover, to reject violence is to live under the dominion of these who wield it.
Hence violence can be used for positive results, particularily when it is used to free mismanaged scarce resources from inefficient managers. I offered an example earlier of how violence would be beneficial and necessary within a hypothetical ancap society
see above.
>>> “MOreover, under liberal democracy civil, economic and political freedoms have flourished since 1776 —
What world are you living in? Our economic freedoms have shrunk, year after year, since 1776. Even under King George, people had vastly more economic freedoms than they do now. Dude — central banking! Government-run schools. Government-run infrastructure. Telecommunications monopolies. Subsidies. Price fixing. Barriers to entry as far as the eye can see.
>>> indeed standards of living, life expectancy, technological innovation, et al have expanded significantly.
They expanded in spite of, not because of, statist control. They would have expanded even more significantly if Americans had had more economic freedom.
@ phinn,
your posts run amok with strawman and illogic.
For example, these two contradictory quotes from you:
What world are you living in? Our economic freedoms have shrunk, year after year, since 1776. –phinn
and this gem from you:
“They expanded in spite of, not because of, statist control.” –Phinn
Using your ‘logic’ our economic freedoms have shrunk while at the same time life expectancy, technological advancement, standards of living, et al have expanded.
What do you suppose was driving these expanded metrics while capitalism was supposedly in decline ?/
in sum, Capitalism has never had a better servant than liberal democracy.
Of course, I have always advocated far more limited govt. and an Economic Bill of Rights to complement our already sturdy political and civil rights — but certainly not gut our political and civil society and replace it with the pipe dream (nightmare) of anarchism that has enabled nothing but despotism.
Using your ‘logic’ our economic freedoms have shrunk while at the same time life expectancy, technological advancement, standards of living, et al have expanded.
What do you suppose was driving these expanded metrics while capitalism was supposedly in decline ?
What’s so hard to understand? The free market has improved everyone’s lives. It has been progressively strangled, as government takes over more and more of the economy. The private sector, as it is euphemistically called, has managed to put out ever-increasing wealth with less and less room.
Government grows to its maximum. It can’t kill the market, or the host dies. So, it lets the market live, to ensure continued supply of wealth for the parasite to consume.
If the parasite had been eliminated, we’d all be vastly better off now than we are.
Also, Standard Oil had a 64% market share by the time the US government’s edict on its “monopoly” took effect.
Also, you cannot ignore the statist support for monopolies in the form of patents. Patents are statist, not free-market. In new, emerging technologies, patents are strongly monopolistic. They used to be called monopolies outright, before they changed the name for PR reasons.
So, once again, the free market did not create monopolies in Microsoft, Standard Oil, Vanderbilt, Intel, Ford, IBM, Walmart, Sirius Satellite or Boeing.
I don’t even know what they hell you’re talking about with Walmart, by the way. They have a monopoly on selling household goods in gigantic stores? Really?
Also, Standard Oil had a 64% market share by the time the US government’s edict on its “monopoly” took effect. –phinn
Amusing and predictable that you offered this intellectually dishonest misrepresentation.
Indeed, standard oil controlled over 90% of the market:
http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/vindicating-standard-oil-100-years-later/
Moreover, a 100% monopoly on the elements of armed force is not required for a military cartel to gain hegemon status within a given geographic area.
Indeed, IBM, Ford, Microsoft, INtel, et al are all examples of market share obtained within a nominally free market economy that would enable a military firm to gain power and establish a defacto territorial monopoly of armed force — your fallacious nitpicking notwithstanding.
“In 1904, Standard controlled 91% of production and 85% of final sales. Most of its output was kerosene, of which 55% was exported around the world. After 1900 it did not try to force competitors out of business by underpricing them. The federal Commissioner of Corporations studied Standard’s operations from the period of 1904 to 1906 and concluded that “beyond question… the dominant position of the Standard Oil Company in the refining industry was due to unfair practices—to abuse of the control of pipe-lines, to railroad discriminations, and to unfair methods of competition in the sale of the refined petroleum products”. Due to competition from other firms, their market share had gradually eroded to 70% by 1906 which was the year when the antitrust case was filed against Standard, and down to 64% by 1911 when Standard was ordered broken up and at least 147 refining companies were competing with Standard including Gulf, Texaco, and Shell. It did not try to monopolize the exploration and pumping of oil (its share in 1911 was 11%).”
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was passed in 1890. Why did the government wait until 1906 to take action against Standard Oil? And by their own admission, Standard did not have the power to force other companies out of business, but had to rely on various tactics like pipeline control, railroad discrimination, and various undescribed “unfair practices”. It truly takes government power to eliminate the competition, as was later done with the AT&T monopoly.
And in spite of Standard’s tactics, it was competition that eroded their market share, not government action. the government acted well past any apparent crisis point.
Patents. Ignore them some more, why don’t you?
Also, Standard Oil invented new and improved distribution techniques. Their market share rapidly increased because of that. Then it declined when others copied them. That’s how markets work. Better information gets proliferated, and everyone benefits.
Could you please define a “free market monopoly”?
standard oil, microsoft, facebook, google, et al control over 75% of their respective markets — yet they/were constantly subject to competition.
monopolies are only a problem under two conditions: 1) they are protected by government or 2) they are a monopoly of armed force.
In the case of (2) this type of monopoly can force its will over the entire market place since there is no substitution good for military force. Also, this type of monopoly can directly undermine competition.
Hence, the moment a cartel of armed force within a society emerges — absolutism is the result.
Our founding fathers recognized this fact, hence they intentionally created a political system that decentralized, limited, balanced and made transparent the elements of armed force within society.
So monopoly equals 75% market share? Why not 74% or 80%? Is that your personal definition? Language is indeed subjective, so you’re free to define words however you’d like, but that’s not a definition many other people recognize.
If we are to take the word literally, it would seem to require 100% market share to be a “mono”poly. Anything less than 100% seems quite arbitrary if monopoly is defined by counting service providers.
However, at Mises.org, the more common (and I’d say exclusively coherent) definition of monopoly concerns restricted entry to the market. And has been described in great detail elsewhere, minus acts of aggression (which are by definition outside the market – defined as the voluntary interactions between legitimate property owners), monopolies cannot form in a free market.
The examples you gave (Standard Oil, FB, Google, etc…) are/were not monopolies under this definition.
@ drake,
A military force doesnt require a 100% monopoly on the elements of armed force to gain hegemon status over a given geographic region.
Moreover, I was plain and coherent when I stated clearly that competition doesnt disappear when a company reaches monopoly status. Your assertion that it does is absurd. Of course, any investor or startup firm can enter the market within a free society that I advocate.
The only time that a monopoly is coercive and doesnt not allow for competition is when government protects the monopoly or when that monopoly is in armed force.
In sum, Read my posts before engaging in strawman and misrepresentations.
I’m starting to wonder if you define “strawman” differently than the rest of us too sinces you throw the word around a lot without justifying its use. I did not attribute the definition of monopoly commonly used by Austrians and most classical economists to you. I presented two definitions, attributed those definitions (not to you), and analyzed the companies you provided as examples of “free market monopoly” under each definition (without attributing those definitions to you). Please explain how that is a strawman fallacy.
My point was that your definition of monopoly seems to be personal and very arbitrary. While you can use the symbols and noises that form language to mean whatever you want, if you’d like to actually communicate, it’s helpful to use definitions that are more widely accepted by your audience.
You consider Microsoft a “free market monopoly” (your direct response to my request for definition of free market monopoly), yet admit that it does not have 100% market share (as the “modern”/or literal definition of monopoly would require) and that competition exists and is not prevented through coercion (as the Austrian/Classical definition of monopoly would require).
So it would seem that under your definition, monopoly is simply when in a competitive market, a firm has a market share that passes an arbitrarily defined threshold that is less than 100%. Since monopoly, to you, is not 100% and it is not the violently enforced restriction to entry, then how can the rest of us know when a certain firm is a “free market monopoly”? Do we have to ask you in each instance since you have set the arbitrary requirements of the term?
And while it might be fun to play word games, the word “monopoly” is crucial to discussions about the feasibility of a market preventing the rise/re-occurrence of a state so if you’re using a personally defined version of that word, it’s almost guaranteed no actual communication will occur since the term will mean something else to everyone else.
You are right when you say that violence is an effective means of gaining power, but is it good for anything else? Violence is good for destroying wealth and the wealth-creation process, so maybe we should question just exactly what it is we want to achieve, and then we can decide what is the best or more appropriate means of achieving it.
You are right when you say that violence is an effective means of gaining power, but is it good for anything else? Violence is good for destroying wealth and the wealth-creation process, so maybe we should question just exactly what it is we want to achieve, and then we can decide what is the best or more appropriate means of achieving it. –clem
What if violence removes murderous regimes like north korea, cuba, zimbabwe, et al?
what if violence is used to create a minarchist society that enhances and preserves a free market that increases societal standards of living, life expectancy, lowers infant mortality, et al for generations ?/
“What if violence removes murderous regimes like north korea, cuba, zimbabwe, et al?”
Awfully generous of you to presume that the preemptive use of violence insures victory. Kind of discounts the fact that in a violent conflict the expected outcome is that there will be a winner and a loser and who is which won’t be known until its over doesn’t it?
If the savior of the world and its greatest advocate for democracy should attempt to “remove” China’s murderous regime but fail in its attempt and itself be destroyed, would you then persist in advocating violence as the most effective means to achieve the ends of enhancing and preserving “a free market that increases societal standards of living, life expectancy, lowers infant mortality, et al for generations?/”? Or would you be reduced to advocating that violence serves the ends of the one who uses the most violence and is victorious? In that case you are advocating not just the use of aggressive violence you are advocating the use of “scorched earth,” “take no prisoners” violence because to risk using less is to risk losing the battle. Your opponent may not be defeated as easily as you think.
If the savior of the world and its greatest advocate for democracy should attempt to “remove” China’s murderous regime but fail in its attempt and itself be destroyed, would you then persist in advocating violence as the most effective means to achieve the ends of enhancing and preserving “a free market that increases societal standards of living, life expectancy, lowers infant mortality, et al for generations?/”? — dr. annah
of course, any use of force that is recklessly applied is not desirable irrespective of whether it is for a good cause or not ?!
Indeed, the Reagan doctrine was a judicious use of force that costs very little in human capital and money.
The exercise in Libya achieved the downfall of a leader who murdered over 100 American women and children over Lockerbie at a cost of a little over one hour of federal government spending and exactly ZERO American lives — although I believe that a few pilots had some skinned knees.
Of course, in the ancap neighborhood any statist thief is free to plunder without the threat of allies coming to the assistance of the aggrieved party since ancaps only fight in self-defense and do not engage in entangling alliances.
“” Or would you be reduced to advocating that violence serves the ends of the one who uses the most violence and is victorious?”" — dr annah
Of course, violence only serves the party that wins the war. What is the point, other than it is vitally important that society funds a formidable miltiary force?
In that case you are advocating not just the use of aggressive violence you are advocating the use of “scorched earth,” “take no prisoners” violence because to risk using less is to risk losing the battle. — dr. annah
how do you come up with that strawman ??
How do I advocate ‘scroched earth’ violence from any of the posts I have issued ??
The US exercise of force in Libya cost exactly ZERO American lives and less than 1.5 hours of federal spending. Yet we removed a dictator who had murdered over 100 American women and children over Lockerbie.
Yet, inexplicably the anarchist cabal oppose even this just and measured use of force.
Indeed, a citizen who is the victim of a home invasion within ancap society can expect no help from his neighbors since it is painfully obvious that ancaps dont engage in entangling alliances and it is far too costly and risky to promote life, liberty, peace, and stability risking one’s own wealth, limbs, and life.
In contrast, American has created the most expansive, free, prosperous, stable and peaceful realm in the history of mankind. Indeed, thanks to American application of armed force — Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and Asian Pacific Rim are more peaceful, prosperous, free, and stable than at anytime in their tumultous pasts.
The one positive thing about the Iraq war was that Khadaffy gave up his WMD program for fear that he would be next. His reward for cooperating with the West was death. The illegal war (no permission from Congress after 60 days) in Libya ensured that no tin-horn dictator will ever give up his WMD program.
In order for your absurd claim that Libya cost zero American lives to be true, no American can ever die from a WMD attack from now until the end of time.
When the U.S. took out the elected leader Mossadegh in Iran in 1953 and set up the Shah of Iran, was this an example of a minarchist society that enhances and preserves a free market, or was it just another example of corruption of power?
@ clem,
Yes, the USA and British action was beneficial when examined within the context of the COld War.
The soviets were intent on taking IRan and Mossadegh was their useful idiot or willing servant.
What many fail to understand is that global communism was a utterly despotic and murderous system that condemned hundreds of millions to poverty, enslavement, torture and murder. To allow this evil to continue unchecked would be to signal the end of civilization.
the necessary effort in Iran was a campaign in the Cold War that ultimately broke the back of the heinous evil that was global communism.
Seriously? The Cold War and global communism was sufficient justification for ending a democratic state? That’s nuts. And besides, the USSR was unable to sustain itself. The U.S. had to intervene at key times in their history (the late 1920′s, the late 1950′s, etc.) with food and financial help to keep the USSR from collapsing much earlier than it did. If the U.S. had not done so, the USSR would have ended much more quickly, and there probably would have been no Cold War.
“”Seriously? The Cold War and global communism was sufficient justification for ending a democratic state? That’s nuts. And besides, the USSR was unable to sustain itself. The U.S. had to intervene at key times in their history (the late 1920′s, the late 1950′s, etc.) with food and financial help to keep the USSR from collapsing much earlier than it did. If the U.S. had not done so, the USSR would have ended much more quickly, and there probably would have been no Cold War. “”– clem
oh, if only our statist enemies were as naive and base as the anarchist faithful.
It is amusing when ancaps are forced to defend or marginalize the most heinous and destructive of statist abuses while at the same time attacking the liberal democracies who fight these genocidial statist empires.
A little history lesson,
1) global communism murdered more innocents in less than a century than all other states, religions, ideologies, et al combined in human history — yet this ancap rejects the COld War as necessary ?!!
2) Iran is defended as a ‘democracy’ despite the leadership’s immediate nationalization of private property ??!!
Are ancaps now defenders of statist plunder ?
in sum, do all ancaps believe that the only statist threats reside at home and none abroad ?
And how do they think that America gained the immense security from external predation from abroad that it now enjoys ???
Indeed, thanks to the application of armed force abroad — America is more secure from external threats than any nation in history.
Violence is certainly useful for certain applications. You can club a gazelle to death and eat the flesh off its bones to sustain yourself. It’s perhaps less useful for obtaining running water and electricity. You can’t club an “electric” gazelle to obtain lighting or a “hot water” gazelle to obtain a bath.
“monopolies and competition can exist together within a prosperous free market framework since monopolies that are unresponsive to consumer preferences can be undermined by competition, substitute goods and services, et al.”
Wow, then the situation you described wouldn’t be a monopoly, then would it? A monopoly is the elimination/prevention of competition via force, so if competition exists its not a monoploy, got it? (I know, its complicated)
I am only half way through this page and your posts utterly baffle me with their lack of logical coherence. Please sir, if you are a statist and think force is a superior way to govern society then freedom, then make your case. The reason you are getting so much resistance is not because everyone disagrees with you per se, it is because your “arguments” don’t make any sense- they are just rants repeated over and over with no facts or logic to support them. Anyone here would enjoy a good honest debate with a statist who actually has a position he can defend- but they (and you) never provide it. I guess thats the point. A statist doesn’t have to use an argument to support his position, he favors force as a means of resolving conflict and organizing society.
QFT, Dannyboy – “Anyone here would enjoy a good honest debate with a statist who actually has a position he can defend- but they (and you) never provide it. I guess thats the point. A statist doesn’t have to use an argument to support his position, he favors force as a means of resolving conflict and organizing society.”
All we get from cent/rettoeper is bovine obfuscation. Nothing to debate, no logic, no precise definitions, no methodology. He’s been doing it since he first came here over a year ago – hasn’t changed a word except for his name.
This site has changed a lot about the way I think. I am open to change. I could revert to a minarchist/statist position if someone produced a logical conclusion for it. Cent/rettoeper has done nothing but demonstrate all the reasons statist and minarchist positions have no rational basis.
He’s like a guy standing in a market beating on his dead camel. When people stop looking at him he yells and screams and jumps up and down and keeps on beating that dead camel. Any reasonable person would just walk away from the dead camel, drag it away, or at the very least try to sell it for meat….’course, I don’t know, maybe some prefer to compel others watch him bruise the meat of his own dead camel. I mean, if it’s his camel I guess he can beat it. Don’t know why he wants everybody to keep watching him though. I think it’s kinda’ strange but evidently he doesn’t.
By your reasoning, Christianity should also be “on the trash bin of history”.
How is “claimed monopoly of armed force” not a perfect definition of every kind of statism, including Centinel’s precious “liberal democracy”?
I just love how statists like Centinsl pretend that their form of statism is not actually statism.
Silly person.
Try this one on for size — not one of your claims of authority means a thing. It’s all phony. Your Constitution. Your legislation. Your borders. Your whole legal framework. It’s all meaningless. It binds me not at all. Your government has no authority whatsoever and never did, and never will.
Why does it irritate and enrage you when I say this?
“I just love how statists like Centinal pretend that their form of statism is not actually statism. ”
No one argued that.
Centinel did. He keeps talking about how the “statists” keep doing all of these horrible things to the economy, like health care, etc.
They did it using the “liberal democracy” he keeps advocating. That’s a state. It’s a highly extensive one, in case you hadn’t noticed. And it’s growing, which is what states do.
I’ve got news for both of you — it’s not working. As Spooner said 150 years ago, either the Constitution has authorized the government we have now, or it has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.
@ Phinn
I need a flame thrower to burn down all of the strawmen that the anarchist cabal are creating.
The minarchist state that I envision, largely drawn from Mises, Hayek, Jefferson, et al is based on a government of negative rights, decentralized, balanced, limited and transparent power.
Essentially, constitutional federal republicanism in its most effective form is a political ‘vaccine’ that injects a benign element of government to forestall or prevent the fatal emergence of full blown government in the form of absolutism.
Anarchism is the absence of a vaccine, hence the virus of government can attack the vulnerable host at will in the absence of a ‘vaccine’ that intentionally balances, limits, decentralizes and makes transparent the elements of armed force in society.
Of course, the vaccine that was administered in 1787 is no longer effective against the mutation of the virus that has engaged in economic coercion. Hence, we simply need a new injection of vaccine in the form of an economic bill of rights to undermine these mutation that our founding fathers were negligent in protecting us against.
In sum, I believe in far less government than even Ron Paul.
>>> “The minarchist state that I envision, largely drawn from Mises, Hayek, Jefferson, et al is based on a government of negative rights, decentralized, balanced, limited and transparent power.”
It’d be great if this were true, but I do not believe you. Your apparent and obvious lust to project US military power to the far reaches of the globe tells me everything I need to know about your true intentions.
And, like every other garden variety self-styled “conservative,” you are plainly willing to trade away these lofty minarchist goals in a heartbeat in order to secure the perpetual funding of your gang of armed men in their fancy costumes and expensive weapons to travel around the world to exotic places and kill people, and then hang around to occupy the places that have enough in the way of natural resources to make the whole adventure worthwhile.
See, the Leftists know what you care about. They know you have a soft spot for militarism, so they blackmail you with it. They get their unionism and welfare, you get your trillions for the Navy. They get their Obamacare, you get more missiles.
They own you. That’s how democracy works. In case you had not noticed, the democratic system lends itself to this kind of horse-trading, where there is virtually no one who has a stake in the system with a political incentive to actually implement a minarchist economic system. No one.
Bastiat noticed this over 150 years ago. Two factions, pretending to be opponents, trading with each other over who can pick the carcass faster.
These statist criminals tolerate the free economy because it’s extremely successful at generating wealth. Statists love the free market the way that wolves love a nice, fat sheep. They don’t hate it. They love it. They have no intention of letting the sheep live its life in peace. No, the sheep exists to serve their needs. But they don’t want to eradicate it. They need it. Somebody’s got to pay the bills.
But, hey, everything about you screams out that you have no intention of opening your mind to the facts around you. You are too afraid of your international bogeymen, who (by the way) are really no different than the predator class right here at home. You’re too outraged at the thought of some third-world gangster dictator out there treating a country like his own private harem without at least having the decorum and decency of the Anglo-American gangsters, who know how to dress their institutionalized theft in democratic clothing. Yes, heavens forfend that some filthy dictator fail to spout the lies and propaganda of democracy before raping and pillaging. We can’t have them running around without the fig leaf of liberal democracy, can we? They give Statism a bad name!
Centinel
Pray tell, where was it that violence created a minarchist society that enhances and preserves a free market that increases societal standards of living, life expectancy, lowers infant mortality, et al for generations?
Sione
Let’s see: the U.K., Europe, the U.S.A., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc., . . .
He asked where “violence created”, not where a relative DECREASE in violence created.
Ok: the U.S.A. then
The national government being by far the largest purveyor of violence in nearly any modern society, violence necessary does today correlate with the size of government. Smaller government in the modern age means less violence at play in society. Less aggressive violence, from any source, is synonymous with a freer society.
“Less aggressive violence, from any source, is synonymous with a freer society.”" –viking vista
Absurd. There is no factual empirical or logical argument that truly free societies will be less violent. Indeed, free societies are dynamic, as a result there are less restrictions on the means by which actors in society use to obtain desired ends.
In contrast, autocratic regimes in which the despot has most, if not all, of the military hardware and coercive power are usually far less violent. Hence, freedom is sacrificed for stability and peace.
The opposite is true within free societies in which despotism is sacrificed for dynamism and positive change.
IN sum, the anarchist desperately wants to believe that his system of choice is free, but in reality nothing could be further from the truth. The more free a society, the more varying methods to force change are employed — including most certainly violence.
To deny society the right to resort to violence is a cruel form of statism that protects the inefficient status quo and established interests at the expense of positive change.
“There is no factual empirical or logical argument that truly free societies will be less violent.”
It isn’t an empirical statement that I made, and the logic is simply by definition. Freedom IS absence of compulsion. Violence is the means of compulsion. By definition, a completely free society would be completely without invasive violence. More invasive violence is the same as less freedom. They are complements. They provide a strict either-or dichotomy of any and all possible human actions.
What is absurd is your repeated defense that freedom is slavery.
“coercive power are usually far less violent.”
Take the violence out of coercion, and what do you have left? Nothing. Coercion IS the use of violence.
So now you tell us that more violence is less violence. At what point do you think it would be to your advantage to try to be taken seriously?
Great job Viking. Centinel has just been spinning the old fallacy that a “strong government” is necessary to prevent nightmarish social violence. As that sort of argument always goes, he’s downplaying the violence that is government itself.
Interestingly enough, he also seems to find that “change through widespread violence” is perfectly legitimate, even desirable, and actually necessary. The kind of view held by such charming figures as the heads of the Russian Revolution.
What he doesn’t understand, or doesn’t want to, is that large-scale violence is horrible for everyone involved, and can only be sustained through the PRESENCE of a state, not the absence of one.
Taking a hint centinel? According to VV, violence = government interference and nothing else.
Gil,
I don’t see how I could have been clearer. What you said is clearly wrong. Why don’t you reread my posts with a little more care.
There is no other violence but government because it is a venture that uses violence instead of trading which is private enterprise hence a mugger is a government of one member.
gil,
There are relevant differences between an individual acting alone in a way widely considered to be illegitimate, and an individual doing the same thing but with the sanction of a violent monopoly widely considered to be legitimate. The action is the same in either case, and consistent moral judgement must therefore be the same in both cases, but in one case the societal incentives strongly limit that type of action while in the other case incentives enable, promote, and even reward it.
Uncivil violent aggressive offensive behavior will always be a fact of human society, but less is better than more. A state is the institutionalization of such behavior making it more widespread and surviving largely by the status quo bias indoctrinated into people that your mugger is protecting you from being mugged, among numerous other blatant contradictions. A state is an ideological factory for rooting out of society the most basic sentiments of civil behavior. It turns violence-against-innocents into a widely accepted and even passionately desired cultural norm. It is an engine against civilization which is why we see advances in civilation over the last few centuries coinciding with diminished popular acceptance of state authority.
The distinction between government violence and nongovernment violence is therefore an important one to make precisely because most people do not consistently apply their judgement of uncivil behavior.
The real Libertarian would find no distinction between a gang holding a peaceful neighbourhood at ransom and a government. Government is criminal force therefore all governments are criminals and all criminals are governments. A mugger is working on the premise hoping you prefer safety over your money hence he effectively taxing just like the government. After you don’t have to pay your taxes but . . .
“all governments are criminals and all criminals are governments.”
Well, clearly no. But I tried.
Wow, what a powerful image! This is why I am reluctant to vote, even if it were for someone like Ron Paul.
Straw man, “a sham argument set up to be defeated”
“Indeed, a citizen who is the victim of a home invasion within ancap society can expect no help from his neighbors since it is painfully obvious that ancaps dont engage in entangling alliances and it is far too costly and risky to promote life, liberty, peace, and stability risking one’s own wealth, limbs, and life.”
If that statement were true, you could rightly claim victory. You have greater faith in it than I do however, and I remain unpersuaded.
“How do I advocate ‘scroched [sic] earth’ violence from any of the posts I have issued ??”
You don’t. It would be honest if you came out with it directly instead of making your reader do the calculation herself, but that would weaken your argument irreparably.
Without taking the time to extrapolate your position into the future, it sounds good. But consider, any state promulgating the aggressive use of force must make contingency plans or be prepared to suffer the consequences of its spontaneous aggression. The strength of the enemy must be calculated. To avoid showing up to the gun fight with a knife, a goodly margin of safety must be built into those calculations.
The US has an overwhelming military capability, relative to most of its “targets of aggression” but not all. Should it be the case that the US, in its (hypothetical) aggression against, say Cuba, incidentally kill Chinese, Russian and other nationals, it is possible those countries could, as a coalition demand the person of the Commander in Chief stand trial. Of course that would not be agreed, triggering an attack from them by using the same justification as did Reagan. This possibility must be included in the calculation by any competent general. Therefore, the state that plans to use aggressive force must be prepared to go “all the way” or face the prospect of defeat. The outcome of war is never known for certain in advance. If it were even possible there would be no need to actually have it.
You assume too easily that the good ol’ US of A is invincible and all of its wars to spread “democracy” will be “winners.” We are fortunate you are not in charge.
Your example of Libya is weak because it did not result in any of the goals you enumerated. Also, it is not black and white that it was an act of aggression against another state. The Lockerbie bomber (who did act by aggressive first use of force) was being protected by Kadafi, who would not surrender him to the US for trial. Had Kadafi chosen to do that, his planes would not have been targeted.
“Indeed, a citizen who is the victim of a home invasion within ancap society can expect no help from his neighbors since it is painfully obvious that ancaps dont engage in entangling alliances and it is far too costly and risky to promote life, liberty, peace, and stability risking one’s own wealth, limbs, and life.”
That sounds like a perfectly fair argument to me. Yes, no one ought to be obliged to help out someone else who is victimised by someone else. And, quite frankly, yes helping a victim will probably also make you a victim of crime and make you far worse than had you not intervened at all.
If a straw man argument trumps logic, then I must agree. Otherwise not so much.
The example of a home invasion itself is appropriate, because it could happen in a state or anarchic environment. Both need protective services, and in neither do we expect a random neighbor to risk his life coming to the aid of the victim aid. The difference is that the state has a monopoly on providing the protective services and the anarchy does not because it cannot prevent anyone from selling or buying them. We all know that a monopoly makes the best products and sells them for the lowest prices. Not!
Assuming anarchists are so stupid as to disregard their personal safety creates the straw. Arguing by assuming anarchists are stupid displays who has dibs on stupidity.
I’m of the opinion that people wouldn’t really want to live in a society governed only by the non-aggression rule. I’d like it if it were that simple, I really would. But I think limiting force to only be a response to a direct property rights violation leaves holes in the system, as it would mean people who did not directly violate rights and did not cause a violation of rights (eg. someone harbouring a fugitive on the run for money) can’t be prosecuted as they have not broken any law, they just let someone stay in their basement in return for money and what he did before was none of their business.
Maybe what would happen is that private defence agencies would make their customers sign contracts that stipulated their defence services would be stopped if they did such a thing, a reasonable scenario.
My problem with this is that if A takes my jewels which are worth a lot of money and B helps him flee the jurisdiction in return for a portion of the cash(all negotiated after the fact, B did not in any way cause the theft or violate anyone’s rights directly) then B is essentially sitting there with my money and whilst he might have to forego his existing defence services, if the cash is sufficient then this might be worth it. So I can’t sue B for anything as he did’t violate my rights – and B might in fact live near me and be quite open with his new lifestyle of cocaine and prostitutes, yet there is nothing I can do. And I just don’t think people really want to live in such a society, where clear and flagrant theft can take place right under your nose yet you’re powerless. Or can someone tell me otherwise?
Hello Kid Salami,
I think your worries are exaggerated. Even in a NAP society, what you describe is extremely difficult to pull off without violating anyone’s rights. I only constructed this artificial example in order to help identify conditions of property right violations with respect to causality.
In order to act in a way that ends up beneficial for a property right violator, your actions may not affect the violation. B may not arrange with A in advance of his robbery that he’ll assist him, B may not transport the stolen jewelry, B may not store the stolen jewelry himself. This already makes the example more an academic exercise rather than a sound robbery plan. And finally, when justice is executed, this can mean, for example, return of the stolen jewels (which B does not have), or confiscation of some of A’s property (which, even if B is in possession of, he may not withhold after the decision, since that would be theft, thus the PDA can repossess them anyway). So there is not even a practical issue.
The perception of “injustice” might be skewed by us being accustomed to the current legal system, which assigns a high priority on putting A in jail. In a NAP society, the whereabouts of a jewelry robber A are irrelevant, what is important is repossession of his possessions and transferring them to the victim, for which A’s presence is not required, and B may not hinder anyway.
I think your worry is unfounded. Now, of course, people may reject pure NAP for emotional, rather than rational, reasons, but that’s a different topic.
Indeed, once a criminal has fled the victim’s private property the criminal can only be caught with the permission of all the private property he goes through and if they don’t want to help than tough luck. Then the trick would be that Libertopia would place emphasis on greater defence when a crime occurs than worrying about what happens after the crime is over. In other words, private property owners would be allowed to be armed to the teeth.
I, and I think many others, understand the NAP to include “self defense” of both your person and your property. In your example you, or your self defense agency, would certainly be able to recover your property from “B”. “B” or anyone else is only entitled to have such property as the acquired through Homesteading, or through a legitimate transfer of title from someone else, which is obviously not the case in this example since “A” did not have clear title to your stolen goods.
“In your example you, or your self defense agency, would certainly be able to recover your property from “B”.”
Why?
“…or through a legitimate transfer of title from someone else, which is obviously not the case in this example since “A” did not have clear title to your stolen goods.”
A paid B cash so B would let A ride in B’s boat to flee the area – the fact that A just sold the jewels and may or may not have paid B with the cash he received is not relevant, unless you want to argue its ok if the physical cash B received was not the physical cash A received from the buyer of the jewels.
B did not invade my property or cause an invasion of my property, he just made it harder to catch someone who did. On what basis do I have a claim against him?
Kid Salami,
This is correct, but again, the situations where this causes actual problems are more of academic than practical interest. If A used cash to buy an apple from B, you wouldn’t have a recourse either (absent other conditions, of course), even if that apple somehow contributed to the flight (for example, by giving A the energy required to outrun the chasers). What is important is that B did not cause a property rights violation. The robber A being on the run, or B having more money is not a property rights violation, rather, the displacement of the jewelry is. The robber A being on the run, and B having more money are just factors loosely connected with the property right violation.
I agree with you, that in strict NAP ancap world, I have no claim and indeed B may as well have bought an apple from A as given him a ride, as neither were, or caused, a property rights violation. We agree that this is the correct application of the logic of the NAP to the situation – you just think this isn’t a problem, whereas I don’t think people want to live in a society like this and that the evolution of some aspects of the common law clearly show this, though I guess reasonable people can differ on this. John doesn’t agree though, he says there is a claim against B, and I’d like him to tell me the NAP basis for it.
Kid Salami,
I do not merely “think this isn’t a problem”, rather I have shown that it is unlikely to happen in a way that causes a real problem. Now, someone might still object for emotional reasons, like some people object now to other people taking drugs or having a particular type of sexual intercourse. In a NAP society, these people would also be without a recourse. But that’s neither a legal nor an economic problem. That’s a problem of arrogance.
For example, I get angry when people pretend to argue, i.e. when they explicitly deny elementary logic or are unwilling to confront counterarguments (not you, but you know what I mean). I think a world would be a better place if they instead opted for a rational discourse and address what I say. But that does not mean that the solution is to send someone to roughen them up so they start “behaving”.
The question is, should we give any merit to arrogance? Should we abandon peace because some people long for war and we have to appease them? That’s not a very persuasive position.
Thieves are engaged in an arms race with property owners and law enforcement, and the process never ends. Thieves adapt to law enforcement procedures and law enforcement has to adapt in turn, so if this wave of the hand above dismissing this evolutionary process is what you mean by having shown that I’m wrong, then we’ll just have to agree to differ.
You have to be kidding with this – “the whereabouts of a jewelry robber A are irrelevant”. Aside from your assumption once again that everyone is a robot and emotionless, the success rate of catching thieves (or however you want to phrase it) clearly has an effect on the number of people who decide to become thieves, this is economics 101. I don’t know the numbers, neither do you, there are too many variables – but it is certainly not “irrelevant”, there is some balance which one could argue that hundreds of years of the common law has tried to find, although it is complicated admittedly by the state intrusion in the process.
I know many such people who reject things on a emotional basis, but I’m not one of them.
Kid Salami,
You misrepresent my position. I do not object to evolution of criminology, but to violations of property rights. These are two separate issues and connecting them is fallacious. It’s like the statists’ objection that without the state, everyone would be without work or healthcare.
Another misrepresentation, probably skewed by the workings of current system. You imply that in order to punish the thief, you need to capture him first. That’s untrue. It is not even necessary to know the location of the thief per se in order to enact justice. It is sufficient to know only some of the following: the identity of the thief, the location of the goods he stole, and maybe some other possessions for compensation. A successful prosecution can be done in absentia, as well as non-dispossessory effects of the ruling, such as a decreased credit or security rating. If the thief decides not to cooperate, it will end up worse for him. Even if the thief eludes capture, he will find it difficult to interact with others (whether the interaction is peaceful or not), as they will be more ignorant or even hostile to him. People who are helping him might also end up being ostracised. The only case where his location is helpful is if he keeps much of the loot on himself. but that’s not necessarily the typical case.
You’re presenting an overly narrow and stagnant situation. While you complain that I object to the evolution of crime fighting, you lack the imagination to consider alternatives to the current system. The current system is retarded, because it ends up with the victims being forced to pay, through taxes, for the imprisonment of the thief, rather than the other way around, the thief being forced to compensate the victim.
If it is not irrelevant, then show an example where it is, and is not accompanied by other factors, such as him keeping the loot on himself.
Such things already exist now, P. Surda, criminals have a security rating (a criminal conviction), victims can get rulings for a criminal to financially compensate them – problem is most criminals have very little assets and income (fancy that), and the victim would have to pay a P.D.A. to try to track down the thief and the stolen goods and the victim may well have the dillemma where the costs of doing so will exceed the value of the good stolen.
Connecting them is not fallacious – it is painfully, vomit-inducingly clear that your inability to conceive of why this might be is not something I can do anything about. It is fallacious in your world where you can analyse something alone and keep all the other variables fixed – you ignore the fact that in the real world this is impossible. I mean, who cares what YOU “object to”? Seriously, who cares – I am at a loss as to why you think what you personally do or do not “object to” is so important and so much more important than what everyone else does or does not “object to”.
I don’t lack imagination, I have no doubt that things never thought of would happen (this is equally true for the methods of thieves by the way). But you are concentrating on the details of this particular (and unimportant in itself) example scenario in order to avoid tackling the fundamentals of the problem, which is that people might (collectively, by a common law evolutionary process) agree not to do a certain act X that is not in itself a violation or cause of a violation – and agree that doing X is worthy of punishment by force – because they agree that the costs of agreeing this are less than the costs of not agreeing it and allowing X to continue. And whether they are right, wrong, idiots, geniuses or creating a monster in the form of a tyrant or whatever is irrelevant – if common law rulings come about and the people don’t object, why should your objection take precedence?
Kid,
I have been absent, and will be for another few weeks, but I did drop in to enjoy this exchange. This is my favorite part: “it is painfully, vomit-inducingly clear that your inability to conceive of why this might be is not something I can do anything about.”
I know Peter hates it when I do this, but I analogize his approach to these discussions as a child using his toy building blocks to demonstrate how he thinks sky scrapers should “really” be built. Let’s say simply that the tools are not up to the task. But, he will go on endlessly defending his tools, and claiming that we are all fools for not realizing that all that “structural engineering” and “aesthetics” are simply irrelevant.
To paraphrase, “People who can’t see that are simply emotional, whereas I am purely logical, so I win.”, never having realized that if he actually tried to build his sky scraper, he would encounter all those nasty “irrelevancies”.
You are completely correct, there is nothing to be done about it.
Kid Salami,
This is precisely what you are doing. You are concentrating on the restraining the robber, even though you provide no apriori reason why it is necessary. You present loosely related factors which might or might not be connected to the robber’s movements.
I am looking for ways of constructing logically correct statements. Whether someone likes the result or not does not influence the validity of my statements.
This statement either makes no sense (unless you are referring to the laws of physics, which you’re not) or just begs the equivalent question as to what “cannot occur” means. You are just all over the place and seem to think you are the head of the logic police, constantly demanding others be “logical” – this does not automatically make you logical. Far from it, you just don’t get it – I’ve already clearly shown how your position contradicts itself, with your own words that I carefully extracted from you, I see no point in doing it again.
I’m avoiding this specific scenario because your blind spot is so much more fundamental. This “hypothetical” scenario you say doesn’t exist is right under your nose – the VERY EXISTENCE of contracts contradicts what you are saying. Honour systems work fine – defaulters suffer all the problems you bring up of ostricisation ie. “..difficult to interact with others (whether the interaction is peaceful or not), as they will be more ignorant or even hostile to him. People who are helping him might also end up being ostracized”.
So why have contracts at all? Some societies don’t – I recently read about an Islamic banking network operating entirely on honour. The people can, and do, choose – collectively through their actions.
How did I sum up this hypothetical scenario you say doesn’t exist? I said:
“people might (collectively, by a common law evolutionary process) agree not to do a certain act X that is not in itself a violation or cause of a violation – and agree that doing X is worthy of punishment by force – because they agree that the costs of agreeing this are less than the costs of not agreeing it and allowing X to continue”
You are too blinkered to take any steps on your own so I’ll help:
people HAVE [in some societies, not all] (collectively, by a common law evolutionary process) agree[d] not to do a certain act X [sign a bit of paper and/or fulfill other agreed upon conditions indicating they’ll do something when they in fact reserve the right not to in fact do it] that is not in itself a violation or cause of a violation [their paper, their pen, their voice box, their air through which the light and sound travels] – and agree that doing X is worthy of punishment by force [ie. agree that breaking this thing called a “contract” results in them relinquishing some of their property] – because they agree [collectively] that the costs of agreeing this are less than the costs of not agreeing it and allowing X to continue [ie. use an honour system].
Kid Salami,
I must have missed that.
I asked you to clarify your position, several times actually, and you refuse to do that.
No, you’re just conflating again. My point is that using force (whether initiation or retaliation) is not the only possible way of influencing other people’s behaviour, exerting social influence is also possible. They can be used as substitutes or complements.
In TTTC, enforceable contracts specify transfers of property rights. But there are actions which are not transfers of property rights. If you want to influence these actions, since there is no enforceable underlying contract, nor your property is involved, you need to use a different method. Sometimes, these two conditions occur simultaneously on different aspects of actions, and this apparently leads to confusion.
Again: in NAP and TTTC, if there is a violation of property rights, a retaliatory use of force is permitted. It does not follow that it’s necessary, desirable or unavoidable, just possible. If there is no violation of property rights, the use of force is not permitted. But abstaining from the use of force does not mean you’re powerless. Some tools are available to you regardless of whether there is a violation of property rights.
Yes, the Hawala. The same principle underlies the Ripple monetary system.
You fail to understandably explain what the alleged problem is. You just describe a situation. Your example, intentionally or not, concentrates on a voluntary arrangement among a group of individuals (which I though we both agree is unproblematic), and avoids addressing the question of someone who did not participate in the agreement to abstain from certain actions, nevertheless performs this action (which I also thought we both agreed that it is not a valid justification for the use of force).
It’s as if you’ve magically forgotten what we’ve been discussing for several years.
I take back my last comment – I think Rothbardian ancap says that you can alienate your property but cannot alienate your will, and so agreeing not to do act X, by contract or otherwise, is something that requires an explanation from you. However, on refelction, I now think this is more complicated than I thought before and not suitable to make a point in an increasingly slippery discussion such as this.
No, I’m pretty sure you were there. Let me refresh your memory – remember when over a period of a few weeks I extracted several things from you in different scenarios that I knew were contradictory and then showed that they were circular? You sometimes claim that strict hardcore NAP ancap rules, but at other times (when it suits you) you rule out scenarios because they may result in the “demise” of the system or because the “goals” of the participants can’t be achieved? And you avoided confronting the obvious conflict between these for the whole thread by pretending you didn’t understand and coming out with non-sequiturs like “I’m sorry but IP has been boring me lately”. You never once – not once – confronted directly the contradictions in your words and instead just kept restating your case in different ways. You seems to view yourself as some kind of heroic Red Adair of the logic world, rushing around putting out everyone else’s logic fires and lecturing them but allowed yourself to go home and night and smoke in bed.
We are in the same situation now. You want me to expand on the specific scenario about harbouring fugitives so you can come up with all kind of reasons how this particular COULD work. I agree, it could. Neither of us knows how it would pan out, but this puts the discussion somewhere you can defend yourself with hypotheticals. The problem though is fundamental – and with your own words.
I’m writing in perfectly clear English – there is a point where the inability you have to understand (whether intentional or genuine) is not my responsibility and I’m just going to amuse myself instead. The point is so obvious, you can only be wilfully misunderstanding me. A rule has evolved in our office that if you open a window in the winter, then you personally close it. In the summer, the person locking up closes all the windows. So, act X of “opening a window in winter and leaving it open” is banned – this means that locking up in the winter is very easy, as you don’t have to check each window. Without this rule, you’d check every one every night and almost never find one open, as it is rare that someone needs a window open in winter. In summer, everyone benefits from the air from open windows (including the last person in) and so you leave them open until the last person leaves.
The person locking up can lock up in 1/20th of the time if he can rely on the fact that there are no open windows. This happens every night in winter and saves a lot of time, and rarely does the window opener in winter have to specifically go and perform the labour intensive task of walking to and closing one window. We all benefit. It’s quite simple. When on all private property and all can agree directly, we all agree I think that this type of process is beneficial ie. people agreeing that they will not do X uses less resources than the alternative. Your requirement that I “explain” is absurd.
You rule this out on any larger scale even if it becomes clear, via a common law process, because….erm……the goals and possible demise of the system are suddenly unimportant. Erm, ok, no problem, NAP-ancap rules – I get it. Trouble is, now you have to define what the phrase “IP contradicts physical property” means, one that you repeat ad nauseum, without using the goals of the participants and only with some a minimal framework. You still have not defined this minimal framework and explained its origin. Because you can’t – you’re in a knot. Until you clarify this, I see no point in discussing anything with you.
Ha ha, I get it now. You mean either people all signed on the dotted line to agree not to do act XZY – some kind of orgiastic network contract involving the whole community, or one you sign when you enter it or whatever – or they didn’t. And if they didn’t sign, they can do what they want and NAP-ancap rules. Wow – what insight. I take it all back – I must have forgot that society is static and NOTHING ever happens that hasn’t already been explicitly and completely and unambiguously anticipated and agreed upon sufficiently in advance to circulate the laws and rules for everyone to read and sign, with all scenarios covered. So is just a matter of typing the relevant variables into the computer and having it spit out the answer. Ha ha, good one. One wonders about the “demise” of such a society – who’ll have time for sex when all your free time is taken up reading hundred page documents of the latest Minority Report-like legislation on the future?
Kid Salami,
I thought I have been clear, but apparently not. I claim that NAP is not self-contradictory, and that other non-contraditory systems are possible. However, I have not met anyone who formulated such systems. Not because it’s a difficult task, but because their biases lead them to desire contradictory premises.
I do not claim that NAP fixes all conflicts, so your allegation that by presenting violent and non-violent solutions simultaneously, or situations where a third party unaware or disagreeing with a particular legal system or agreement, I am contradicting myself is absurd. On the contrary, I claim that conflicts are a necessary consequence of scarcity of resources. No matter what system you use, there will be unresolvable conflicts. Various legal and ethical approaches provide a method for explaining which actions, with respect to conflicts, are permitted or not. That does not prevent conflicts, that merely provides a common ruleset for interpreting them and assume that this will make behaviour more predictable.
I asked you explicitly to formulate your point. You didn’t. Instead you make up long stories about nothing. Why can’t you put it into a separate if-then statements? Why are you wasting my time?
I missed a point I meant to include in my last post, one which further demonstrates your goldfish-like memory. You claim I neglect the situation when someone who didn’t agree to the terms explicitly comes along. Aside from your absurd attempt to robotise the legal process, I in fact identified the case of non-explicitly agreed terms as the root of the issue, which is why I brought up Macker’s comment about the cows a while back, the meat of which I highlighted several times as:
This is at root the same issue as we are discussing and that you say I ignore. It is what the common law process solves – can someone claim against another by saying that they were in fact “so stupid as to sell their cow this way” in the absence of explicit contractual terms, given that everyone has, for so long, done it differently? For it to be like Macker says and this method to become the norm, must there be an explicit agreement about such things, with a circular to all possible economic actors detailing this and a return signature from each? Of course not – that is insanely costly.
Of course, in your world where transaction costs can be tossed aside and you can just concentrate on the NAP selectively, this is no problem. However, on Planet Earth where people don’t like wasting time and are prepared instead to make compromises (maybe even foolish ones, but if voluntary then….), the common law process (that you ignore and seem to deem unnecessary) handles this.
Whether the manner in which it handles it is good, bad or whatever is not relevant – what makes it valid is if the people indicate their collective willingness to not do act X (despite it not in itself being a property violation or cause of a property violation) via a voluntary free market process and whether it is reasonable that someone entering into a negotiation in which X is relevant can plead ignorance of the custom of not doing X. Your repeated failure to tackle this particular issue, while accusing me of ignoring it, it particularly ludicrous.
Kid Salami,
your example referencing Macker confuses a contractual agreement with other phenomena, for example the apparent similarity or causality. The latter do not require the former. The most it can prove is that sales of cows can have implicit restrictions which the seller might omit to mention explicitly or a subsequent seller might not be aware of. But they still imply a sale. Situations which do not involve a sale (i.e. those which are the foundation of my argument) are unaffected. Similarly, your “collective will” also assumes that there is an agreement involved. While this does not necessarily require that a sale be involved, it requires that the agreement must precede the problematic action. For example, if it is customary not to climb on trees or to take a siesta during lunchtime, this “collective will” has no effect on me climbing on my tree or working in my company unless I agree with that. The fact that a tree A is similar in appearance to tree B, or that we live in the same timezone is irrelevant. So there is still no meaningful objection to my position.
Your mentioning of transaction costs is a very weak argument as well, because you merely imply that some vague concept, which you can’t even formulate understandably, decreases them.
You somehow drawing conclusions from “Act X” explains the fundamental error in your position. What people might call “act X” is merely an interpretation of some phenomena. If some people interpret two phenomena as “act X” merely because it suits them or arouses their emotions, that does not necessarily mean that there is any legal or economic connection between them. I already explained this error of arbitrary interpretation in the past on the example of “blowpple”, which is a label arbitrarily connecting blowing one’s nose and eating apples. Furthermore, this poses a serious obstacle to your claim that by adding restrictions upon arbitrary “acts X”, one decreases transaction costs.
Mr. Salami,
As Yogi once said, “This is like déjà vu all over again”.
You once accused me of patience, but you have clearly outshone me. How you hang in there is a mystery, but I enjoy reading your posts in response to Mr. Surda.
Your posts and insights into the practical aspects of social institutions reminds me of why I love the law. Like the preverbal river that runs through it, it is essentially and fundamentally an attribute of society; a social institution.
Peter does not recognize and/or understand this. He seems to believe that social norms are useless and meaningless, because no truly “free” person can be bound by them unless they place their mark on some imaginary document in advance of living in the real world.
According to his world view, it is astounding that we can function at all without being followed around by a lawyer and a contract library. In his world, just going to the market would be a monumental task of preparation required to anticipate and properly contract against all potential eventualities. If something happens for which he has not explicitly agreed, evidenced by an executed writing, he is free to deny his obligation to conform to any existing social norm. I suppose this is fundamentally the reason he cannot see a perfectly natural and efficient reason for phenomena like that described by Macker and referenced by you. Something like a copyright law is unreachable in this regard.
You told a story of your office. That is a good example of what we are talking about. Roommates make such agreements all the time. If you have had many roommates, or been in several marriages, or whatever, it is not hard to see the fundamental principle operating between cooperating humans. If effect, we simply try to solve problems in a general way, so that we can recognize how to resolve potential conflicts before they arise. Courts and juries come much later.
Anyway, for what it’s worth, you are completely correct, and I for one cannot make hide nor tail out of Peter’s responses. People agree to forego certain rights to act in exchange for a return promise. Over time we build a social memory of those rules that make sense and have some utility, and eventually they enter the common law. It is really simple and elegant, as are many natural processes.
I just want to make sure you understand you are being entirely coherent here, but I’m sure that need not be said.
WB
So if some guy lives on his farm and never contracts or trades with anyone in his community, owned his land before there were other settlers and so never agreed to any conditions or restrictions when he bought or settled on his land, and has never in any way relied on the common law in operation in his community for any interaction or dispute or implicit contractual term or anything at all, then there are no grounds whatsoever for preventing him climbing his tree. Right?
I think we can agree on that. I wholeheartedly agree that the NAP works a charm on desert islands and societies where the market participants are self-sufficient and live in clear unambiguous physical isolation from others.
That is not my objection. You might want to improve your memory skills yourself – my objection is that the NAP is not compatible with an advanced division of labour society, like I’ve said to you so many times that I’ve stopped now, eg.
“And Peter, just to be clear, I’m talking about copyright and patents then – trademarks (ie. a “signature”) are a different thing, I have not seen anything that convinces me an advanced DOL society can work with the Kinsella theory that the fraud can only be between the buyer and seller.”
http://blog.mises.org/16245/hoppe-best-interview-ever/#comment-768895
“It’s true – of course. But it is a request bit of a “when did you stop beating your wife” type request. If I don’t accept the NAP, then yes I agree that I advocate “aggressive” action against people who have not committed a border invasion. Anyone for a law against, say, blackmail is advocating the same thing. I think that you can’t advocate your view and simultaneously be for an advanced division of labour society.”
http://blog.mises.org/16099/ideas-free-and-unfree-a-book-commentary/#comment-767114
And you in fact said to me:
http://blog.mises.org/16855/state-or-private-law-society/#comment-780243
So I’ll wholeheartedly accept responsibility for not repeating myself to death, in the future I’ll remember that I have to repeat everything in every post to prevent you thinking you’ve found holes in which to hide.
Your argument then is: if people don’t interact, there can be no common law. I agree.
On the contrary, you have just demonstrated that you have not as yet presented an objection to my position.
Enough already with this utter nonsense that you think is clarifying but is in fact just a conclusion assuming, idiotic and entirely unhelpful point of view.
So if some guy lives on his farm and never contracts or trades with anyone in his community, owned his land before there were other settlers and so never agreed to any conditions or restrictions when he bought or settled on his land, and has never in any way relied on the common law in operation in his community for any interaction or implicit contractual term or anything at all, then there are no grounds whatsoever for preventing him climbing his tree. Right?
I think we can agree on that. I wholeheartedly agree that the NAP works a charm on desert islands and societies where the market participants are self-sufficient. That is not my objection. You might want to improve your memory skills yourself – my objection is that the NAP is not compatible with an advanced division of labour society, like I’ve said so many times that I’ve stopped now, eg.
“And Peter, just to be clear, I’m talking about copyright and patents then – trademarks (ie. a “signature”) are a different thing, I have not seen anything that convinces me an advanced DOL society can work with the Kinsella theory that the fraud can only be between the buyer and seller.”
“It’s true – of course. But it is a request bit of a “when did you stop beating your wife” type request. If I don’t accept the NAP, then yes I agree that I advocate “aggressive” action against people who have not committed a border invasion. Anyone for a law against, say, blackmail is advocating the same thing. I think that you can’t advocate your view and simultaneously be for an advanced division of labour society.”
So often in fact that you said to me:
http://blog.mises.org/16855/state-or-private-law-society/#comment-780243
So I’ll wholeheartedly accept responsibility for not repeating myself to death, in the future I’ll remember that I have to repeat everything in every post to prevent you thinking you’ve found holes in which to hide.
On the contrary, you have just demonstrated that you have not as yet presented an objection to my position. Do you have any objections to my position in scenarios where the people of interest aren’t Crusoe, Friday, monks, nuns, etc?
Enough already with this utter nonsense that you think is clarifying but is in fact just a conclusion assuming, idiotic and entirely unhelpful point of view.
“People agree to forego certain rights to act in exchange for a return promise. Over time we build a social memory of those rules that make sense and have some utility, and eventually they enter the common law.”
Yes, whether right or wrong, its not like its hard to understand – I was beginning to feel like the Dustin Hoffman character must have felt in MArathon Man when, no matter what he said, he was asked “Is it safe?” – no matter what I wrote, I get back “please explain”.
KS,
Yes… or how about “I have pointed out your errors many times, but you refuse to confront them”.
I think you once used the phrase “vomit inducing”?
Anyway, there is a good deal of that going around. The attitude is fascinating. I have recently exchanged a few rounds with Sione, who seems to hold the belief (which I think Surda shares to a large extent) that he has some secret possession of the Truth, and if I would only apply sufficient diligence to my studies of his prescribed reading list, I might someday be worthy of his vast intellectual talents and attention.
And here is me thinking that knowledge and information, especially on a site like Mises.org, was something that was to be shared. Go figure…
Since the big boys have skipped town (anyone ever post the scoop on whatever happened to bad-boy Kinsella?), the sanctimonious seem to believe they have inherited the kingdom.
At any rate, I enjoy your posts, and hope you might be ready and willing to post an article here. I hope you will accept my encouragement. I enjoy reading your posts. Your writing is excellent.
WB
Dear Kid Salami,
I find your argument that “NAP is not compatible with an advanced division of labour society” very unpersuasive. You have only provided a couple of anecdotes to support it, however these are far from conclusive. And I already said this.
I already:
- asked you for evidence
- pointed out that a deviation from NAP (or in general an increase of complexity of rules) adds new cost transaction costs
Kindly confront my arguments instead of complaining.
Wildberry,
I do not believe to posses any secret truth. On the contrary, I believe that by confronting people who have different opinions the likelihood of improving my understanding increases. That is why I argue. I am interested in logic. I am not interested in beliefs, biases, preconceptions or fairy tales.
@Peter SurdaFebruary 25, 2012 at 1:30 am
That’s good to know, but to use your phrase, I find this very unpersuasive. You do not confront different opinions, you contradict yourself, despite your self-appointed status as arbiter of logic and contradiction.
To confront a different opinion, you must hold one, since an absence of one cannot be distinguished from another, except by its non-existence. Opinions are the product of beliefs, biases, preconceptions and yes, sometimes fairy tales. They may also involve evidence, logic, conjecture, etc. They may be well-founded, as are Kid Salami’s, or they may be shallow and based on artificial constructs designed to make the belief seem reasonable, like yours. Wisdom is the ability to distinguish one thing from the other.
Because you fancy yourself above all of this messy human stuff, you speak as an artificial intelligence machine in a Spok-like style, which you refer to as a “falsificationist” in a self-congratulating tone. You do not seem to realize that you are expressing an opinion, a belief that NAP cannot and has not been legitimately criticized as a shallow, incomplete philosophy that only works in a theoretical test tube that sufficiently keeps reality from intruding on your thought experiments.
You ask for evidence, but evidence of what? NAP does not exist anywhere on Earth, as a primary organizing principle of human society. What empirical evidence to you offer? It cannot deal with even the simple problems, as have been persuasively argued even from within your own framework. So many people have pointed this out to you in so many ways, that your insistence that you have repeatedly asked and no one has delivered is beyond ludicrous.
All your “evidence” requires is a test tube that is non-human and not on earth. In your fantasy world, I suppose that is not a real problem.
Wildberry,
explain where I contradict yourself or where I make the claims you ascribe to me. I don’t recall making those.
I do not need to hold an opinion to confront another one. I can merely attempt to point out that my opponent is contradicting himself. For that the only required assumption is that contradictions do not exist.
@Peter Surda February 25, 2012 at 7:30 pm
I’m sure you meant to type “myself”…Well, how about in this post below? No need for ancient history…
You “confront” other’s opinions, without formulating one yourself, by pointing out contradictions, (or creating them) based on an assumption that contradictions don’t exist. However, as we all know, contradictions do exist, and are unavoidable. That is the difference between life and a software program, something that you can’t seem to grasp.
Here is a simple example; self-defense cannot operate on a strict liability theory. Do you understand? You need facts to make a judgment in all but the most rudimentary of situations. Given certain facts and an assumption that NAP always works as an either/or solution, you get a contradiction. The fact that you can see the contradiction but not the problem is itself a fatal contradiction of logic.
You contradict yourself every time (and I have personally witnessed hundreds) you take the position that because the facts contradict your theory of NAP as the ultimate Truth, the facts must be “wrong”. You think you are moving the ball by seeing the contradiction exists, because you assume they do not. It is a cheap trick. Kid Salami has shown you several examples of where the fact that a contradiction exists between a set of facts and NAP; THAT IS THE POINT!
You “confront” it “discovering” it and then asserting he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or that he hasn’t explained, or whatever, because there is a contradiction between how you think NAP is supposed to work, and the examples you are provided under which it does not work.
Dunn has done a formal job on this with his encirclement analysis. Kid Salami and I have spend hours giving you examples. But you finally make the greatest contradiction of all by claiming that you are confronting contradictions by assuming that they cannot exist!! And you think that you or anyone else is learning something from this? This is rich…
Yes, that was a typo.
It is logically impossible to argue without the assumption that contradictions do not exist.
Please show me an example where contradictions do exist.
Examples or proof please.
You are mixing deductive reasoning and empiricism.
You assert a contradiction without actually showing one.
You have not made an actual argument apart from some assertions. I am not interested in your ideology. I am interested in logically correct arguments.
You have failed to explain the actual contradiction, you’re just making assertions.
I do not recall making a claim similar to this. I however do recall saying that other logically correct positions are possible.
I cannot recall anything like this. Kid Salami said that that NAP might not fit into some cultural frameworks, and that some people might not be able to reach their goals within NAP. I agree with this, but it’s irrelevant. His objection, apparently, is that NAP is not efficient. When I asked him to provide support for this, he showed some inconclusive anecdotes. Similarly as you he randomly interjects asserting that I contradict myself, without actually explaining the contradiction.
This is incorrect. The examples he provided do “work” under NAP. They merely result in outcomes different that he considers preferable. But again there is no systematic issue here, it’s just his personal preference. Somehow drawing from this that I contradict myself is absurd.
<blockquote.Dunn has done a formal job on this with his encirclement analysis. Kid Salami and I have spend hours giving you examples. But you finally make the greatest contradiction of all by claiming that you are confronting contradictions by assuming that they cannot exist!! And you think that you or anyone else is learning something from this? This is rich…
Once again, the only thing you, Kid Salami and Frank van Dun show is that NAP in some cases leads to results different then you (or they) prefer. This is not a contradiction of NAP. To claim this is not to understand what contradiction means.
The examples are an objection that can be made to any system, since the existence of scarce goods makes conflicts unavoidable. All systems will result in situations which some dislike. This line of arguing can neither support nor undermine any particular position.
Peter,
Thank you for illustrating my point…again.
What about arguing about the logic of resolving a contradiction itself? Can that be done in your world view? I mean, since they don’t exist…
Same ole, same ole.
Dunn points out that following the logic of NAP leads to a contradiction with NAP itself. You cannot apply strict liability to aggression (NAP) unless you can ascertain whether an act is aggression. But you can violate NAP, as he demonstrates, without agression. Ooops.
A contradiction is a state that contains contradictory elements. In my simple example, aggression and self-defense is a contradiction. Pointing out that it is a contradiction is not very helpful. NAP can be applied when you know the difference, but you cannot unless you know the facts. Facts may be uncertain or unascertainable.
But that is not the world you live in. In your world, all states and all facts are certain. In such a world, there are only 1 and 0. Strict liability is a binary function. Life is analog. This is a major problem for you. When you try to force reality into a binary model, you contradict yourself without realizing or admitting it. Perhaps you can’t see it. Perhaps you don’t care, since you seem to think opinions are unnecessary and emotional. Perhaps I don’t care why. I’ll think I’ll go with that.
Wildberry,
you are in error. There is no such contradiction. Rather, you simply redefine the term “self-defense” as “preventing others from being pricks” and then continue that NAP does not allow this.
Furthermore, it is not van Dun’s claim that there is a contradiction, rather, exactly as I said, NAP might result in situations that some dislike.
Also, van Dun only attempts to analyse a small number of problems, and a small number of solutions and ignores all kinds of others. He also avoids to explain why in other systems, problems like this wouldn’t occur. You also make this argument. Kid Salami merely thinks that NAP is inefficient in this respect.
Your paraphrasing of my position is not correct and your logical jargon is even more incomprehensible and ridiculous than usual, but let’s just focus on the main point – that your main counterargument over the last two years to proposed copyright/IP systems is idiotic.
Saying something adds to the transaction costs is completely meaningless without looking at the corresponding decrease it brings about elsewhere – its like saying “employing additional people adds new costs”. True, but totally beside the point unless the added value the new employees add is also considered. I reject your request that I stop “complaining” because this is like arguing with a child, and a particularly stupid one at that.
And you want evidence? Mr Logic is concerned with “evidence”? DOn’t forget, you’re the one who used these words
http://blog.mises.org/18647/how-the-copyright-law-nearly-bankrupted-orchestras/#comment-806362
You agree that this can occur. When you suggest it, it’s fine – but when I suggest it, I need “evidence”? Evidence for what? I could submit pretty much every common law entity that has ever existed and say that in the opinion of those participants that the benefits outweighed the gains – but to what end? Sticking to the point, in your own words:
I have presented such a system – you now appear to agree that it is not self-contradictory, in that these two objections you raise are related to empirical issues. You are asking for evidence for something to say, something to deflect from the fact that you can’t find any logical holes in this system.
This was all I was trying to do. Now, maybe you could go back to, for one of a million examples, this post to Neil Schulman and take back this comment
http://blog.mises.org/16319/the-origins-of-libertarian-ip-abolitionism/comment-page-1/#comment-770255
because I have shown now that you agree there is a system in which participants, by their actions, indicate willingness to conform to a system which has some restrictions on what can be done with your own property ie. on acts which are not in themselves invasions or causes of invasions, and that this is non-contradictory. So, your claim that ” such an approach would contradict the rights in the material objects” is now a non-sequitur as you agree now that this is not alone sufficient to rule out a system, as it might still be self-consistent.
In that case, maybe it is your “biases” that are the problem – maybe you have in fact been presented with other self-consistent systems in the past but your ruling them out immediately with faulty reasoning is the problem.
Kid Salami,
You continue to assert that there is some problem with transaction cost, without explaining your normative scale. From a particular point of view, you might be correct, but why should it be relevant? This objection can be made with respect to any system.
I do not understand why I should somehow address a situation where someone might advocate contradictory goals. Do you ascribe such a position to me? Regarding what? I explained in the past that I subscribe to the argument Roy Cordato made, that property rights have to be as clear as possible. Your objections do not invalidate that NAP conforms to this criterion, but that someone might be unhappy about this. But someone will always be unhappy, regardless of how conflicts are resolved.
From the perspective of NAP, I do not object to people voluntarily agreeing to a rearrangement of property rights among themselves. What I (from the perspective of NAP) object to is application of arrangements to people who did not participate in the agreement.
Centinel
So where was it that violence created a minarchist society that enhances and preserves a free market that increases societal standards of living, life expectancy, lowers infant mortality, et al for generations?
Sione
The U.S.A. was born in violent revolution, created a minarchist society and then the standard of living go up for 250+ years.
Gil
Wrong.
You’d do well to study the history of North America instead of regurgitating up the national myth you were impregnated with at grade school, for what you are relying on is an artless fiction- simplistic, selective and false. Come on! Do you really believe such nonsense? you shouldn’t. It’s mumbo jumbo.
Sione
“Do you King George pushing you around? Well do you? Do yoy!?”
Gil
As it happens the monarchy provided a better (as in freer) government than that which upsurped its sovereignty (in the 13, as well as later in Great Britain).
To answer the question I originally put you need to carefully consider the society immediately prior to the Revolutionary War, as well as after it. The historical record does not demonstrate that the pre-revolutionary situation was that of an evil tyrany. Far from it in fact. It was closer to minarchistic in nature with lower taxes, regulatory imposts, tribute extractions and emburdenments of the people than what replaced it (when the King’s sovereignty over his colonies was removed). Further, the violence unleased in the war destroyed much life, health, welfare, wealth and property. Nothing created there.
What was achieved was that certain insiders gained power, priviledge and position. Sure there were those who realised the threat, saw what was going on and valiantly agitatated against it (Jefferson for one), but they were well outdone (often by their own error and sometimes by personal hypocracy). And even though those persons existed and that lofty ideals were espoused, the fact remains that the violence did not create a minarchistic society. It did not enhance or preserve a free market. It did not increase societal standards of living, life expectancy or cause a lower infant mortality rate etc. for generations. Violence achieved nothing of that sort for what is required to achieve those societal attributes is the very opposite of violence.
Interestingly enough, not so long after war the new government demonstrated its consistent deeply held comittment to freedom, free markets, peace, voluntary collaboration and co-operation and trade, personal liberty and sovereignty etc by employing ruthless force to crush a tax revolt.
Sione
I never argued the British Empire was a tyranny. Actually pre-Republic America might have qualifed as a Minarchist State. Certainly the people weren’t better off with the new government. However the early Union was more-or-less a Minarchist State too.
This was absolutely fantastic! I hope to share it with everyone I know.
Danny, Great illustration. Perhaps the clearest voice on the wisdom of witholding consent since -Étienne de La Boétie is Carl Watner’s over at http://www.voluntaryist.com/. Also, check out Larken Rose’s eminently logical destruction of the myth of “authority” in his 2011 small book entitled THE MOST DANGEROUS SUPERSTITION. It is a relentless refutation of every justification Centinel has proposed here in defense of the State and its mythical authority, and a whole lot more. As vor the efficacy of adamant nonviolence as a means of confronting violent aggression by agents of the State, see Mark Kurlansky’s 2006 book NONVIOLENCE, 25 lESSONS FROM THE HISTORY OF A DANGEROUS IDEA. It may make you wonder why anyone would resort to violence in defense of life, liberty or property when radical nonviolence is so much more effective in the long run. For my fawning review of Kurlansky’s book, see http://www.voluntaryist.com/backissues/149.pdf
Consent, discipline, focus, value, logic, and the mind. All core components of the UN-dependent man, very rare today.
For a thinking man’s exposition on man, his relationship with reality, and his self, please see Neon McMasterson’s scathing analysis of the process of education and what it does to the soul.
http://allrarefortherare.blogspot.com/
Why would you not agree that the British had tyrannical control of its colonies? That is absurd.
It was, among many other things, the interference with the “minarchist” state that led to revolution. You cannot tax freely and punitively, occupy the houses of colonists, etc. without being a tyrant by force.
I will concede that there are some things that can be pointed to where the British were “ahead” of the US; slavery for example was already outlawed in Britain and slave trading was being attacked by British naval forces. But fundamentally, you are wrong.
In relation to the US colonies, Britain was a tyrant prior to the revolution. As with most revolutions, it did not bring nirvana or perfection. It brought a change in tyrants, to some degree. But even today, I prefer the fundamentals of US governance over those of the British system.
Wildberry
What are you on about now? First you present an assertion, then you set about contradicting yourself. What you present is sloppy and lacking in precision- a reflection of terribly muddled thinking.
Why do you place quote marks as you did? Is it supposed to indicate that the enclosed words magically possess an elastic and unconventional meaning? Goodness gracious!
Here is some homework for you.
Learn the history. Find out what actually happened. While you are doing the research make sure you clear your mind of the national mythology conventionally taught at school throughout the USA. That way you’ll avoid the prejudices and biases which do so much to obscure truth and reality.
Next, compare the condition/attributes/structure/condition of society prior to and after the war. Was there a difference? Specifically what were the differences? (BTW check and see specifically WHEN it was that the billeting of troops/forces in private homes was undertaken, why it was done, specifically in response to what situation it was done and who was doing it- clue, check both sides). Which suffered the greater government impositions- taxes, fiat money, enforced tributes, extractions and the like?
Now you are ready to answer the questions. Did the violence expressed in the Revolutionary War CREATE a minarchist society (check carefully the attributes of the society that was present prior to the outbreak of violence)? Did the violence preserve a free market (be honest)? Did it increase societal standards of living and life expectancy? Did it cause a lower infant mortality rate etc. for generations. Did the violence cause any of that?
Answer honestly. Answer only AFTER you’ve done the research and acquired the knowledge to be able to develop a meaningful answer. That means no rationalisations, baseless assertions, vague confusions or word games. It means finding out the facts and developing logical conclusion from those facts.
Sione
Sione,
Not sure why you assume you have the right to assign me homework. It is at very least presumptuous.
I have a question: How do you know what “actually happened”? (The quotes are to indicate that I’m quoting you. They are called “quotation marks”…)
Upon what, exactly, do we differ? You are just leveling a general flame in my direction, as usual.
Do you deny that the British treated America as a colony, and therefore conscripted soldiers, imposed taxes, enforced currency laws, adjudicated crimes, controlled trade, and in other ways offended the notion of self-determination?
Are you saying that you would prefer that America remained a part of the British Empire? If so, do you hold this view on nationalistic grounds? Are you perhaps better known as “Sir Sione”? Or are you suggesting that the Colonists should have employed passive resistance?
In short, what are you saying, if anything?
How are the Western countries that were former colonies any worse off than the U.S.? Quite frankly, yes, most people would have been better off had they remained under British, especially the Blacks and Natives. A bunch of well-off White men wanted their own homegrown government and imposed it on everyone else by force.
Gil,
Not sure what you mean here…Western countries that were former colonies are not worse off than the US?
How would you know with such certainty that “most people” would have been “better off”?
I think you ignore whatever facts you choose to stitch together your conclusion, which is obviously anti-American in some way for some reasons unstated.
It is not difficult to point to atrocities in history and paint the entire picture with that brush. It is a matter of wisdom, however, to distinguish one thing from another.
For example, are you suggesting that the real nature of the American Revolution was to oppress Indians and blacks? As with all revolutions the actors are the ruling class, both old and new.
By the time the Revolution came about, the Colonies were already organized into governing structures, with their own unique currencies and banking systems, subject to British rule.
After the Revolution, these colonies ratified the Republic. I don’t recall armed conquest.
Perhaps you have a point? Is it that blacks and Indians would have lived happily ever after if only the British would have maintained colonial control of America? I would like to see your case for that assertion…
Bit late of a reply but:
Hell, Stephan Kinsella can give a big list of reasons how the American Independence wasn’t a mystical advancement in freedom as the West was going down the path of somewhat laissez-faire in the 19th century.
http://blog.mises.org/10218/happy-we-should-restore-the-monarchy-and-rejoin-britain-day/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/attarian/attarian9.html
After all, if the U.S. was so good why were slaves escaping to Canada? How is evolution of Australia that different from the U.S. even though it never seceded? Note how the Australian republican debate is not about going to war with the U.K. And so forth. Believe or not, every place outside the U.S. is not a Badland.
Gil,
I won’t bother to follow the links; been there done that. I think I can predict the contents. He’ll have to sell his anti-Americanism someplace else; I’m full up here.
In any case, your comments are non-sequitur.
First, the slaves escaped to Canada to escape slavery. The non-slave states in the north were obliged to return captured slaves. Canada was not. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments changed the playing field in that regard.
Second, I am not very informed about the history of Australia, but I believe in the history of the British Empire there are other examples of where the British withdrew their sovereignty without violence. Hong Kong comes to mind from recent history. I don’t think AT THE TIME of the American Revolution, the British were willing to do so. Matters of state were often settled in this fashion at that time. Some things never change.
Please note that Great Britain now has an elected parliament, though she maintains the monarchy, (apparently for sentimental reasons that I don’t quite understand, but enjoy in some strange way.) I think that says something about the evolution of knowledge and wisdom, but we were pretty early to the game.
Third, I have never claimed that “Goodland” only exists within the boundaries of the U.S. I have also never claimed that the US is above criticism. It is not.
What I have said is that the ability to vote out the tyrants is superior to having to defeat them militarily. As I pointed out to Sione, Syria is a good counter-example. Voting is not an option.
You appear to be asserting that because things have not turned out perfectly, you can claim that it was all a big mistake. I disagree for the reasons stated.
In other words, a no point was the British Monarch a tyrant let alone had dictatorial control of the Empire and had the Revolution not been fought then the general population would have been freer and the U.S. could have peacefully seceded later on. Hence yes the Revolution was a failure.
Gil,
That is a hypothetical scenario that you cannot possibly be certain of. It is like saying you know what the world would be like if we had not fought WW II. You cannot possibly know that.
What we do know is that the British claimed sovereign control of the Colonies, the group of men we call the Founding Fathers, with sufficient support of the population, declared independence, the British refused to relinquish control, and the war of independence ensued. Those are the facts.
The distinction I have made is valid, in that it is also a fact that “we” established a framework that made revolution a matter of politics rather than war. The British House of Commons did not become controlling of the policies of Great Britain until 1909. That is over a century later. Also, unlike America and many other nations, the UK has no single constitutional document.
Whether the British or the Americans would have produce a more favorable result is a matter of speculation and debate, nothing more. I happen to believe that we had a 100 year jump on them in some important ways. I have said why, but you have not said why you disagree. Can you?
Maybe you should read the links Wildberry. You make it out as though Britain was an imposing tyranny and the American people were beaten down and at their wits end so they felt no choice but to fight back. In reality, the King practically left the colonies alone and pre-republic America was Minarchy by Libertarian standards. The taxes were extremely low especially by today’s standards. A bunch of uppity White men simply created a coup d’etat and created a self-serving government where taxes were higher and rights were lower (except if you were the new nobility).
Gil,
Let’s say you are right on every point, that it was a coup (it does not qualify, but I know what you mean) and it was done for impure motives, like land speculation rights for personal gain. That does not change my point. Tyranny does not require keeping people huddled in their houses. It requires a lack of recourse to rule, except violence.
Even if they were acting from the motives you say, they still created a system of government in which individual rights were guaranteed, and the governed were provided the means for peaceful revolution. They could have created another monarchy, but they didn’t. I for one am grateful for that.
I presume your use of “uppity” is meant to refer to the way it was used to describe blacks who were not being good negroes by not behaving with the proper deference to the property rights of their owners? If so, then I must assume you mean that these “uppity white men” were not being good subjects by not acting with proper deference to the crown. That attitude is very American and something to honor, not demean.
“That attitude is very American and something to honor, not demean.”
Of course I meant the attitute of liberty, not compliance, should be honored.
You would have to be of the attitude that “if people had to 1 cent per year in taxes to a government then it’s still a tyranny”. I’m sure many a Libertarian would love to have a laissez-faire government like the British Empire in the late 18th century compared to today’s.
Pray tell how the new government WASN’T a tyranny compared to the British Emipre? The new taxes were 3 times higher, Whites could now legally barge into land occupied by the Natives, slavery was kept as an institution for a generation longer than the Empire, women, children and minorities didn’t get any semblance of said rights until the 20th century pretty much in line with rest of the West.
Mel Gibson pretty brings it up when his character says “should I trade in one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away” because that’s exactly what happened – nothing much changed.
Wildberry
I’m saying this.
1/. You certainly don’t know what you are writing about. Your latest contribution confirms it.
2/. You ought to engage in the effort of doing the homework (background research and learning) to understand the topic PRIOR to commenting. That is, you need to acquire specific knowledge about the topic. You need to dedicate yourself to finding out all the facts. Presently it is the case that you do not have possession of sufficient information for your comments to be worthwhile. Hence, the recommendation must be for you to do your homework before posting.
3/. AFTER you have accomplished the necessary background research and learning you’ll be in the position to make the before and after comparison, thus,
“…compare the condition/attributes/structure/condition of society prior to and after the war. Was there a difference? Specifically what were the differences? (BTW check and see specifically WHEN it was that the billeting of troops/forces in private homes was undertaken, why it was done, specifically in response to what situation it was done and who was doing it- clue, check both sides). Which suffered the greater government impositions- taxes, fiat money, enforced tributes, extractions and the like?”
In particular you should study that last comparison with great attention.
What I’m saying is that you need to undertake some basic scholarship. Research, learn and THEN make the comparison. The conclusion you’ll come to (I charitably assume that you are honest, at least in private) is inevitable and likely to be a surprise to you.
4/. After completed the tasks outlined, then you may be ready to embark upon the task of answering the question regarding violence.
Sione
Sione
attempt an answer to the question (regarding violence and what it creates).
Sione,
I don’t recall accepting you as my mentor.
As to your penultimate question, violence creates results, like all action.
Also, if you are alluding to history, I wonder what kind of time perspective you adopt? I am sure that if you look at an army before and after a battle, someone with your insights could point to the fact that the army is worse off after the battle, regardless of whether they won or lost.
For you it is the exercise of violence that determines all. Do you also feel this way about self-defense?
You are a boob.
Wildberry
Calm down there little one. You asked and I answered, so there is no need to get your knickers all twisted and in a knot. Anyway, your emotionalism does nothing to alleviate the chronic ignorance which handicaps your intellect.
What you’ve managed to demonstrate here is that you are not at all familiar with the historical facts which pertain to the War of Independence, its causes and its results, the social and economic and political conditions prior to and after, the costs and the consequences, the reasons and the motivations of those with power and influence; basically you just aint in the hunt. Rather than make a fool of yourself (as you have done), you should have studied up the facts PRIOR to commenting on this topic. I’m recommending again that you go back and DO the homework, put in the effort to read and learn and consider the facts with the attention and the care they deserve.
You can’t keep evading your central shortcoming. It is this. You, Wildberry, make comments about topics and subjects of which you have limited grasp and little understanding. The trivialities you think you know are very often base falsity. When you are caught out you evade, bluster, smear and emote. Take a look at your last two posts here- evasion, blustering, smearing… just nonsense. You may continue to engage in this imbecility all you like, but that behaviour is no substitute for knowledge and it fools few others on this site. The more you bluster and evade the more obviously your ill-educated ignorance is revealed. Give it up or be thought of as a fool.
Now, what I am recommending is that you change direction and start learning. Do the homework. Illuminate your mind. Cast away the self-imposed egocentric ignorance which enfeebles your intellect. You can do it. How about putting in the effort to actually go do it?
Sione
@SioneFebruary 21, 2012 at 5:12 pm
It is your arrogance concerning your hold on the Truth that permits you such self-congratulation.
You answer nothing, but that is expected.
I get your point. You think you have some lock on the “right” opinions that may be considered legitimate by the likes of you. Meh…
I have no problem admitting that I am necessarily ignorant of many historical facts, as is everyone. That is the nature of history. No one can ever know what “actually happened”, including you. You apparently missed that simple point.
If you are accusing me of not being an academic scholar on the pre and post historical factors leading up to the American Revolution and those following it, you are correct. Guilty. I don’t recall seeing your book on the subject either. Anyone here is free to cast their vote as to whether comments have any value. For example, I see little in yours, but hey, by all means, post away! It’s not my dime.
However, my simple position is that I don’t see any reason I can’t or shouldn’t hold an informed opinion that we Americans are better off for lack of a monarchy. If you want to disagree, try saying something instead of just looking down your nose at opinions you mysteriously hold to be invalid or otherwise incorrect.
I offer as evidence this rather appropriate video, offered by another Mises blogger: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6U6v0pZ9f6k&feature=player_embedded
I don’t recall a requirement that you issue credentials to comment here. Did I miss something in the Mises.org News?
Wildberry
Putting aside your usual hystrionics, twisty turny evasions and smearing, lets examine your position.
You write, “my simple position is that I don’t see any reason I can’t or shouldn’t hold an informed opinion” etc.
Yes indeed, you can and should hold an informed opinion on the topic at hand. The trouble is that you, Wildberry, don’t. You are not informed. You are ignorant. What you presented remains uninformed opinion, relying on little more than your feelings, some arbitrary blind belief, your emotional prejudices and your precious weenie ego. Then you attempted to hide this mess behind obvious evasions, clumsy substitutions and plenty of smearing and impuning. Better instead to deal directly with the substantive, the topic. That’s why it was recommended you undertake some homework.
As an example of your intellectual dishonesty consider this quote. “If you are accusing me of not being an academic scholar on the pre and post historical factors leading up to the American Revolution and those following it, you are correct.”
This is an example of you attempting to wriggle away from the substantive by employing a cheap substitution. You were not accused of not being an academic scholar. What I pointed out to you is that you were not familiar with the topic, that you ought to familiarise yourself with it, that once you had done some background research and learning about it THEN you would be in the position to undertake certain comparisons and thereafter develop conclusions and answers to particular questions. Go back and read what I wrote. Avoid substituting what you’d have preferred me to have written.
You write, “I have no problem admitting that I am necessarily ignorant of many historical facts, as is everyone.”
Your problem is not that you are ignorant of many historical facts. It is not that you do not possess omniscience about history. It is that you are ignorant of historical fact directly pertinent to the subject under enquiry- at the focus of it. It is that you are ignorant of that upon which you commented. It is that you made assertion from ignorance. It is that you continue with your assertion in a failed effort to argue by insistence. Your approach just does not work. You fail.
Note that for all the effort you expend huffing and puffing, smearing and impuning, you could have made a good start to the homework you so dearly need to undertake. For goodness sake, go do the research and the learning so that you hold at least some of the knowledge of the topic necessary to engage in discussion about it. Else, hold your tongue.
Finally, here is a tip for you. Prof Hans Herman Hoppe wrote a book containing relevant comparison of monarchy and democracy. The book is, “Democracy, the God that Failed.” Grab a copy and read it. This would be an excellent start on your educational journey. Now, off with you! Go do you homework. Have the integrity to do it honestly.
Sione
@SioneFebruary 23, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Typical of you to forget even what the question was. This is what I asked Gil:
If you believe, based on Hoppe or any other reason you would care to mention, that the British did NOT have tyrannical control of the colonies, what is your basis?
FYI, a tyrant is a ruler who governs without restrictions. Tell me, what restrictions were the colonists entitled to impose on the British Empire?
You are so taken with yourself, you seem to believe that I need your approval to express myself. So despite your baseless accusation of histrionics, (by the way, the root of this word comes from the Latin for actor, not hysteria, thus the spelling) if you review your comments, you say nothing more than to assert that I am not qualified to speak. You offer nothing of substance, but merely imply that you have the secret to Truth that I should aspire to attain. Meh.
I am suggesting that one of the primary and fundamental distinctions between the rule of the British and the subsequent rule of the Republic, is that through a democratic PROCESS (not direct democracy), if the present rulers attempt tyranny, they may be ejected non-violently. In order to be shed the British, something a bit more than casting a vote was required. That is my fundamental point.
There is little extrinsic evidence required to argue this fundamental assertion. You think by going galactic on me, you can avoid the simple truth of what I’ve asserted (I suspect you are less about disagreeing, and more about being disagreeable, but I digress). I am simply claiming that, no matter what events have transpired before or after independence, that fact alone, the ability to eject aspiring tyrants by non-violence, makes the American experiment superior to that of having remained under British rule.
If you want an extreme example of the opposite case, I submit the current events in Syria.
Sione,
As a footnote, I believe my assertion above is exactly in line with the meaning of the image that started this thread. The withdrawal of support is a manefestation of the democratic process.
In tyranny, the situation is precisely reversed from that presented in the image; compliance or death.
WB
Wilberry
The question under consideration was, “where was it that violence created a minarchist society that enhances and preserves a free market that increases societal standards of living, life expectancy, lowers infant mortality, et al for generations?” That is what Gil had responded to. You sought to oppose his position but contradicted yourself instead, presenting assertions of obtuse nonsense- just waffle and mush. I called you out on it and suggested you do some research, some homework, because it was obvious you were not in possession of fact. So, here we now are and around you go again, this time starting off with out of context selective quotation and erecting a tower of fibs from there.
It has been clear for some time that you regularly produce arbitrary assertion from a position of uninformed ignorance. This occasion has been not different. Normally your idiocies are best ignored since you are a known tar baby and it remains difficult, if not a complete waste of effort, to attempt to debate or discuss even simple topics with you. After all, you do not know what you are on about in the first instance and yet you do continue to assert and argue away without purpose or knowledge regardless of what is pointed out for you to consider and learn from. Once exposed you promptly resort to a strategy of evasions and substitutions followed by your banal smearing routine. An obtuse creature of low intellect, you have not improved despite enjoying access to this excellent website- an enormous resource of superb material and factual information ready to be profitably explored. Here you are, yet you remain as dull as ever. Oh well.
You previously asked what it was I was trying to say to you. It was & is this. You, Wildberry, do not know what you are on about here. You need to do your homework BEFORE making uninformed assertions. For the present topic, I made suggestion where you can start. No-one else can do it for you so go for it. Go do the homework. Put in the effort. After that perhaps it might be possible to have a worthwhile discussion about the subject with you. That’d have to be more rewarding than revisting your cascades of uninformed assertions, silly insistences and the like yet again.
Sione
Sione the meaningless…
I think one thing we can agree upon is that this exchange is worthless. Some things never change. Some things do.
If you have a point, if it is “God save the Queen!” then just say so. I’ve made my simple point quite clear, not that you are listening…but then, so what?
Comments on this entry are closed.