Anarcho-capitalism, why can't it work? - Page 46

On September 16 2010 11:31 Yurebis wrote:

I really don't think I need empirical proof, as much as an abolitionist didn't.
And I already said, there is no double standard, one can desire a state for any number of ends, praxeologically so. Just as much people can jump off buildings thinking they can fly. The role of the libertarian is not to prove that it should always be the case that people will prefer peace, just to argue that peace is a much better means for almost any wants, long term.

On September 16 2010 12:17 L wrote:

There's a pretty huge double standard in saying that your empirically derived preferences for a certain social system is superior to the world's entire historical body of knowledge discounting the idea's feasibility.

On September 16 2010 10:55 Yurebis wrote:


Ok.
Crusoe economics.
Man's wants are W.
Man's means are M.
Means have inputs and outputs. I and O.
Man tries to satisfy W with the most cost-beneficial M.
Ex-ante, the evaluation of M's (as maximizers of W's) is called expectation, E.
Ex-post, the evaluation of M's is called experience, X.
A malinvestment occurs ex-post, when X and E have a considerable mismatch, I'll call it Z.

So.. what can be done with this is...
W = M - Z
W = M - (X-E)
Hm I'm not good with math tbh but you can plug in what I said above better

Catallactics.
Trades only happen when expectations, E, are positive, or in other words, both parties have positive expectations to the satisfaction of their wants in that agreeable means of exchange.
So trade only happens when E1*E2>0

Man will never trade when his expectations are negative, and when such an exchange happens, I call it coercion, C.
C is E1*E2<=0

The <= is debatable but w/e

I'll do more later maybe. Math disgusts me.
edit: to add a little something, government intervention necessarily is coercion, because it doesn't let E2 (if the bureaucrat is E1) to express itself, so there's no real E2 to input. The E2 is actually another E1`, or a hunch to what the government thinks people expect. E1` can never be equal to E2, so whatever transaction it is, it is going to be calculated wrong - either too much is being done for an expectation that isn't so positive, or the transaction shouldn't have occured because it's negative.

Also because it mixes the costs within those expectations; the state doesn't spend out of its own pocket, it steals from E2 too, lol so it's a huge mess, but to express it I'd have to expand the variables to do that and I just can't figure how atm.

And that's just ex-ante

On September 16 2010 12:39 ghrur wrote:


Wait,
W=M-X+E?
So wants=means+expectations-experience? Why is this?
Why is W=M-Z? If Z was 0, we would get all we want?
Also, trade happens when E1*E2>0
Define E1 and E2 mathematically.
How do you calculate E1 and/or E2?
What're the use of I and O?
Also, why all the words? Define your variables, and prove! The words aren't operations. I've never heard of a "man will trade" or "man will not trade" operation.
Why is E1'=/=E2? Can you define E1' please? And then define E2? And then give a proof using variables to show they cannot possibly be equal?
I mean, you're giving a LOT of assumptions here. Proofs usually start with like, 2 axioms or something, and continue on. I have no idea where you get all these things from. o.O

Edit: You shouldn't hate math if your results are logically strong. I mean, math is simply using numbers instead of words to represent logic. It allows for a much more clear, pristine argument. If you wanted to convince us with undeniable logic, use math, because what you prove with mathematics is almost always solid.

On September 16 2010 12:48 0neder wrote:
It is quite ridiculous to think that somehow Anarcho-Capitalism is better than the current system. I am not surprised, however, when academic communities in their theorycrafting bubble see how imperfect the best available system is (the one we have) and decide that going backwards is somehow going forwards.

World history is essentially a history of people not learning from history and cycles of repeating past mistakes over, and over, and over...ugh it is so foolish to think this is better.

Then even if they were, so what? Inventors and investors (oh wow it's almost the same word, never noticed that) throughout history have demonstrated that they can take their preferences, create and develop upon them, and then other people, who never acknowledge such, eventually adopted them too.

On September 16 2010 12:56 Yurebis wrote:

Well I told you that trying to do math with praxeology sounds nutty.

W=M-Z means that 'wants are met through means minus error. Z is better called error
Error is the difference between what is expected to happen and what happens.,
W=M-(X-E)
W=M-X+E makes less sense... wants are met with means, minus the experience plus expectancy... hmm yeah something went wrong there. I will think some more on how to put this.

E1 is the expectancy of person 1, E2 that of person 2.
And it's not that they can't be equal but... the complexity of human psyche makes it so that it's almost impossible to be so. Not even exact twins who live together all their lives have the exact same expectations. But I think this is the wrong frame to put catallactics on... something is off again.

Yeah well, I wish I could put into math, but it's not an easy thing to do and, to the economists that do, they overaggregate and equivocate a lot, especially when it comes to government spending.

On September 16 2010 13:05 L wrote:


This is more like trying to develop a feces launching catapult made out of gold, rubies and diamonds and telling me that a-priori my experiences with feces don't qualify me to tell you that your development is terrible or that the entire history of catapult making is irrelevant as evidence towards the wastefulness of your artfully placed gemstones.

Until you can handle the issue of physical force without pretending people are going to be nice and not use it, your arguments always devolve and create a PDA as a sovereign force according to the classical Hobbesian definition of what a sovereign is. But then you're boned because your PDA's theoretical purpose is to maximize its own profit as per market forces, which then has it exploit its protectorate to a degree only found in fairly low-redistributive co-efficient kleptocracies.

You've been consistently avoiding this point because its a point you simply can't define away. Physical coercion exists and your fantasy can't wish it away.

On September 16 2010 13:12 ghrur wrote:


But how do we calculate them mathematically? Specifically, E1 or E2? I guess you could say they're of different values, but then we can't really specify the values. It might be possible E1=E2, it might be possible E1=/=E2. I mean, y=x is true. y=x+1 means y=/=x, and that can be true too. So why is E1=/=E2 mathematically? How do you calculate them?
Also, what do you mathematically mean by overaggregate? Do they add together too many numbers? Do they use too many numbers in their average? Do they use too many addition signs? Too many integrals? What? What is a mathematical example of overaggregation?
Take this paper:
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr393.pdf
and tell me what you would do with it mathematically so they get rid of this "overaggregation" problem. How do you stop it from happening in the equations?

But your experiences alone tell nothing as to whether a future catapult may work or have a profitable use in different circumstances.

The state is only a deterrent for physical coercion insofar as it creates its own kind of coercion that has to be dealt with... it can't define it away either... it is just driven by political motive instead.

On September 16 2010 14:13 TanGeng wrote:
What you need to do is model everyone as a stochastic processes.
E's varies depend on exchange rates and the M
Similarly
M's varies as a stochastic over time
You need to transform the M's into W, let's call this function T(M) which also behave slightly errratically and varies from person to person.

The aggregation of M is a histogram. Let's call this "supply".
The aggregation of E is always negative. The size of the negative value depends on the transaction costs of the economy.
This is the "expect trade" valuation and it is assuming certain exchange rates - a pricing schedule that each individual faces. Now individuals don't have to face the same pricing schedule. If you aggregate M1+E1 over all kinds of pricing schedules, you get something called a "demand" distribution.

As defined, T1(M1+E1) and T2(M2+E2) are maximals based on pricing schedules, so anything different is "inefficient." Aggregation of T(M+X) - T(M+E1) is just total "deadweight loss." You'll need a model for how price schedules of individuals behave and the transactions costs of the economy to be able to solve for E1, E2, E3, E4.

In the real world M is a lot more than two inputs; not just X's and O's. Aggregation of course is fraught with assumption about pricing schedules and transaction costs, etc. Macro has too much hand waving for my tastes.

On September 16 2010 14:17 L wrote:
You have decided to debate that a gold and diamond shit flinger could in some magic circumstance be profitable or work.

Similarly, you could make any preposterous statement then qualify it by saying "there might be some condition X under which it would work" while admitting it has zero present value and zero foreseeable value.

Its valid because it might not be strictly wrong under conditions we can't ascertain? Sounds like a good theory.

On September 16 2010 14:18 Yurebis wrote:

Yes.

On September 16 2010 15:10 TanGeng wrote:
[good shit]

On September 16 2010 15:19 Danze wrote:


GG. End of Thread.

On September 16 2010 16:54 Mjolnir wrote:

Gotta disagree with the OP.

I can levy a number of criticisms about human nature that apply equally to Anarcho-Capitalism and "The State," and just because they do, doesn't mean Anarcho-Capitalism is a better answer. In fact, I think it's a far worse solution than most of what we've got, and most of the "institutions" we've got now, will arise in an Anarchist society (albeit in a different guise) just like they've appeared in the past.

I say this as someone who was an "Anarchist" for years. Lived in a commune for some time, and saw first hand how tragically flawed that sort of "system" is. I'm convinced that most proponents of (whatever form of) Anarchism spent more time reading about it in books and less time actually trying to live it. When you attempt the latter, it doesn't take long to see that it doesn't matter what "system" you're following - people are the reason most things in society suck, and people are (obviously) part of every system.

From my experience, Anarchism is a pipe-dream (with great intentions); but god forbid anyone say that, because you're instantly labelled as a rigid thinking, right-wing, capitalist, conservative.