Objective law: Anarcho-Capitalism vs. Minarchism

originally posted by: LewsTherinThelamon
a reply to: JeanPaul

Even further, the only way "anarcho" capitalism would be possible is on a local non industrial scale. Like an old village economy with artisans/farmers/peasants making and trading things. But that's not capitalism. We could call it market based but large scale commodity production would not exist and most people would control their own "means of production".

Well this is what I am arguing for, this model, whatever you would call it.

As for the rest of your posts, I will need time to read through everything you presented

Then advocate what you claim. Which is a non industrial localized trade/barter economy.

originally posted by: greencmp
Therefore, we who are libertarians agree that the initiation of physical force is morally wrong, and that it must be banned in all social relationships. The question then becomes, "How?" If one believes that it is evil to rule people by means of physical force, then it would follow that anarchy is the only defensible political system. But under anarchy, everything would be completely subjective. There would be no way to objectively validate rights, objectively demarcate property, objectively define anything. Thus, libertarians should support the kind of political system where everything is completely objective. And it is through her philosophy that Miss Rand shows us something: the only way to achieve such a system is through strictly limited constitutional government.

That is your catch 22.

I could go into my people will be free to conspire shtick but, is it really necessary?

PS

I forgot to address the "disinformation" aspect. Really, c'mon, I've actually read Rothbard/Mises/Tucker/Stirner/Spooner Hayek/Menger etc. I don't misrepresent anything. I'm fully aware you people think "the free market" will provide almost perfect competition, liberty and a "voluntary" society. I went to school with Roderick. He has been schooled not only by me but also the monetarists.

The Austrian School is fringe. For a reason. There's a reason actual neoclassical economists reject that bunkum. And it's not for the same reason socialism is rejected.

They reject socialism because they had to reject the labor theory of value. Marginalism became the new dogma. As far as neoclassical theory goes, they reject Austrian theory for different reasons. Namely because "praxiology" has nothing to do with empirical data. With reality.

The funny things is, marginalism also lacks fundemental truths. Bourgeois economics in general exists to obfuscate reality.

We can get into detail if you please. I'd rather not debate the labor theory of value because it's not even necessary for socialist theory.

What's necessary for "anarcho" capitalist theory is a complete and total denial of reality. Perhaps we can call this denial "praxiology".

You tell me, in reality, how is this "free market" system to work? How does industrial commodity production manifest and exist without coercion? How does market expansion take place without coercion?

Do you even understand how capitalism works? No. You deny that it even exists!

"Corporatism" you'll call it. As if "the state" and capital were ever seperate entities! Corporations were formed in order to pool risk. Capital also accumulated via competition. There is no "perfect competition" where small businesses rule the day. Capitalisms very nature is to accumulate wealth. It formed via coercive wealth accumulation! There has never been a "free market".

"Free market" capitalism is a non thing. It has never and will never exist. It's impossible.

. Concerning the above post. Roderick Long.

In case you didn't notice I spell praxeology wrong on purpose. Hence the quotes. Why? Because in my mind that's how we spell it! And hence it is objective reality.


Get it?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
Therefore, we who are libertarians agree that the initiation of physical force is morally wrong, and that it must be banned in all social relationships. The question then becomes, "How?" If one believes that it is evil to rule people by means of physical force, then it would follow that anarchy is the only defensible political system. But under anarchy, everything would be completely subjective. There would be no way to objectively validate rights, objectively demarcate property, objectively define anything. Thus, libertarians should support the kind of political system where everything is completely objective. And it is through her philosophy that Miss Rand shows us something: the only way to achieve such a system is through strictly limited constitutional government.

That is your catch 22.

I could go into my people will be free to conspire shtick but, is it really necessary?

It's not a catch 22 if you accept the minarchist approach, it only arises in discussing the possibility of a truly anarchic society.

originally posted by: JeanPaul
PS

I forgot to address the "disinformation" aspect. Really, c'mon, I've actually read Rothbard/Mises/Tucker/Stirner/Spooner Hayek/Menger etc. I don't misrepresent anything. I'm fully aware you people think "the free market" will provide almost perfect competition, liberty and a "voluntary" society. I went to school with Roderick. He has been schooled not only by me but also the monetarists.

The Austrian School is fringe. For a reason. There's a reason actual neoclassical economists reject that bunkum. And it's not for the same reason socialism is rejected.

They reject socialism because they had to reject the labor theory of value. Marginalism became the new dogma. As far as neoclassical theory goes, they reject Austrian theory for different reasons. Namely because "praxiology" has nothing to do with empirical data. With reality.

The funny things is, marginalism also lacks fundemental truths. Bourgeois economics in general exists to obfuscate reality.

We can get into detail if you please. I'd rather not debate the labor theory of value because it's not even necessary for socialist theory.

What's necessary for "anarcho" capitalist theory is a complete and total denial of reality. Perhaps we can call this denial "praxiology".

You tell me, in reality, how is this "free market" system to work? How does industrial commodity production manifest and exist without coercion? How does market expansion take place without coercion?

Do you even understand how capitalism works? No. You deny that it even exists!

"Corporatism" you'll call it. As if "the state" and capital were ever seperate entities! Corporations were formed in order to pool risk. Capital also accumulated via competition. There is no "perfect competition" where small businesses rule the day. Capitalisms very nature is to accumulate wealth. It formed via coercive wealth accumulation! There has never been a "free market".

"Free market" capitalism is a non thing. It has never and will never exist. It's impossible.

Praxeology is the study of human action, I haven't ever heard anyone assert that it is bad.

There is a great danger of descending into misology when relying wholly upon empiricism. Logic is man's best friend.

Thank you for answering the question, clearly we disagree on the existence of free markets.

There is only one kind of economics, that which observes and interprets. Not that which endeavors to artificially effect change externally, that is interventionism.

a reply to: greencmp

Well, minarchy is not anarchy.

Also, markets controlled by key players are also not free. This is what always happens.

Seems anarcho-capitalism is dead out of the gate.

a reply to: daskakik

Yes, I would say most libertarians begrudgingly agree with that assessment insofar as political anarchy is an unattainable ideal.

But, that neither precludes economic anarchy nor does it remove that ideal as a desirable goal to come as close to as possible. Minarchism isn't so much anarchy light as it is the only option which holds limited government as a principal and end in and of itself.

originally posted by: greencmp
But, that neither precludes economic anarchy nor does it remove that ideal as a desirable goal to come as close to as possible.

Actually, it does preclude it.

Minarchism isn't so much anarchy light as it is the only option which holds limited government as a principal and end in and of itself.

Constitutional republics try to do the same. Most countries have this form of government in place. Some do it better than others.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
But, that neither precludes economic anarchy nor does it remove that ideal as a desirable goal to come as close to as possible.

Actually, it does preclude it.

Minarchism isn't so much anarchy light as it is the only option which holds limited government as a principal and end in and of itself.

Constitutional republics try to do the same. Most countries have this form of government in place. Some do it better than others.

Why?

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: JeanPaul
PS

I forgot to address the "disinformation" aspect. Really, c'mon, I've actually read Rothbard/Mises/Tucker/Stirner/Spooner Hayek/Menger etc. I don't misrepresent anything. I'm fully aware you people think "the free market" will provide almost perfect competition, liberty and a "voluntary" society. I went to school with Roderick. He has been schooled not only by me but also the monetarists.

The Austrian School is fringe. For a reason. There's a reason actual neoclassical economists reject that bunkum. And it's not for the same reason socialism is rejected.

They reject socialism because they had to reject the labor theory of value. Marginalism became the new dogma. As far as neoclassical theory goes, they reject Austrian theory for different reasons. Namely because "praxiology" has nothing to do with empirical data. With reality.

The funny things is, marginalism also lacks fundemental truths. Bourgeois economics in general exists to obfuscate reality.

We can get into detail if you please. I'd rather not debate the labor theory of value because it's not even necessary for socialist theory.

What's necessary for "anarcho" capitalist theory is a complete and total denial of reality. Perhaps we can call this denial "praxiology".

You tell me, in reality, how is this "free market" system to work? How does industrial commodity production manifest and exist without coercion? How does market expansion take place without coercion?

Do you even understand how capitalism works? No. You deny that it even exists!

"Corporatism" you'll call it. As if "the state" and capital were ever seperate entities! Corporations were formed in order to pool risk. Capital also accumulated via competition. There is no "perfect competition" where small businesses rule the day. Capitalisms very nature is to accumulate wealth. It formed via coercive wealth accumulation! There has never been a "free market".

"Free market" capitalism is a non thing. It has never and will never exist. It's impossible.

Praxeology is the study of human action, I haven't ever heard anyone assert that it is bad.

There is a great danger of descending into misology when relying wholly upon empiricism. Logic is man's best friend.

Thank you for answering the question, clearly we disagree on the existence of free markets.

There is only one kind of economics, that which observes and interprets. Not that which endeavors to artificially effect change externally, that is interventionism.

Praxeology (as a method of economic analysis) is essentially the use of philisophical idealism. Like magic. Like religion. Lofty ideas in people's head with no true connection to material reality.

Therefore Austrian Economics is in fact a religion. A religion full of priests and followers who will deny our material reality in favor of their biblical texts. The prophets Mises, Rothbatd, Hayek and Menger are exaulted as infallible. Much like the Bolshevik economists to claimed to use a materialist approach to economics, rather than idealist.

Using philisophical idealism as a means of economic analysis is troublesome for many reasons. One thing Marx did right was to explain why Idealism should not be used for economic or historical analysis.

Are you familiar with his criticisms of Max Stirner?

originally posted by: greencmp
Why?

There is a lot to gain from controlling markets. Someone always figures this out and sets out to do just that.

In a nutshell, in layman's terms, we can't just think up viable economic systems or policies without taking material conditions into account. The Austrians do this with everything. From their theories on "the state" and it's functions to monetary policy to labor/capital relations.

Hardly anything they advocate aligns with reality. Their historical analysis, their economic analysis and their political analysis have been completely detached from what actually takes place. From what has taken place. Their theories are the theories of "should be" rather than "what is".

Why do neoassical economists reject Austrian theory? Because most of them are halfway willing to admit how capitalism actually works. Although neoclassical theory itself is full of subjective assumptions and idealism meant to obfuscate the exploitative nature of capitalism. Especially their theories surrounding capital/labor relations and trade.

Economics in general is indeed a dismal science. Full of illogical logicians and complex models which don't have much to do with reality. The Austrians are the "best" at this approach. Although rejecting complex macro models they are "the best" at ignoring reality. At making all sorts of assumptions concerning human behavior. The neoclassical folks at least attempt to employ empiricism. As skewed as their approach may be. For that reason I find them to be more dangerous than the Austrians. Because nobody takes the Austrians seriously.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
Why?

There is a lot to gain from controlling markets. Someone always figures this out and sets out to do just that.

Out of necessity. There has never been a "free market" capitalist system. You show me a capitalist nation and I'll show you how government intervention was employed in order to make it all possible.

a reply to: JeanPaul
Yes, I was speaking in general. In smaller more local examples the reason might be more personal.

originally posted by: JeanPaul

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: JeanPaul
PS

I forgot to address the "disinformation" aspect. Really, c'mon, I've actually read Rothbard/Mises/Tucker/Stirner/Spooner Hayek/Menger etc. I don't misrepresent anything. I'm fully aware you people think "the free market" will provide almost perfect competition, liberty and a "voluntary" society. I went to school with Roderick. He has been schooled not only by me but also the monetarists.

The Austrian School is fringe. For a reason. There's a reason actual neoclassical economists reject that bunkum. And it's not for the same reason socialism is rejected.

They reject socialism because they had to reject the labor theory of value. Marginalism became the new dogma. As far as neoclassical theory goes, they reject Austrian theory for different reasons. Namely because "praxiology" has nothing to do with empirical data. With reality.

The funny things is, marginalism also lacks fundemental truths. Bourgeois economics in general exists to obfuscate reality.

We can get into detail if you please. I'd rather not debate the labor theory of value because it's not even necessary for socialist theory.

What's necessary for "anarcho" capitalist theory is a complete and total denial of reality. Perhaps we can call this denial "praxiology".

You tell me, in reality, how is this "free market" system to work? How does industrial commodity production manifest and exist without coercion? How does market expansion take place without coercion?

Do you even understand how capitalism works? No. You deny that it even exists!

"Corporatism" you'll call it. As if "the state" and capital were ever seperate entities! Corporations were formed in order to pool risk. Capital also accumulated via competition. There is no "perfect competition" where small businesses rule the day. Capitalisms very nature is to accumulate wealth. It formed via coercive wealth accumulation! There has never been a "free market".

"Free market" capitalism is a non thing. It has never and will never exist. It's impossible.

Praxeology is the study of human action, I haven't ever heard anyone assert that it is bad.

There is a great danger of descending into misology when relying wholly upon empiricism. Logic is man's best friend.

Thank you for answering the question, clearly we disagree on the existence of free markets.

There is only one kind of economics, that which observes and interprets. Not that which endeavors to artificially effect change externally, that is interventionism.

Praxeology (as a method of economic analysis) is essentially the use of philisophical idealism. Like magic. Like religion. Lofty ideas in people's head with no true connection to material reality.

Therefore Austrian Economics is in fact a religion. A religion full of priests and followers who will deny our material reality in favor of their biblical texts. The prophets Mises, Rothbatd, Hayek and Menger are exaulted as infallible. Much like the Bolshevik economists to claimed to use a materialist approach to economics, rather than idealist.

Using philisophical idealism as a means of economic analysis is troublesome for many reasons. One thing Marx did right was to explain why Idealism should not be used for economic or historical analysis.

Are you familiar with his criticisms of Max Stirner?

I don't think it would be imprudent to suggest that I believe that your ideology (socialism) is a religion (though without a rational basis) so, we can at least agree that no progress can be made by butting heads over disagreement, founded or unfounded.

I spent many hours failing to have a constructive conversation with someone very similar to you who held my beliefs in the foulest contempt and their own ideology in the very same lofty and unimpeachable regard as you do. I have no interest in repeating that fruitless exercise.

Please feel free to continue, I present this forum to you on a platter to espouse ad infinitum your pontifications about the incorrectness of western philosophy and economics.

I may even interject from time to time to present a contrasting viewpoint should the need arise.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
Why?

There is a lot to gain from controlling markets. Someone always figures this out and sets out to do just that.

So, your contention is that free markets are impossible because someone will eventually control them thus making them eventually not free.

I contend that a singular monopolistic authority guarantees that outcome and that the only possibility for a market to be free is the absence of regulation and state support in favor of any competitor, thus providing the possibility that is absent in any captured market.

originally posted by: greencmp
I contend that a singular monopolistic authority guarantees that outcome and that the only possibility for a market to be free is the absence of regulation and state support in favor of any competitor, thus providing the possibility that is absent in any captured market.

It sure does but lack of intervention also doesn't have a good track record in bringing that possibility into effect.

Like JeanPaul said, the Austrian ideal is not rooted in reality. I posted an image of a littered street in another thread. Your advice was that I should move. AC ideals says that people should not act in that way but the reality is that they do. As far as I can tell, there is an obvious disconnect.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
I contend that a singular monopolistic authority guarantees that outcome and that the only possibility for a market to be free is the absence of regulation and state support in favor of any competitor, thus providing the possibility that is absent in any captured market.

It sure does but lack of intervention also doesn't have a good track record in bringing that possibility into effect.

Like JeanPaul said, the Austrian ideal is not rooted in reality. I posted an image of a littered street in another thread. Your advice was that I should move. AC ideals says that people should not act in that way but the reality is that they do. As far as I can tell, there is an obvious disconnect.

Yes, that is a good example to work with.

Frequently, I find it necessary to make the distinction between federal and local government. Most of these conversations about absence of government interference as discussed in the context of the US simply fail to recognize that distinction. In the case of an unkempt neighborhood, no one would argue that the federal government ought to be held responsible. That is simply an example of an uninterested populace with no private waste services available. It has nothing to do with anarchy or constitutional minarchism, if anything it is an example of a bad local government which has failed to provide that as a public service despite collecting taxes expressly for that purpose. We simply don't know what would happen if the failing local bureaucracy were to spontaneously stand down and return all confiscated money and materials back to their original owners.

Rational deduction is neither unfounded nor disconnected although, we can and should argue exactly what logical inferences are possible in this context. There is also, as you point out, ample evidence of the failure of maxarchies and almost no evidence of the failure of anarchies, that is the flip side of the "but it doesn't exist" argument. That is all learnable purely through empiricism, incomplete a tool as it is.

As a constitutional minarchist with a personal affinity for the ideals of individual freedom, I simply make the argument that abdicating responsibility for the well being of oneself to a nameless faceless bureaucracy is always a losing proposition.