PDA

View Full Version : I, Pencil and Anarcho-Capitalism



Chris
07-14-2012, 01:08 PM
This is for those who think every criticism of government is an argument for anarcho-capitalism. This is for those who don't know what anarcho-capitalism is.

Murray Rothbard became an anarco-capitalist when he realized every argument for reducing government leads logically to removing government.

But what is anarco-capitalism? The best, most succinct definition I've seen is it is governance without government.

Doesn't exist and never has you say, but it does all around us. It's the social norms and institutions that provide governance to our every interaction with others.

Adam Smith called it the Invisible Hand.

Here's an example of anarcho-capitalism at work from Leonard Reed, I, Pencil: My Family Tree (http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html). Better yet here's a new video from Produced and design by Lewis Foster (http://www.fee.org/featured/i-pencil-family-tree-and-documentary-by-lewis-foster/) incorporating Milton Friedman's version:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tf7-go94ABo

So there you have it, the logical conclusion to Thoreau's aphorism "That government is best which governs least".

Peter1469
07-14-2012, 02:14 PM
I think that you are confusing separate concepts. Adam Smith's invisible hand theory has nothing whatsoever to do with governments or the absence of governments. It is about the markets and how they naturally channel human emotion and action like clockwork in a way that government cannot do.

This has nothing to do with governments acting in their own self interest outside of the economic sphere. The concept of sovereign immunity, BTW, doesn't apply when the government is acting in an economic/business function, as opposed to exercising governmental power.

So the original discussion was free trade. To sum up my point: if another nation heavily subsidies its companies to dump product in the US, that !=free trade. (! means not).

Chris
07-14-2012, 03:02 PM
I think that you are confusing separate concepts. Adam Smith's invisible hand theory has nothing whatsoever to do with governments or the absence of governments. It is about the markets and how they naturally channel human emotion and action like clockwork in a way that government cannot do.

This has nothing to do with governments acting in their own self interest outside of the economic sphere. The concept of sovereign immunity, BTW, doesn't apply when the government is acting in an economic/business function, as opposed to exercising governmental power.

So the original discussion was free trade. To sum up my point: if another nation heavily subsidies its companies to dump product in the US, that !=free trade. (! means not).


I think that you are confusing separate concepts. Adam Smith's invisible hand theory has nothing whatsoever to do with governments or the absence of governments. It is about the markets and how they naturally channel human emotion and action like clockwork in a way that government cannot do.

Ironic you say I'm confusing things and then repeat exactly what I said. The Invisible Hand is what you say and that is also what anarcho-capitalism is about. I think you missed governance without government. What is that governance but what you just described.



This has nothing to do with governments...

Bingo! Exactly. It has to do with governance.



So the original discussion was free trade...

No, the OP is about how I, Pencil represents anarcho-capitalism. Free trade is discussed in other threads. It's ironic that in free trade discussions you try to shift discussion to anarco-capitalism and here vice versa.

Peter1469
07-14-2012, 03:17 PM
Great weave and dodge Chris- while accusing me of what you are doing! Brilliant.

Does a nation-state have any interest whatsoever in trade. Yes or no.

Chris
07-14-2012, 03:22 PM
...

Elided irrelvancies. This is a discussion of what anarcho-capitalism is about. Did you have questions about it?

Peter1469
07-14-2012, 05:18 PM
Not at all. I know what it is.

Chris
07-14-2012, 05:25 PM
Not at all. I know what it is.

And that is, what? What is anarch-capitalism?

Peter1469
07-14-2012, 05:27 PM
And that is, what? What is anarch-capitalism?

I told you that I knew what it was. If that is what this thread is about then it is done.

Start another thread about world geopolitical realities.

Chris
07-14-2012, 05:59 PM
I told you that I knew what it was. If that is what this thread is about then it is done.

Start another thread about world geopolitical realities.

Go right ahead, start another topic.

Here's a Anarcho-capitalist FAQ, and here's some salient points:
Murray Rothbard coined the term "anarcho-capitalist" in the winter of 1949 or 1950. "My whole position was inconsistent [...], there were only two logical possibilities: socialism, or anarchism. Since it was out of the question for me to become a socialist, I found myself pushed by the irresistible logic of the case, a private property anarchist, or, as I would later dub it, an anarcho-capitalist."

...What justifications are there for anarcho-capitalism?... The life of man qua man, man as a rational being, morally necessitates a laissez-faire economic system. (Ayn Rand and objectivists)
Man must be free and uncoerced so that the man, especially his moral faculty, is allowed to evolve. (Herbert Spencer)
There is an overriding moral principle in civilized society: that no one should violate the (general moral) rights of others, i.e. initiate force or threat of force. This is called the NAP - Non-Aggression Principle. (Spencer, Rand, Rothbard)
Capitalism is contractual; it is what rational people implicitly agree to do when they enter society. (Narveson) ...
Libertarianism capitalism is simply what society will do more or less in many or most places in the absense of a State. (David Friedman) This is a a utilitarian or "value-free" economic approach.
One cannot argue against anarcho-capitalism without implicitly agreeing to its basic assumptions. (Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumention ethic.)

...What are the myths of statism? We are the government.... The government acts for the common good.... Government is the only way to solve problem X.... State and society are are the same, or at least closely allied....

Peter1469
07-14-2012, 08:49 PM
Go right ahead, start another topic.

Here's a Anarcho-capitalist FAQ (http://Anarcho-capitalist FAQ), and here's some salient points:

Rothbard was wrong.

Chris
07-14-2012, 09:37 PM
Rothbard was wrong.

Wow, now there's an argument! Can't think of a thing to say to counter it, since you say nothing. Other than to point out you're arguing the man, not what he said.

Peter1469
07-14-2012, 09:58 PM
Wow, now there's an argument! Can't think of a thing to say to counter it, since you say nothing. Other than to point out you're arguing the man, not what he said.

I already did in previous posts. Round and round....

Chris
07-15-2012, 10:33 AM
I already did in previous posts. Round and round....

Oh? Where?

Let's see, you said
Adam Smith's invisible hand theory has nothing whatsoever to do with governments or the absence of governments.
In fact, neither does anarco-capitalism, as I pointed out earlier. Both about "the markets and how they naturally channel human emotion and action like clockwork in a way that government cannot do."So you got anarco-caoitalism wrong, even though you claim to know what it is. It is not so much about the absence of artificial, coercive government, but the presence of natural, cooperative governance, as is found in the free market, a social institution like all others that emerge from man's interactions.

You've said nothing on topic since that one erroneous statement, other than Rothbard was wrong, which is not an argument anything.

Peter1469
07-15-2012, 12:01 PM
Oh? Where?

Let's see, you said
In fact, neither does anarco-capitalism, as I pointed out earlier. Both about "the markets and how they naturally channel human emotion and action like clockwork in a way that government cannot do."So you got anarco-caoitalism wrong, even though you claim to know what it is. It is not so much about the absence of artificial, coercive government, but the presence of natural, cooperative governance, as is found in the free market, a social institution like all others that emerge from man's interactions.

You've said nothing on topic since that one erroneous statement, other than Rothbard was wrong, which is not an argument anything.

Incorrect, again, Chris.

Just pay attention to what I say, not what you wish that I had said.

Chris
07-15-2012, 12:25 PM
Incorrect, again, Chris.

Just pay attention to what I say, not what you wish that I had said.

I quoted what you said and now you deny it? I think the problem here is your own wishful thinking, you've conjured up an imaginary straw man of what anarco-capitalism is and think you've beat the hay out if it. If you had an argument, you'd argue instead of talking about talking about it.

Your words again: "the markets and how they naturally channel human emotion and action like clockwork in a way that government cannot do."

Exactly what I posted earlier as
What justifications are there for anarcho-capitalism?... The life of man qua man, man as a rational being, morally necessitates a laissez-faire economic system. (Ayn Rand and objectivists)
Man must be free and uncoerced so that the man, especially his moral faculty, is allowed to evolve. (Herbert Spencer)
There is an overriding moral principle in civilized society: that no one should violate the (general moral) rights of others, i.e. initiate force or threat of force. This is called the NAP - Non-Aggression Principle. (Spencer, Rand, Rothbard)
Capitalism is contractual; it is what rational people implicitly agree to do when they enter society. (Narveson) ...
Libertarianism capitalism is simply what society will do more or less in many or most places in the absense of a State. (David Friedman) This is a a utilitarian or "value-free" economic approach.
One cannot argue against anarcho-capitalism without implicitly agreeing to its basic assumptions. (Hans-Hermann Hoppe's argumention ethic.)

Exactly what "I, Pencil" is all about.

You've supported that by your words, you haven't argued against it other than to repeat like a broken you feel it's wrong.

Chris
07-15-2012, 12:30 PM
Here is how Leonard Reed concludes "I, Pencil:
If I, Pencil, were the only item that could offer testimony on what men and women can accomplish when free to try, then those with little faith would have a fair case. However, there is testimony galore; it's all about us and on every hand. Mail delivery is exceedingly simple when compared, for instance, to the making of an automobile or a calculating machine or a grain combine or a milling machine or to tens of thousands of other things. Delivery? Why, in this area where men have been left free to try, they deliver the human voice around the world in less than one second; they deliver an event visually and in motion to any person's home when it is happening; they deliver 150 passengers from Seattle to Baltimore in less than four hours; they deliver gas from Texas to one's range or furnace in New York at unbelievably low rates and without subsidy; they deliver each four pounds of oil from the Persian Gulf to our Eastern Seaboard—halfway around the world—for less money than the government charges for delivering a one-ounce letter across the street!

The lesson I have to teach is this: Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society's legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand. This faith will be confirmed. I, Pencil, seemingly simple though I am, offer the miracle of my creation as testimony that this is a practical faith, as practical as the sun, the rain, a cedar tree, the good earth.

Do you have an argument with that other than the banal he's wrong?

Peter1469
07-15-2012, 01:04 PM
Here is how Leonard Reed concludes "I, Pencil:

Do you have an argument with that other than the banal he's wrong?

I agree with I pencil and have posted it on other forums before.

It does not contradict my position on free trade.

Chris
07-15-2012, 01:48 PM
I agree with I pencil and have posted it on other forums before.

It does not contradict my position on free trade.

Uh, we're not discussing free trade here. We're discussing a different topic, the natural order of things.

Peter1469
07-15-2012, 02:34 PM
Uh, we're not discussing free trade here. We're discussing a different topic, the natural order of things.


OK

Chris
07-15-2012, 03:16 PM
Your words again, which were on topic:
Adam Smith's invisible hand theory has nothing whatsoever to do with governments or the absence of governments. It is about the markets and how they naturally channel human emotion and action like clockwork in a way that government cannot do.

And to which I responded that is what anarcho-capitalism is about.

Anarcho-Capitalism (http://www.iep.utm.edu/libertar/#SH3aii): "Robert Nozick was one of the first academic philosophers to take the anarchist challenge seriously. In the first part of his Anarchy, State, and Utopia he argued that the minimal state can evolve out of an anarcho-capitalist society through an invisible hand process that does not violate anyone’s rights."

Republicans And Anarcho-Capitalism, One And The Same (http://my.firedoglake.com/somethingthedogsaid/2010/04/19/republicans-and-anarcho-capitalism-one-and-the-same/#more-41925): "[Anarcho-capitalists] believe the invisible hand of the market, if left completely unchecked will correct any and all problems. An anarcho-capitalist is all about private property rights and the exchange of those property rights as a market."

Anarcho-Capitalism, The New Beginning (http://freemarketanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/anarcho-capitalism-new-beginning.html): "Rothbard arrived at the choice of keeping what worked well with Smith and “The Invisible Hand,” yet expanded on Smith and critiqued his ideas of minarchy as well."

The New Right and Anarcho-capitalism (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/dward/newrightanarchocap.html): "Anarcho-capitalists share Adam Smith's confidence that somehow private interest will translate itself into public good rather than public squalor. They are convinced that the 'natural laws' of economics can do without the support of positive man-made laws. The 'invisible hand' of the market will be enough to bring social order."

Peter1469
07-15-2012, 05:17 PM
Right. But mega corporations operate outside of the free market. Yes, by co-opting government. Don't ignore that factor.

Chris
07-15-2012, 05:26 PM
Right. But mega corporations operate outside of the free market. Yes, by co-opting government. Don't ignore that factor.

Yeah, that's sort of being discussed in this thread: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/4431-Only-Government-Intervention-Can-Stop-Corrupt-Capitalism. Corporations are a creation of government as much now as when Adam Smith decried them. They are not a product of the invisible hand as we're discussing here.

Peter1469
07-15-2012, 06:38 PM
Yeah, that's sort of being discussed in this thread: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/4431-Only-Government-Intervention-Can-Stop-Corrupt-Capitalism. Corporations are a creation of government as much now as when Adam Smith decried them. They are not a product of the invisible hand as we're discussing here.

Well we agree on that.