If Anarchy can work, how come there are no historical records of it working?

[MoonShadow]

Indeed.  That statement needs to define what "freedom" means to the observer.  Rights are not the same as abilities, and permission is not the same as liberty.

And correlation is not causation...

[/quote]

Nope, but it sure as hell gives a good idea as to where to start looking...

Which raises an interesting anthropological question.  What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?

As to this, I have no idea.

And it looks like we have really touched a nerve today....

[1715346123]

1715346123

[MoonShadow]

taxation based on democratic consent

By that, I assume you mean the majority consenting to tax the minority?

No - back then it was the minority taxing the majority.  Its only recently that the franchaise has been extended enough to include those without class or property.  By recently I mean the 1800s.

Is that what you think?  The first direct tax upon the citizenry of the new United States (as opposed to taxation of the states themselves) was the Whiskey Tax that resulted in the Whiskey Rebellion.  That was a tax on distilled alchohol that directly affected the livelyhoods of less than 1% of the population. 

[Hawker]

Did you read the question? 

Did you?

What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?

No-one knows.  A few countries can point to specific events that turn their history on its head and shaped their destiny.  For example, the Japanese can make a direct link between the arrival of Perry, the rulers seeing that if they didn't adapt damn fast they would be colonised and the Meiji era.

Most of the rest of us live in countries where cultures have evolved over centuries and are still changing.  The US, Ireland and the UK have a regard for personal freedom, taxation based on democratic consent and property rights that was clearly visible in the 1640s during the English civil war.  100 years before, none of those things mattered. 

And our shared political culture hasn't really had a major change since then.

None of that drivel is about a voluntary society.

Seriously, after all that you can't read the question?  

lol.  What's happened you?  You used be a smart guy.  Now one day you are threatening to beat people up and next day unable to read questions and being argumentative for the sake of it.  

[Hawker]

taxation based on democratic consent

By that, I assume you mean the majority consenting to tax the minority?

No - back then it was the minority taxing the majority.  Its only recently that the franchaise has been extended enough to include those without class or property.  By recently I mean the 1800s.

Is that what you think?  The first direct tax upon the citizenry of the new United States (as opposed to taxation of the states themselves) was the Whiskey Tax that resulted in the Whiskey Rebellion.  That was a tax on distilled alchohol that directly affected the livelyhoods of less than 1% of the population. 

What percentage of the population had the vote?

[myrkul]

Did you read the question? 

Did you?

What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?

No-one knows.  A few countries can point to specific events that turn their history on its head and shaped their destiny.  For example, the Japanese can make a direct link between the arrival of Perry, the rulers seeing that if they didn't adapt damn fast they would be colonised and the Meiji era.

Most of the rest of us live in countries where cultures have evolved over centuries and are still changing.  The US, Ireland and the UK have a regard for personal freedom, taxation based on democratic consent and property rights that was clearly visible in the 1640s during the English civil war.  100 years before, none of those things mattered. 

And our shared political culture hasn't really had a major change since then.

None of that drivel is about a voluntary society.

Seriously, after all that you can't read the question?  

I can read it just fine.

You seem to be having some serious comprehension issues, though.
To illustrate, My answer to the above question:

The answer is simultaneously simple, and complex. It can be best summed up with the quote, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

[Hawker]

Did you read the question? 

Did you?

What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?

No-one knows.  A few countries can point to specific events that turn their history on its head and shaped their destiny.  For example, the Japanese can make a direct link between the arrival of Perry, the rulers seeing that if they didn't adapt damn fast they would be colonised and the Meiji era.

Most of the rest of us live in countries where cultures have evolved over centuries and are still changing.  The US, Ireland and the UK have a regard for personal freedom, taxation based on democratic consent and property rights that was clearly visible in the 1640s during the English civil war.  100 years before, none of those things mattered. 

And our shared political culture hasn't really had a major change since then.

None of that drivel is about a voluntary society.

Seriously, after all that you can't read the question?  

I can read it just fine.

You seem to be having some serious comprehension issues, though.
To illustrate, My answer to the above question:

The answer is simultaneously simple, and complex. It can be best summed up with the quote, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Question was "What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?"
Context was a statement that societies invaded by Vikings were more likely to be liberal.
My answer, whether you agree with it or not, was "No-one knows." 

Now please stop being stupid and either give a better answer or move on.

[wdmw]

The Danes are free in both senses of the word.  They can make decisions but they are provided for if it all goes wrong.  I dont' get what your problem is with that.  Poverty is not a social good.  The absence of poverty does not mean the absence of making decisions.

I don't have a problem with it, nor am I Danish.  I have a problem with the basis of a disagreement being centered around word usage.

I am trying to illustrate different uses of the term 'freedom', and how some uses require an additional qualifier, and how it is fallacious to then drop that qualifier and call it a different 'concept' of freedom.  It is a specific application of freedom.  If some subset of people hold 'Freedom from x' as their highest ideal, they have the freedom to do that.

When I refer to freedom, it means the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.

In Denmark, there is a very different understanding of what "freedom" means. In that country, they have gone a long way to ending the enormous anxieties that comes with economic insecurity. Instead of promoting a system which allows a few to have enormous wealth, they have developed a system which guarantees a strong minimal standard of living to all -- including the children, the elderly and the disabled.

It sounds like you are endorsing the idea that freedom includes a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all.

I sort of like it too. Especially if we are moving to a society where machines remove the need for most workers. 

I suppose it could seem that way, when you paste in a quote that I did not make as if it were mine.

[Hawker]

The Danes are free in both senses of the word.  They can make decisions but they are provided for if it all goes wrong.  I dont' get what your problem is with that.  Poverty is not a social good.  The absence of poverty does not mean the absence of making decisions.

I don't have a problem with it, nor am I Danish.  I have a problem with the basis of a disagreement being centered around word usage.

I am trying to illustrate different uses of the term 'freedom', and how some uses require an additional qualifier, and how it is fallacious to then drop that qualifier and call it a different 'concept' of freedom.  It is a specific application of freedom.  If some subset of people hold 'Freedom from x' as their highest ideal, they have the freedom to do that.

When I refer to freedom, it means the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.

In Denmark, there is a very different understanding of what "freedom" means. In that country, they have gone a long way to ending the enormous anxieties that comes with economic insecurity. Instead of promoting a system which allows a few to have enormous wealth, they have developed a system which guarantees a strong minimal standard of living to all -- including the children, the elderly and the disabled.

It sounds like you are endorsing the idea that freedom includes a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all.

I sort of like it too. Especially if we are moving to a society where machines remove the need for most workers.  

I suppose it could seem that way, when you paste in a quote that I did not make as if it were mine.

The quote is not marked yours.  Its from the question I replied to.

So, I'm a little lost now.  Did you agree the idea of freedom from necessity can mean a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all?

[MoonShadow]

And yes, politics is a science.)

We both know that the two of us are not gonna have a fruitful discussion, so I'm not gonna get into one again, but I will tell you this.

I have a degree in political science. Anyone who does can tell you (or: should be able to tell you) that the name is misleading, since politics does not adhere to typical scientific standards; it's not falsifiable and it's not repeatable (especially not in an enclosed environment).

Neither is Praxeology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology) but it is most certainly a science.  The root goal of science is to be able to develop theories of the natural world, with the goal of making predictions.  As with anything outside of the hard sciences, it's very difficult or impossible to make a controlled test of a hypothesis; this does not mean that a well formed theory cannot be used to make effective predictions.   Praxeology is damn good at making predictions.  Other social sciences have varying degrees of usefulness in this regard.

That does not mean that political science (or any other non-beta type of science) is useless, or at least I do not think it is. I think it can certainly teach us useful stuff, but it is very important to realize that it is not science in the "traditional" sense of the word. We cannot prove anything in a scientific manner; the usefulness rests in the discussions more than anywhere else. We can pose ideas and discuss hypothesis, in this way we can even get to some sort of estimation of probability, but we must always realize there just is no real way of knowing anything in any scientific way.

Well, If I had kep[t reading, I would have noticed that you already agreed with me.

In other words, political science is paradoxically only useful if you first realize that it's actually not science at all.

In this case, I think you are projecting modernism - the believe in progress as based on science - on non-scientific concepts like politics, or freedom. If political science tells us anything, it is that we can not do that. We can not say whether or not the concept of freedom has progressed, at least not in a scientific way as you seem to be suggesting.

I disagree with this last part, at least partially.  While we can't prove anything, we can certainly demonstrate that the general trend has been towards greater freedom for the individual, however that is defined.

[MoonShadow]

So, I'm a little lost now.  Did you agree the idea of freedom from necessity can mean a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all?

I can garrantee that Myrkul would not agree that a freedom from want would not be a human right.  When Myrkul says "freedom" he generally means "liberty to excercise our basic human rights, without interference from third parties", but that would result in an awful lot of typing if he had to write it that way every time.

Freedom from want is not a human right, but a human does have the right to not be prevented from seeking out their wants by others; with the cavet that their wants do not harm others in their pursuit.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Neither is Praxeology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology) but it is most certainly a science.  The root goal of science is to be able to develop theories of the natural world, with the goal of making predictions.  As with anything outside of the hard sciences, it's very difficult or impossible to make a controlled test of a hypothesis; this does not mean that a well formed theory cannot be used to make effective predictions.   Praxeology is damn good at making predictions.  Other social sciences have varying degrees of usefulness in this regard.
...snip...

Would Praxeology really have forecast that after 5 years of quantitative easing, inflation would be a thing of the past and deflation our main danger?  My recall was that in 2010 the Austrians were predicting hyperinflation.

http://www.hyperinflation-us.com/

Yet now inflation is a distant memory: http://coppolacomment.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/inflation-deflation-and-qe.html

I don't mean to pick on Praxeology.  I just think that things like politics, economics and sociology can never be sciences in the "the is a correct answer" sense.

[Hawker]

So, I'm a little lost now.  Did you agree the idea of freedom from necessity can mean a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all?

I can garrantee that Myrkul would not agree that a freedom from want would not be a human right.  When Myrkul says "freedom" he generally means "liberty to excercise our basic human rights, without interference from third parties", but that would result in an awful lot of typing if he had to write it that way every time.

Freedom from want is not a human right, but a human does have the right to not be prevented from seeking out their wants by others; with the cavet that their wants do not harm others in their pursuit.

Oh I agree.  I was replying to wdmw

Personally I think the state providing a bare minimum is enough.  In the UK, no-one can ever be homeless or hungry unless a terrible thing like drug addiction makes life impossible.  The Danes obviously go a lot further.

[myrkul]

Question was "What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?"
Context was a statement that societies invaded by Vikings were more likely to be liberal.
My answer, whether you agree with it or not, was "No-one knows." 

Now please stop being stupid and either give a better answer or move on.

"No one knows"? That's your best answer to how a society remains voluntary? And you back it up with a buch of bullshit about previous non-voluntary societies. And then, as the icing on your little shit-cake, you have the unmitigated audacity to call me stupid. I gave a much better answer than that nonsense in the first reply to that question:

The answer is simultaneously simple, and complex. It can be best summed up with the quote, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Now, would you like an in-depth explanation? Because I think I can dumb it down enough for you if the above quote doesn't explain it sufficiently.

[Hawker]

Question was "What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?"
Context was a statement that societies invaded by Vikings were more likely to be liberal.
My answer, whether you agree with it or not, was "No-one knows." 

Now please stop being stupid and either give a better answer or move on.

"No one knows"? That's your best answer to how a society remains voluntary? And you back it up with a buch of bullshit about previous non-voluntary societies. And then, as the icing on your little shit-cake, you have the unmitigated audacity to call me stupid. I gave a much better answer than that nonsense in the first reply to that question:

The answer is simultaneously simple, and complex. It can be best summed up with the quote, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Now, would you like an in-depth explanation? Because I think I can dumb it down enough for you if the above quote doesn't explain it sufficiently.

Again, read the question.

[wdmw]

Did you agree the idea of freedom from necessity can mean a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all?

I agree that freedom from necessity would mean a guarantee of a minimal standard of living to all.

I do not agree that freedom includes a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all.

The difference between those two statements is the difference in definition I was pointing out earlier in this thread.

[MoonShadow]

I sort of like it too. Especially if we are moving to a society where machines remove the need for most workers. 

That's been the case for over 100 years.  The funny thing about using machines to replace workers, is that those workers always seem to find some other useful skill for which to spend their time.  Just stop and think about how much more work you would have to do every day without a flush toilet.

[myrkul]

Question was "What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?"
Context was a statement that societies invaded by Vikings were more likely to be liberal.
My answer, whether you agree with it or not, was "No-one knows." 

Now please stop being stupid and either give a better answer or move on.

"No one knows"? That's your best answer to how a society remains voluntary? And you back it up with a buch of bullshit about previous non-voluntary societies. And then, as the icing on your little shit-cake, you have the unmitigated audacity to call me stupid. I gave a much better answer than that nonsense in the first reply to that question:

The answer is simultaneously simple, and complex. It can be best summed up with the quote, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Now, would you like an in-depth explanation? Because I think I can dumb it down enough for you if the above quote doesn't explain it sufficiently.

Again, read the question.

I have, and I answered it. You didn't. Maybe you might want to re-read it.

[Hawker]

I sort of like it too. Especially if we are moving to a society where machines remove the need for most workers. 

That's been the case for over 100 years.  The funny thing about using machines to replace workers, is that those workers always seem to find some other useful skill for which to spend their time.  Just stop and think about how much more work you would have to do every day without a flush toilet.

True.  100 years ago there was no manicure profession.

[Hawker]

Question was "What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?"
Context was a statement that societies invaded by Vikings were more likely to be liberal.
My answer, whether you agree with it or not, was "No-one knows." 

Now please stop being stupid and either give a better answer or move on.

"No one knows"? That's your best answer to how a society remains voluntary? And you back it up with a buch of bullshit about previous non-voluntary societies. And then, as the icing on your little shit-cake, you have the unmitigated audacity to call me stupid. I gave a much better answer than that nonsense in the first reply to that question:

The answer is simultaneously simple, and complex. It can be best summed up with the quote, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Now, would you like an in-depth explanation? Because I think I can dumb it down enough for you if the above quote doesn't explain it sufficiently.

Again, read the question.

I have, and I answered it. You didn't. Maybe you might want to re-read it.

The question was what causes societies to move towards being more voluntary.  You may think that eternal vigilence caused it but that doesn't change the fact that it seemed to emerge in the 1600s and that it wasn't there in the 1500s.

I'm going to stick with "No-one knows."

[Hawker]

Did you agree the idea of freedom from necessity can mean a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all?

I agree that freedom from necessity would mean a guarantee of a minimal standard of living to all.

I do not agree that freedom includes a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all.

The difference between those two statements is the difference in definition I was pointing out earlier in this thread.

Gotcha.  So you personally don't feel that freedom includes a guarantee of a strong minimal standard of living to all.