|
I must repeat myself, however,
Tweks44, there cannot exist an argument to claim government use of resources being preferrable to consumers keeping their purchasing power.
It is because the concept of exchange does not exist within production. If it did, it would be private institution, hence the Hoppean argumentation supporting Monarchy&Anarchy over Democracy.
But it also means that government by the very definitions that western culture holds dear cannot be demonstrated to be better at solving the problem of famines than private enterprise.
Why is this important? Because this simple analytic passage debunks claims of any government involvment within economy having utility, hence it is a universal anti-government answer. And most of all, it is logically consistent and a resut of a priori praxeology, hence not open to refutation.
|
On July 21 2011 03:19 Tewks44 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 21 2011 02:57 BestZergOnEast wrote:
Yeah, I bet anarchy dried up all the water. Anarchy didn't dry up any water. It did however lead to a lawless state incapable of producing enough grain to feed its nation, and enough commerce to buy the food from other nations.
It's all good though, they've got really good phone service, they can just call in a pizza.
|
On July 21 2011 03:26 xarthaz wrote:
I must repeat myself, however,
Tweks44, there cannot exist an argument to claim government use of resources being preferrable to consumers keeping their purchasing power.
It is because the concept of exchange does not exist within production. If it did, it would be private institution, hence the Hoppean argumentation supporting Monarchy&Anarchy over Democracy.
But it also means that government by the very definitions that western culture holds dear cannot be demonstrated to be better at solving the problem of famines than private enterprise.
Why is this important? Because this simple analytic passage debunks claims of any government involvment within economy having utility, hence it is a universal anti-government answer. And most of all, it is logically consistent and a resut of a priori praxeology, hence not open to refutation.
wow, those are some big words. Unfortunately this kind of logic will not make Somalia any more prosperous. You can argue around it all you want. The fact of the matter is Somalia is one of the worse off states in the world. Complex logical arguments aside, empirical evidence shows us: Stable governments are generally prosperous and nations with no centralized government (aka in a state of anarchy) are generally poor and incapable of supporting themselves.
|
A common occurrance on the forums - incomprehension of argument results in ignoring it and following up with a semi-related idea. It does not constitute refutation of the points made and hence is unproductive for debate.
|
ok fair enough. I admit I ignored your argument. I'll try to address it here.
"there cannot exist an argument to claim government use of resources being preferrable to consumers keeping their purchasing power.
It is because the concept of exchange does not exist within production"
what do you mean the concept of exchange does not exist within production? If I produce x amount of goods I can trade them for someone who produces y amount of goods. Therefore production can be indirectly exchanged. Also in the global market production CAN be directly exchanged. It happens all the time when we export labor (aka production) overseas.
"But it also means that government by the very definitions that western culture holds dear cannot be demonstrated to be better at solving the problem of famines than private enterprise."
please elaborate on this point, I fail to see a connection.
"this simple analytic passage debunks claims of any government involvment within economy having utility, hence it is a universal anti-government answer."
your conclusion seems to be that no matter what, a government cannot improve the state of a nation's economy. Therefore Somalia's problems would exist regardless of what kind of government was in place. Perhaps I'm not following your argument but I fail to see how this connection is made.
|
Ho-ho-holy crap. Xarthaz, you are quickly becoming one of the most laughable posters I have seen on this site.
You make every post of yours chock-full of high level words in an attempt to come off as knowledgeable, then someone calls you out on it and you go through the eternal run around of naming names and ignoring entire sections of a post in attempt to come out again.
Are you practicing for debate here or do you just enjoy clicking keys?
I mean, the entire concept here is at least debatable but your little quickly-moved-to-blogs post about the objectively top 10 games is this same kind of nonsense with no grounds in reality at all.
"A common occurrance on the forums - incomprehension of argument results in ignoring it and following up with a semi-related idea. It does not constitute refutation of the points made and hence is unproductive for debate."
First off, you didn't even spell occurrence right and we have a built in spell check. Then you take a quick step to say that if someone disagrees, they obviously must have comprehension problems because there's no way you could be wrong...m i rite? Not to mention another trip to the thesaurus in an attempt to obfuscate your lack of credibility. Broad, sweeping generalizations do not constitute an argument man. Come on now.
You want to debate something? Try and weasel your way out how much longer everyone is even going to keep replying to something like that. Then go back and learn what the word "objectively" means and finally, go read damn near well anything about Anarchists and see how little it will ever come to success. Much less in a country like Somalia of all places. You'd have better chances saying Juarez was/is a peaceful town.
|
|
|
On July 21 2011 03:26 xarthaz wrote:
I must repeat myself, however,
Tweks44, there cannot exist an argument to claim government use of resources being preferrable to consumers keeping their purchasing power.
It is because the concept of exchange does not exist within production. If it did, it would be private institution, hence the Hoppean argumentation supporting Monarchy&Anarchy over Democracy.
But it also means that government by the very definitions that western culture holds dear cannot be demonstrated to be better at solving the problem of famines than private enterprise.
Why is this important? Because this simple analytic passage debunks claims of any government involvment within economy having utility, hence it is a universal anti-government answer. And most of all, it is logically consistent and a resut of a priori praxeology, hence not open to refutation.
There are no a priori synthetic truths, how is that for refutation 
But seriously, a priori synthetic truths are debatable concept and their existence at all is far from clear, not even mentioning claim that action axiom is a priori synthetic truth. Big problem with all that is that this issue is so closely related to the language itself that discussing it is close to pointless. The only reasonable answer can come from empirical observation, specifically for example neurology and linguistics, but since praxeology rejects empiricism, there is no way for it to have any objective say on the matter whatsoever as non-empirical systems are just language plays, some more useful (math/logic), some less.
It all comes down to assumptions. And if people disagree about those assumptions there is no way to prove anything to the other person. I assume the empiricism as the main way to study the world. If someone assumes something different there is no way to disprove it as long as he stays consistent and vice versa. The reason to prefer empiricism is that it (from historical experience and "intuition") has shown some descriptive and manipulative power in reality. Other systems did not (yet?). And consistency with reality is in my book much more important than (just) logical consistency.
EDIT: Just to add, there are many logically consistent systems that can easily be shown to be totally divorced from reality.
|
On July 21 2011 03:26 xarthaz wrote:
I must repeat myself, however,
Tweks44, there cannot exist an argument to claim government use of resources being preferrable to consumers keeping their purchasing power.
It is because the concept of exchange does not exist within production. If it did, it would be private institution, hence the Hoppean argumentation supporting Monarchy&Anarchy over Democracy.
But it also means that government by the very definitions that western culture holds dear cannot be demonstrated to be better at solving the problem of famines than private enterprise.
Why is this important? Because this simple analytic passage debunks claims of any government involvment within economy having utility, hence it is a universal anti-government answer. And most of all, it is logically consistent and a resut of a priori praxeology, hence not open to refutation.
You are just making bold statements, and claim they are facts. You can not just say "there cannot exist an argument for ..." without giving reasons as to WHY that argument can not exist. An absolute negative is usually hard to proof, so when you claim something like that, don't just act like it is obvious, because it is not. Give a good, logically sound explanation why that would be the case.
Also, do not expect everyone to have read exactly what you have read. Trying to throw as much unexplained terminology as possible at people in the hopes that they believe that because you have large words what you say must be true is not a good conversational technic. A good argumentation and understandable as possible, and only as complicated as necessary, instead of being as complicated as possible to obscure its actual meaning. If you feel the need for the latter, your points are probably not as good as you think.
Good scientific methodicality means that if you challenge the status quo, the burden of proof is yours. So, since you claim a lot of things that are counterintuitional, it would be a nice thing if you would deliver some proof. Please use as small words and as clear logic as possible to help people as stupid as me to understand your highly complex arguments. Maybe even use a second sentence to explain what you mean with the first one only filled with terminology.
Why can no argument exist to claim government use of resources is being preferrable to consumers keeping their purchasing power?
Why can government not be demonstrated to be better at solving the problems of famine?
|
On July 21 2011 03:26 xarthaz wrote:
I must repeat myself, however,
Tweks44, there cannot exist an argument to claim government use of resources being preferrable to consumers keeping their purchasing power.
It is because the concept of exchange does not exist within production. If it did, it would be private institution, hence the Hoppean argumentation supporting Monarchy&Anarchy over Democracy.
But it also means that government by the very definitions that western culture holds dear cannot be demonstrated to be better at solving the problem of famines than private enterprise.
Why is this important? Because this simple analytic passage debunks claims of any government involvment within economy having utility, hence it is a universal anti-government answer. And most of all, it is logically consistent and a resut of a priori praxeology, hence not open to refutation.
The fundamental problem with this argument is that production CAN be exchanged. I don't understand why you think it can't.
|
Guys, the extended argument for the claim of impossibility of demonstrating government spending being productive, unlike private spending, can be presented, Rothbard does it in a concise and powerful fashion:
This type of analysis of government has been neglected
because economists and statisticians tend to assume, rather
blithely, that government expenditures are a measure of its pro-
ductive contribution to society. In the “private sector” of the
economy, the value of productive output is sensibly gauged by
the amount of money that consumers spend voluntarily on that
output. Curiously, on the other hand, the government’s “pro-
ductive output” is gauged, not by what is spent on government,
but by what government itself spends! No wonder that
grandiose claims are often made for the unique productive
power of government spending, when a mere increase in that
spending serves to raise the government’s “productive contribu-
tion” to the economy.
What, then, is the productive contribution of government?
Since the value of government is not gauged on the market, and
the payments to the government are not voluntary, it is impossi-
ble to estimate. It is impossible to know how much would be paid
in to the government were it purely voluntary, or indeed, whether
one central government in each geographical area would exist at
all. Since, then, the only thing we do know is that the tax-and-
spend process diverts income and resources from what they
would have been doing in the “private sector,” we must conclude
that the government’s productive contribution to the economy is
precisely zero. Furthermore, even if it be objected that govern-
mental services are worth something, it would have to be noted
that we are again suffering from the error pointed out by Bastiat:
a sole emphasis on what is seen, to the neglect of what is not seen.
We may see the government’s hydroelectric dam in operation; we
do not see the things that private individuals would have done
with the money—whether buying consumers’ goods or investing
in producers’ goods—but which they were compelled to forgo. In
fact, since private consumers would have done something else,
something more desired, and therefore from their point of view
more productive, with the money, we can be sure that the loss in
productivity incurred by the government’s tax and spending is
greater than whatever productivity it has contributed. In short,
strictly, the government’s productivity is not simply zero, but neg-
ative, for it has imposed a loss in productivity upon society.
(MESPM, page 939-940)
Rothbard continues his crushing strike on government for a few hundred more pages, if interested. All his material is free available + free audio books at the Mises institute.
|
On July 21 2011 04:56 xarthaz wrote:
Guys, the extended argument for the claim of impossibility of demonstrating government spending being productive, unlike private spending, can be presented, Rothbard does it in a concise and powerful fashion:
This type of analysis of government has been neglected
because economists and statisticians tend to assume, rather
blithely, that government expenditures are a measure of its pro-
ductive contribution to society. In the “private sector” of the
economy, the value of productive output is sensibly gauged by
the amount of money that consumers spend voluntarily on that
output. Curiously, on the other hand, the government’s “pro-
ductive output” is gauged, not by what is spent on government,
but by what government itself spends! No wonder that
grandiose claims are often made for the unique productive
power of government spending, when a mere increase in that
spending serves to raise the government’s “productive contribu-
tion” to the economy.
What, then, is the productive contribution of government?
Since the value of government is not gauged on the market, and
the payments to the government are not voluntary, it is impossi-
ble to estimate. It is impossible to know how much would be paid
in to the government were it purely voluntary, or indeed, whether
one central government in each geographical area would exist at
all. Since, then, the only thing we do know is that the tax-and-
spend process diverts income and resources from what they
would have been doing in the “private sector,” we must conclude
that the government’s productive contribution to the economy is
precisely zero. Furthermore, even if it be objected that govern-
mental services are worth something, it would have to be noted
that we are again suffering from the error pointed out by Bastiat:
a sole emphasis on what is seen, to the neglect of what is not seen.
We may see the government’s hydroelectric dam in operation; we
do not see the things that private individuals would have done
with the money—whether buying consumers’ goods or investing
in producers’ goods—but which they were compelled to forgo. In
fact, since private consumers would have done something else,
something more desired, and therefore from their point of view
more productive, with the money, we can be sure that the loss in
productivity incurred by the government’s tax and spending is
greater than whatever productivity it has contributed. In short,
strictly, the government’s productivity is not simply zero, but neg-
ative, for it has imposed a loss in productivity upon society.
(MESPM, page 939-940)
Rothbard continues his crushing strike on government for a few hundred more pages, if interested. All his material is free available + free audio books at the Mises institute.
That's a well organized argument for anarchy. A government will not, by the virtue of its existence, increase the cash flow in an economy. This doesn't prove Somalia is a thriving nation though.
I'll delve deeper into this later if the thread hasn't ventured into different material. Particularly on the importance of a police force, fire fighting force, military and infrastructure that private institutions haven't been shown to successfully provide. I'm at work now.
|
Are we talking about this country located in the Horn of Africa currently experiencing an incredible famine?
It s not really anarchy there though, it can actually be divided in about 10 areas, each with different leaders (mostly warlords but not only). If anybody goes against their will they basically die.
Personnally I d rather have some corrupt politicians...
|
On July 21 2011 04:56 xarthaz wrote:
Guys, the extended argument for the claim of impossibility of demonstrating government spending being productive, unlike private spending, can be presented, Rothbard does it in a concise and powerful fashion:
This type of analysis of government has been neglected
because economists and statisticians tend to assume, rather
blithely, that government expenditures are a measure of its pro-
ductive contribution to society. In the “private sector” of the
economy, the value of productive output is sensibly gauged by
the amount of money that consumers spend voluntarily on that
output. Curiously, on the other hand, the government’s “pro-
ductive output” is gauged, not by what is spent on government,
but by what government itself spends! No wonder that
grandiose claims are often made for the unique productive
power of government spending, when a mere increase in that
spending serves to raise the government’s “productive contribu-
tion” to the economy.
What, then, is the productive contribution of government?
Since the value of government is not gauged on the market, and
the payments to the government are not voluntary, it is impossi-
ble to estimate. It is impossible to know how much would be paid
in to the government were it purely voluntary, or indeed, whether
one central government in each geographical area would exist at
all. Since, then, the only thing we do know is that the tax-and-
spend process diverts income and resources from what they
would have been doing in the “private sector,” we must conclude
that the government’s productive contribution to the economy is
precisely zero. Furthermore, even if it be objected that govern-
mental services are worth something, it would have to be noted
that we are again suffering from the error pointed out by Bastiat:
a sole emphasis on what is seen, to the neglect of what is not seen.
We may see the government’s hydroelectric dam in operation; we
do not see the things that private individuals would have done
with the money—whether buying consumers’ goods or investing
in producers’ goods—but which they were compelled to forgo. In
fact, since private consumers would have done something else,
something more desired, and therefore from their point of view
more productive, with the money, we can be sure that the loss in
productivity incurred by the government’s tax and spending is
greater than whatever productivity it has contributed. In short,
strictly, the government’s productivity is not simply zero, but neg-
ative, for it has imposed a loss in productivity upon society.
(MESPM, page 939-940)
Rothbard continues his crushing strike on government for a few hundred more pages, if interested. All his material is free available + free audio books at the Mises institute.
I have some questions:
Why does economy pay any role in the way a country should be governed?
How does the fact, that the government does not produce goods, that could not be produced in a "private" sector, make you jump to the conclusion, that any kind of government is completely useless and needs to be abolished? Also the government is providing jobs and thus the money comes back into the economy and vcia this way back into the private sector or am i wrong there and the government just burns it?
Police, Firedepartment, Hospitals and so on, could be replaced by private Companies. However those would be based on you paying these institutions money, which would let the poor not get these kinds of protection, so they have to do this stuff themselves. The government however provides this services for everybody in a equal way, without a direct payment, except for taxes.
Could you please explain that to me in simple words, cause english is not my native language and i have real trouble reading and understanding your posts T_T
|
On July 21 2011 05:14 WGT-Baal wrote:
Are we talking about this country located in the Horn of Africa currently experiencing an incredible famine?
It s not really anarchy there though, it can actually be divided in about 10 areas, each with different leaders (mostly warlords but not only). If anybody goes against their will they basically die.
Personnally I d rather have some corrupt politicians...
Didn't you read the OP? The thriving security sector and the booming cellphone industry all make up for tens of thousands of people dying due to violence and famine.
This thread is becoming more distasteful by the day, and all the armchair statesmen in this thread continue to discuss a theoretical approach on the benefits of anarchy in a modern society, which is fine and all, but has jack shit to do with anything happening in countries like Somalia. These countries need more, and better, governance.
Somalia has been a total disaster for at least the last 20 years, and will continue to be just that until some kind of government is in place, preferrably somewhat democratic, but anything would be a step up from the current situation.
|
On July 21 2011 04:56 xarthaz wrote:
Guys, the extended argument for the claim of impossibility of demonstrating government spending being productive, unlike private spending, can be presented, Rothbard does it in a concise and powerful fashion:
This type of analysis of government has been neglected
because economists and statisticians tend to assume, rather
blithely, that government expenditures are a measure of its pro-
ductive contribution to society. In the “private sector” of the
economy, the value of productive output is sensibly gauged by
the amount of money that consumers spend voluntarily on that
output. Curiously, on the other hand, the government’s “pro-
ductive output” is gauged, not by what is spent on government,
but by what government itself spends! No wonder that
grandiose claims are often made for the unique productive
power of government spending, when a mere increase in that
spending serves to raise the government’s “productive contribu-
tion” to the economy.
What, then, is the productive contribution of government?
Since the value of government is not gauged on the market, and
the payments to the government are not voluntary, it is impossi-
ble to estimate. It is impossible to know how much would be paid
in to the government were it purely voluntary, or indeed, whether
one central government in each geographical area would exist at
all. Since, then, the only thing we do know is that the tax-and-
spend process diverts income and resources from what they
would have been doing in the “private sector,” we must conclude
that the government’s productive contribution to the economy is
precisely zero. Furthermore, even if it be objected that govern-
mental services are worth something, it would have to be noted
that we are again suffering from the error pointed out by Bastiat:
a sole emphasis on what is seen, to the neglect of what is not seen.
We may see the government’s hydroelectric dam in operation; we
do not see the things that private individuals would have done
with the money—whether buying consumers’ goods or investing
in producers’ goods—but which they were compelled to forgo. In
fact, since private consumers would have done something else,
something more desired, and therefore from their point of view
more productive, with the money, we can be sure that the loss in
productivity incurred by the government’s tax and spending is
greater than whatever productivity it has contributed. In short,
strictly, the government’s productivity is not simply zero, but neg-
ative, for it has imposed a loss in productivity upon society.
(MESPM, page 939-940)
Rothbard continues his crushing strike on government for a few hundred more pages, if interested. All his material is free available + free audio books at the Mises institute.
First thing, you sound kind of like propaganda pamphlet. Maybe you can use your own words to argue ?
Anyway the cited argument is jumping to conclusions improperly and is contradictory. First he states that government's contribution is impossible to estimate and then (in next sentence) he claims it is precisely zero You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Actually only the statement about impossibility is correctly inferred from praxeology as far as I gather. So praxeology cannot tell us anything about value of the government. And that is it.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 21 2011 04:56 xarthaz wrote:
Guys, the extended argument for the claim of impossibility of demonstrating government spending being productive, unlike private spending, can be presented, Rothbard does it in a concise and powerful fashion:
This type of analysis of government has been neglected
because economists and statisticians tend to assume, rather
blithely, that government expenditures are a measure of its pro-
ductive contribution to society. In the “private sector” of the
economy, the value of productive output is sensibly gauged by
the amount of money that consumers spend voluntarily on that
output. Curiously, on the other hand, the government’s “pro-
ductive output” is gauged, not by what is spent on government,
but by what government itself spends! No wonder that
grandiose claims are often made for the unique productive
power of government spending, when a mere increase in that
spending serves to raise the government’s “productive contribu-
tion” to the economy.
What, then, is the productive contribution of government?
Since the value of government is not gauged on the market, and
the payments to the government are not voluntary, it is impossi-
ble to estimate. It is impossible to know how much would be paid
in to the government were it purely voluntary, or indeed, whether
one central government in each geographical area would exist at
all. Since, then, the only thing we do know is that the tax-and-
spend process diverts income and resources from what they
would have been doing in the “private sector,” we must conclude
that the government’s productive contribution to the economy is
precisely zero. Furthermore, even if it be objected that govern-
mental services are worth something, it would have to be noted
that we are again suffering from the error pointed out by Bastiat:
a sole emphasis on what is seen, to the neglect of what is not seen.
We may see the government’s hydroelectric dam in operation; we
do not see the things that private individuals would have done
with the money—whether buying consumers’ goods or investing
in producers’ goods—but which they were compelled to forgo. In
fact, since private consumers would have done something else,
something more desired, and therefore from their point of view
more productive, with the money, we can be sure that the loss in
productivity incurred by the government’s tax and spending is
greater than whatever productivity it has contributed. In short,
strictly, the government’s productivity is not simply zero, but neg-
ative, for it has imposed a loss in productivity upon society.
(MESPM, page 939-940)
Rothbard continues his crushing strike on government for a few hundred more pages, if interested. All his material is free available + free audio books at the Mises institute.
The problem with arguing from a purely economic standpoint is that economic gains do not necessarily correlate with an increase in quality of life. There have been plenty of years where economic indicators point to success but the quality of life for the average person is on the decline. I guess it depends entirely on how you define success.
|
zocktol, Government burning money would be better for the economy than spending it. Spending it bids resources to unprofitable government dictated ends, burning the taxed money would raise interest rates and stimulate real savings and investment.
mcc, rothbard is talking about statements that can be demonstrated. In the paradigm of demonstrated utility, government contribution is indeed zero
|
The title is very misleading, as it in a way promotes anarchy by stating that it is successful, even though that's not even true. Also, Somalia can't possibly be a model for the rest of the world.
|
Anarchy =/= Initiation of Violence. Be careful of attributing the effects of violence to the existence of anarchy. It's doubly wrong because also the person who is actually responsible for initiating the violence in question evades notice. Besides. How much anarchy is there really in Somalia, compared to how much initiated violence there is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
