pull down to refresh
How did the Kerensky preferences work out?
Preferences are nice, but don't mean anything when the choices are bad and worse.
Cherry picked examples aren't substitutes for arguments.
There are plenty of theoretical arguments for a stateless society and all the evidence we have suggests that less state intervention increases prosperity.
Contending with either of those points in a serious manner would constitute an argument.
Thousands of years of emergent behavior isn't a cherry-picked example. Lots of things sound good in theory, but that's no different than the 20 year old college indoctrinated Marxist shouting from their parents safety net.
It's not brave or insightful to say violence is bad, and needn't exist in an ideal world, there's nothing to argue with there... so the squeamish acquiescent abdicator argues only in the abstract with himself, with nothing at stake, an even more feckless reflection of his Marxist analogue.
less state intervention increases prosperity
Obviously, and history shows that the state intervention increases when people make the choice not to choose the bad over the worse. Abdication is still choosing.
It is different from the Marxist because we know the theoretical flaws in that, as well as the empirical case against. That's as poor of an example as you could have come up with and the rest is just substanceless name calling.
So, again, you've presented nothing like an argument.
The flaws in marxism come from reality, not theory, same is true of abdication. Marxists may even have a better empircal case as they actually set up hippy communes that functioned for decades and some still do. Private cities don't exist, because to exist requires a state and force.
I've made the argument that abdication is counter-productive, that history proves this. You on the other hand have zero argument... just feelings, like a Marxist.
They absolutely are borne out in theory. Mises engaged in an extended academic debate on this topic, where he articulated the Socialist Calculation problem. That was long before the abundant failures of communism in practice. Hayek's work on knowledge problems followed onto that.
Your ignorance of the arguments is not the same as their absence.
Mises was armchair theorist that never built a thing, no different than Marx. Mises is actually worse, as his masturbatory theology has sidelined more anti-communists than Marx created communists... Mises therefore is the greatest communist asset of all time because abdicators are collaborators by default.
The economic calculation problem is no different than the incentive constraint dilemma, that private security necessarily grows into a state. They're exact mirrors of one another.
Your denial of reality is not an argument.
They aren't logically connected in any way.
The speculation that private security will inevitably grow into a state has no rigorous demonstration and is not an explanation for anything that's ever been observed. It's more of a cop-out for statists who won't entertain the possibility of an alternative.
The distinction is around whether the organization uses market means or political (violent) means. You may not care about the distinction but that doesn't make it mindless.
Some people have a strong preference for peaceful relations.