pull down to refresh
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.
Every state in existence is a demonstration of it, they are emergent. Clans became castles became countries. "Rigorous demonstration", laughable. Reality is that demonstration. The only cop out here is your vanity, so peaceful and insightful.
I'm almost certian I was on AnCap boards before you ever heard of Mises, and still an ideological AnCap, just a realist.
Most states didn't emerge from private security firms. I doubt you could point to a single one that did.
They come from one group violently conquering and suppressing an area. Evolution towards freedom from there allowed the ruling classes to syphon off more resources. That doesn't imply they were additive or necessary.
That's going to be the last from me, unless you can refrain from the constant insults.
There is no distinction between private and state security firms, there is only scale.
A clan providing for its own security is private, eventually that conflicts with another clan, then the existence of that other clan becomes a security liability. One way or another, two clans become one... repeat ad infinitum until it the scale emerges as a state. "Hiring" the security rather than providing your own is just being a vassal.
The only demarcation of multiple states comes when the cost of proactive defense exceeds that of reactive defense, which is why states generally fall along natural or cultural borders.
"Private" security firms for millenia only exist within the context of a larger security apparatus, larger security apparatus that millennia before evolved from clans. No armchair theories obviate emergent behavior over thousands of years.
If Mises was so brilliant, where are these private firms you speak of? Why are there no private cities? The same reason there's no Marxist utopia, the theories are unworkable as they don't solve for realist dilemma.
They come from one group violently conquering and suppressing an area.
Now you're getting it. That's as an unsolvable problem as economic calculation.
Thucydides Trap applies to any security firm whether you call it private or state. A private security firm doesn't exist unless it's the biggest or has an inherent asymmetry like natural/cultural borders... ergo, a state.
ruling classes to syphon off more resources
Incentive constraint dilemma, mirror to economic calculation, that renders Mises every bit as useless as Marx.
That doesn't imply they were additive or necessary.
Reality is relative, a state stealing 20% of your shit is additive and necessary relative to a neighboring clan stealing 100% of your shit.
constant insults.
There hasn't been a single one, only articulations of aligned ethos... unless you're shamed by your own ethos?
Reality is relative, a state stealing 20% of your shit is additive and necessary relative to a neighboring clan stealing 100% of your shit.
I agree and appreciate you articulating the rest of those thoughts. It is relative and what has not been demonstrated is that society can't be better off by casting off that last 20%. It's only a continued benefit if they actually are the barrier against conquest by a worse group, after all.
They violently protect their rents from alternatives, which is not evidence that the alternatives can't work, just that there are no more gains to the rulers to be had.
It would absolutely be better if we could cast off that last 20%, what hasn't been demonstrated is that we can. I wish we could, in theory we could if everyone was just cool, but that's not reality.
We're left having to make sub-optimal choices, but choosing not to choose is leaving the choice solely to your lessers.
As long as people are imperfect the emergent systems will be too. The rational anti-government stance is choosing 20% against 100%. If we hold the line and 20% wins, we may get to fight another day and support 10% vs. 20%.
We may never gain ground, but must participate to not lose ground. The NAP does not mean simply lying down and lamenting you're on a battlefield by default.
violently protect their rents from alternatives
As I've said in other threads, states are shaped by culture... anti-government types removing themselves from culture is surrender. People are a force multiplier of legitimacy, and legitimacy is gradient.
"The state" is ephemeral because it can be divided against itself. Every state has a shadow-state or rival state lying in wait. This is the closest thing to market dynamics we can get in a natural monopoly that there is always an apex force.
The incentive constraint dilemma is the evidence alternatives can't work, the status quo for all of recorded history is evidence that alternatives can't work. There is only theory based on unrealistic assumptions that an alternatives can. However, by acknowledging the constraint dilemma, we can apply market principles in that context... that's called politics.
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.