The Anarchist Principle

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1302025320' post='2226138']
Every social science operates under those constraints. That doesn't mean that you can't use rigor. It's hard for me to link you to an article unless you have a JSTOR account but scholars studying international conflict have long used game theory coupled with statistical analysis to make important findings into why countries go to war. As far as I know other economics schools are also able to use theoretical models tested against empericle evidence and statistical evaluation. Yes. These lack the rigor of physics because we can't run experiments the same way a physicist can and if you read MacIntyre's "After Virtue" he himself investigates some of the shortcomings of the social sciences. But despite these limitations reaserchers are able to ake solid findings and make testable predictions and claims.
[/quote]

I have access to JSTOR through Indiana University right now as an MBA student, but I honestly don't have time to read lengthy articles. I have a 3 week old son, 2 other kids under 3 years old, a house we moved into 1 week ago, I'm taking 2 MBA courses, and working a full time job as a programmer.

I may have just grasped what you meant: The Austrians need to use logic, and you've only seen them use stories. This is a reasonable point, but in my experience, they tend to create both at the same time, then repeat the stories because they're easier to show non-intellectuals; thus they appeal to a broader audience. Typically, their arguments effectively follow mathematical proofs. Every economic model I've seen outside of video games fails because it tries to reduce human choices to a set of variables, and that's just not true.

And yes, Hayek is my favorite of the Austrians, but other have a lot of good ideas, too.

Peace,
Joe

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1302031479' post='2226172']
I do not know why you would say that Nihil, I am quite a handsome guy and am pretty good at drawing too. Besides, I am sure you got my point, trade works only when there is consent between those who trade and only if it works within the framework of the laws of the area, this Austrian pipedream would allow for fair trade, trade with consent between individuals free of state laws or tariffs, yeah right, <-- (this is where I was tempted to use the bridge selling adage you guys are so fond of here to belittle lame sacrastic remarks, but that is so overused that is really annoying.)


The remark I bolded in the quote above? Are you referring to Obama's healthcare as that is the only time that the government has ever required anyone to buy a product forcefully, it has not been implemented yet, its unconstitutional and may be repealed or at least defunded.

ed
[/quote]
No, I'm referring to fiat currency, which is essentially worthless, except the law decrees otherwise. Doesn't that compare pretty closely to your paper analogy?
The government prints worthless paper which is backed by nothing more than their promise. No commodities to lend it any value. Then they make it illegal to buy or sell with any competing currencies that might have real value.
The Austrian system would set up competing currencies by many competing banks, which would operate on commodity standard, probably gold or silver, based on market preferences. Money would actually be worth something again. Banks would not be allowed to inflate, because what intelligent person would store their money in a bank that can't pay them back, unless they're forced to do so by state laws?

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1302031479' post='2226172']
trade works only when there is consent between those who trade and only if it works within the framework of the laws of the area, this Austrian pipedream would allow for fair trade, trade with consent between individuals free of state laws or tariffs, yeah right, <-- (this is where I was tempted to use the bridge selling adage you guys are so fond of here to belittle lame sacrastic remarks, but that is so overused that is really annoying.)
[/quote]

Why do you need state laws and tariffs to have free trade? Didn't you ever have the experience of trading lunch food at the table in first grade?

To illustrate what would happen in a society with a marketer, a potato farmer and a pork farmer: Both take their produce to the food marketer who gives them a piece of paper saying '30 credits' and '400 credits' respectively, the farmers can then buy 30 and 400 credits worth of other goods, but it doesn't have to be from the marketer. The barber needs to eat, so he is willing to take 5 credits for a hair cut. Pretty soon, everyone is trading the market credits because they know they can be traded for something useful.

The marketer effectively has become the bank for the area.

What was unlikely in this scenario? Do you think you would have robbers rampant? Buy a gun, hire a guy with a gun, buy 'thief insurance' from an agency that sends hired guns to round up people that cause them too much trouble, there are lots of options. There *would* be law, it would just be common law. Things like "don't take what ain't yers," "don't kill a man with friends," "help your neighbors," and "don't stick yer nose where it ain't belongin'."

Peace,
Joe

Edited April 5, 2011 by MagiDragon

[Nihil Obstat]

This is a great paper about the Old West that I read a couple months ago. All about common law and its role in an area with little or no government influence.
[url="http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf"]The Not So Wild West[/url]

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1302033638' post='2226193']
No, I'm referring to fiat currency, which is essentially worthless, except the law decrees otherwise. Doesn't that compare pretty closely to your paper analogy?
The government prints worthless paper which is backed by nothing more than their promise. No commodities to lend it any value. Then they make it illegal to buy or sell with any competing currencies that might have real value.
The Austrian system would set up competing currencies by many competing banks, which would operate on commodity standard, probably gold or silver, based on market preferences. Money would actually be worth something again. Banks would not be allowed to inflate, because what intelligent person would store their money in a bank that can't pay them back, unless they're forced to do so by state laws?
[/quote]


Yes, thats my point exactly, what government or state would allow such a form of trade? The whole principal of the state is to bring certain benefits to those that live under its auspices, they tax or regulate all forms or produce, monies or actual hard goods, for the "benefit" of their citizens. Thats why I originally wrote about returning to life in a cave, of course that would only work in a total collapse of society.

One thing you do not address in your competing currencies ideal is the idea and practise of exchange rates, who would set the exchange rates and enforce their values, would it be corrupted because bank of Alberta grain and cattle co-op does not feel that Albertans should send their money to California bank of Citrus producers, effectively removing Albertan assets for a non local, non renewable asset such as citrus produce, that although tasty and good for you could not be cost effectively produced in Alberta. I guess you could always set up some state or governmental agency to overseee this tade, but that would effectively ruin the system.

ed

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1302035085' post='2226214']
Yes, thats my point exactly, what government or state would allow such a form of trade? The whole principal of the state is to bring certain benefits to those that live under its auspices, they tax or regulate all forms or produce, monies or actual hard goods, for the "benefit" of their citizens. Thats why I originally wrote about returning to life in a cave, of course that would only work in a total collapse of society.

One thing you do not address in your competing currencies ideal is the idea and practise of exchange rates, who would set the exchange rates and enforce their values, would it be corrupted because bank of Alberta grain and cattle co-op does not feel that Albertans should send their money to California bank of Citrus producers, effectively removing Albertan assets for a non local, non renewable asset such as citrus produce, that although tasty and good for you could not be cost effectively produced in Alberta. I guess you could always set up some state or governmental agency to overseee this tade, but that would effectively ruin the system.

ed
[/quote]
I don't understand what you're saying. Commodity money is directly based on the value of the commodity, and being so it's exactly as valuable no matter where you are. 1 oz of silver is worth exactly the same here in Cowtown as it is in Texas, and in London, and in Australia. (That's about $40 at the moment.) Exchange rates are purely market based. Nobody needs to enforce them.

The system you're talking about appears to be some kind of protectionism, which is a whole different kettle of fish that we went into on that American versus foreign car thread.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1302033911' post='2226194']
Why do you need state laws and tariffs to have free trade? Didn't you ever have the experience of trading lunch food at the table in first grade?

To illustrate what would happen in a society with a marketer, a potato farmer and a pork farmer: Both take their produce to the food marketer who gives them a piece of paper saying '30 credits' and '400 credits' respectively, the farmers can then buy 30 and 400 credits worth of other goods, but it doesn't have to be from the marketer. The barber needs to eat, so he is willing to take 5 credits for a hair cut. Pretty soon, everyone is trading the market credits because they know they can be traded for something useful.

The marketer effectively has become the bank for the area.

What was unlikely in this scenario? Do you think you would have robbers rampant? [b]Buy a gun, hire a guy with a gun, buy 'thief insurance' from an agency that sends hired guns to round up people that cause them too much trouble, there are lots of options. There *would* be law, it would just be common law. Things like "don't take what ain't yers," "don't kill a man with friends," "help your neighbors," and "don't stick yer nose where it ain't belongin'."
[/b]
Peace,
Joe
[/quote]

Hey, good job you just set up a state to oversee the population including laws and law enforcment agencies! All the trappings of big government and the monies you use to hire them would be just like taxes, of course you would have to give some credits to those who would write these "common laws" and how could they be fairly enforced without some judicial type of system to enact the agencies to enforce those laws, more credits to spend there. Then there would be those who did not want to willingly contribute their credits to enforce laws as they are the baddest mothers in town and feel those who have to hire a gun deserve to be killed or raped or robbed any way, so eventually you would have to set up some kind of agency, some form or revenue colection agency that would collect a meager portion of everyones credits to care for the less fortunate weaker types that could not protect their property.....

ed

[Nihil Obstat]

This anarchy isn't absence of laws, and strictly speaking not even the absence of government. It's the absence of coercive government and aggressive laws.
That's why Stern prefers voluntaryism, and I'm tending to agree.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1302035294' post='2226216']
I don't understand what you're saying. Commodity money is directly based on the value of the commodity, and being so it's exactly as valuable no matter where you are. 1 oz of silver is worth exactly the same here in Cowtown as it is in Texas, and in London, and in Australia. (That's about $40 at the moment.) Exchange rates are purely market based. Nobody needs to enforce them.

The system you're talking about appears to be some kind of protectionism, which is a whole different kettle of fish that we went into on that American versus foreign car thread.
[/quote]


Historically Nihil, commodities are worth less where they are produced and more where they are in demand and not available. Its the process of getting them from one place to another that inflates the prices. You used Silver as an example, thats a regulated price you quoted, in the absence of governmental controls do you truly feel that silver would have a standard price, or gold for that matter.

ed

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1302036099' post='2226225']
Historically Nihil, commodities are worth less where they are produced and more where they are in demand and not available. Its the process of getting them from one place to another that inflates the prices. You used Silver as an example, thats a regulated price you quoted, in the absence of governmental controls do you truly feel that silver would have a standard price, or gold for that matter.

ed
[/quote]
Arbitrage in a free market will tend to even prices out, after we account for transportation. Currently arbitrage is very much regulated through tariffs and quotas.
Of course there would be a standard price without 'controls'. It would simply be what people are willing to pay. The prices would be different than they are now, since there would be not dumb regulations screwing with the price, but they would still be mutually agreed-upon. Some prices would be volatile (such as oil, though probably less so than it is now), and some would be quite stable (gold, for instance, would probably be more stable). Some would be much lower, namely diamonds, and some may be higher (such as the price of a mortgage in 2006).

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1302035955' post='2226223']
This anarchy isn't absence of laws, and strictly speaking not even the absence of government. It's the absence of coercive government and aggressive laws.
That's why Stern prefers voluntaryism, and I'm tending to agree.
[/quote]


Who defines coercive government or aggressive laws? The bank robber feels its an aggressive law that thwarts his ability to take his living, is it coercive for a government to decide that farmer Brown who lives upstream of Cowtown, New States of America, should not be allowed to dump the manure and runoff from his slaugther house into the river which flows into Cowtown and pollutes its water source? I am sure farmer brown does not want to build a containment system to deal with this waste and probably feels that as the river flows through his property that he has a God given right to use the waters as he sees fit. You mentioned Texas earlier, you most likely have read of the murders that sprang from water issues, mini-wars where farmers had dammed up streams to preserve water on their property causing those downstream to lose their livelihood? This also happened in free pasture ranges when sheep farmers drove their stock through them, sheep destroyed the grasses by eating all of them making it untenable for cattle use. This coupled with inscrupulous shepherds who would drive sheep infected with scab through the open ranges eventually led to many legislations being passed and enforced to address these abuses, eventually the ranges were fenced with barbed wire that brought an end to the open ranges.

I know what you are driving at, in a perfect society we would look after each other, we would not need regulations or regulators to enforce rules that breech the "love thy neighbor as thyself " principles for a system as you are espousing dreamily here to actually work. Unfortunately there has never been such a time or such a group of people and due to the vagaries of human nature there never will either, at least not until we lose our freewill and the deceiver stops intervening in the mids of weak men.

ed

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1302035734' post='2226222']
Hey, good job you just set up a state to oversee the population including laws and law enforcment agencies! All the trappings of big government and the monies you use to hire them would be just like taxes, of course you would have to give some credits to those who would write these "common laws" and how could they be fairly enforced without some judicial type of system to enact the agencies to enforce those laws, more credits to spend there. Then there would be those who did not want to willingly contribute their credits to enforce laws as they are the baddest mothers in town and feel those who have to hire a gun deserve to be killed or raped or robbed any way, so eventually you would have to set up some kind of agency, some form or revenue colection agency that would collect a meager portion of everyones credits to care for the less fortunate weaker types that could not protect their property.....

ed
[/quote]

What you're missing is that there's an innate difference between *voluntary* actions, and *involuntary* actions. Paying taxes is involuntary; if you don't, the government will eventually show up at your door and take things from you at gunpoint. This is why people say that governments threatens people. Paying insurance, on the other hand, is voluntary; no one will show up with a gun because you didn't pay. The reason you pay is because the insurance agency is able to give you restitution in the event that something *does* happen to hurt you. There's no reason that anyone else needs to pay for the police; they're *my* police. If you pay for them, they'll be your police, too. If they don't do their job, I'll stop paying them.

A government is made up of people. Why is it more acceptable for a person 'from the government' to show up on your doorstep with a gun and demand money than it is for someone who belongs to the local gang? Both are members of a larger group. Both will leave you alone if you pay on time. Neither smiles when they ask for money. Are there differences? Sure, the government gang gives you a vote with a 1 in 50 million chance of changing who the gang's leader is, and they are expected to follow their own rules. Is this a substantial difference? That is open for debate.

Peace,
Joe

[Winchester]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1302037249' post='2226230']
Who defines coercive government or aggressive laws?
[/quote]
I do.

[4588686]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1302032087' post='2226176']
I have access to JSTOR through Indiana University right now as an MBA student, but I honestly don't have time to read lengthy articles. I have a 3 week old son, 2 other kids under 3 years old, a house we moved into 1 week ago, I'm taking 2 MBA courses, and working a full time job as a programmer.

I may have just grasped what you meant: The Austrians need to use logic, and you've only seen them use stories. This is a reasonable point, but in my experience, they tend to create both at the same time, then repeat the stories because they're easier to show non-intellectuals; thus they appeal to a broader audience. Typically, their arguments effectively follow mathematical proofs. Every economic model I've seen outside of video games fails because it tries to reduce human choices to a set of variables, and that's just not true.

And yes, Hayek is my favorite of the Austrians, but other have a lot of good ideas, too.

Peace,
Joe
[/quote]

That's just my point. They appeal to a non-intellectual audience. Which is fine. But the way it generally goes is that a theoretical model is tested for logical consistency and then that model is checked by empirical investigation and statistical analysis. Once that has been evaluated and tested it is popularized. The Austrians don't seem tconstruct mathematical models. Make predictions. Subject their models to empirical and statistical evaluation. The just present a popularized set of ideas whose only merit is that they seem intuitively appealing. There's nothing wrong with an idea being intuitively appealing but many important scientific results (natural and social) are distinctly non-intuitive.

In short, the Austrian school tends to lack real substance.

I have an unusual ammount of free time. If there is a piece of rigorous Austrian economics that you want to reccomend I'd be happy to look at it.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1302139318' post='2226555']
That's just my point. They appeal to a non-intellectual audience. Which is fine. But the way it generally goes is that a theoretical model is tested for logical consistency and then that model is checked by empirical investigation and statistical analysis. Once that has been evaluated and tested it is popularized. The Austrians don't seem tconstruct mathematical models. Make predictions. Subject their models to empirical and statistical evaluation. The just present a popularized set of ideas whose only merit is that they seem intuitively appealing. There's nothing wrong with an idea being intuitively appealing but many important scientific results (natural and social) are distinctly non-intuitive.

In short, the Austrian school tends to lack real substance.

I have an unusual ammount of free time. If there is a piece of rigorous Austrian economics that you want to reccomend I'd be happy to look at it.
[/quote]
[img]http://www.denofgeek.com/siteimage/scale/800/600/16539.png[/img]