Anarcho-Capitalistic Dogmatism

[BE Phoenix]

http://analyticaleconomist.blogspot.com/2013/06/anarcho-capitalistic-dogmatism.html

"Yet another problem is the Neo-Austrian/Neo-Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist rejects model theory in economics because they believe that models cannot properly capture reality.  So for example, the perfect competition model shows what an economy would look like given these assumptions:

    Infinite buyers and sellers
    Zero entry and exit barriers
    Perfect mobility of goods and services
    Perfect information
    Zero transaction costs
    Profit maximization
    Homogeneous products 
    Non-increasing returns to scale
    Property rights               


All economists realize that these factors do not exist in real-time but nonetheless, it is a theory that can be utilized for advancement of a free society.

Here is the problem for the Neo-Austrian/Neo-Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist; while rejecting models for lack of realism, the perfect competition model IS the anarcho-capitalist theory of society.  This, of course, is highly problematic."


thoughts??...   

[1715042987]

1715042987

[1715042987]

1715042987

[1715042987]

1715042987

[1715042987]

1715042987

[1715042987]

1715042987

[Adrian-x]

http://analyticaleconomist.blogspot.com/2013/06/anarcho-capitalistic-dogmatism.html

"Yet another problem is the Neo-Austrian/Neo-Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist rejects model theory in economics because they believe that models cannot properly capture reality.  So for example, the perfect competition model shows what an economy would look like given these assumptions:

    Infinite buyers and sellers
    Zero entry and exit barriers
    Perfect mobility of goods and services
    Perfect information
    Zero transaction costs
    Profit maximization
    Homogeneous products 
    Non-increasing returns to scale
    Property rights               


All economists realize that these factors do not exist in real-time but nonetheless, it is a theory that can be utilized for advancement of a free society.

Here is the problem for the Neo-Austrian/Neo-Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist; while rejecting models for lack of realism, the perfect competition model IS the anarcho-capitalist theory of society.  This, of course, is highly problematic."


thoughts??...   

There are aspects of economy which are subject to human preference this is what makes Economics a Social Science not a Science.   
Economic models that encompass human preference will need to employ Social Science to derive an outcome, as human preference is subjective the results will be subjected to interpretation of human preference.

Take a monopoly for an example, as soon as the monopolist starts overcharging, human preference shifts, so as not to be overcharged. So it is not possible to create a scientific model of an economy because human preference is a "whack a mole" variable.

Now there are economic laws that are scientific, take the law of supply and demand in determining price for example.  It is possible to argue that supply is not in fact a law, because you can manipulate human preference, by adjusting the money supply and price.

So any economic model that uses variables that counteract laws will be inaccurate and will eventually fail, and thus should be rejected. 

However distill an economic models to the most fundamental level can illustrate simple principals e.g. A scenario to demonstrate supply and demand, defines a law.  It is from this point you can define a scientific model of an economy, and if you do you very quickly learn it can't be modeled, and is best to build on a solid base leaving every individual correcting and controlling his own preference / destiny than to try and control through a central authority divorced from responsibility or consequence.

 Of the fundamentals you list I can understand why one should model on them - except Property rights, I have yet to be convinced. 

[Adrian-x]

I suppose I should have read the article linked, I will.
But first in the opening: "Yesterday I read a comment posted by an anarcho-capitalist that was truly mind boggling."

I'd say the author just read something very enlightening, unfortunately didn't link to it, and hasn't yet understood it.

" this anarcho-capitalist has more respect for the reasoning of Marx" this is good news as it opens the door to understanding the problems we are grappling with today.   

[ErisDiscordia]

"Yet another problem is the Neo-Austrian/Neo-Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist rejects model theory in economics because they believe that models cannot properly capture reality 

A healthy dose of cynicism about models can go a long way towards not falling into ANY kind of dogmatism. The map is not the territory.

[BE Phoenix]

"Yet another problem is the Neo-Austrian/Neo-Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist rejects model theory in economics because they believe that models cannot properly capture reality 

A healthy dose of cynicism about models can go a long way towards not falling into ANY kind of dogmatism. The map is not the territory.

That's silly you can be dogmatic in rejecting models... there's a "healthy dose" and then there's complete rejection. 

[BE Phoenix]

Well apparently this is a series...   specifically dealing the with the minarchist/anarchist issue.  The next post is rather interesting...

http://analyticaleconomist.blogspot.com/2013/06/anarcho-capitalistic-dogmatism-part-ii.html

"A general principle to follow when critiquing somebody elses views is you have to properly represent what they have said.  If this principle is not followed you will miss your mark and fail at your endeavor.  There are various degrees to how far a person can miss the mark but if you aim small you will miss small.  At one end of the spectrum you have the complete straw-man where the critical analysis does not even give the slightest impression the critic desired to accurately portray the view under scrutiny.  Usually when this happens it has the distinctive whiff of a smear job and should not be taken seriously.  On the other end of the spectrum you have the case where the critic takes the view under analysis quite seriously and strives to accurately portray it in order to allow a proper hearing.  The judiciously constructed critiques are much more difficult to write because it requires meticulous attention to detail and careful intellectual craftsmanship."

...  I'm not going to get into the comment about Marx, the idea that his work is philosophically enlightening is silly.

But I'm more curious about what anarchists have to say about this matter in that I am on the fence on some of the minarchist/anarchist issues.

[Adrian-x]

TLDR,
I got as far as unraveling Milton Friedman, and gave up. I'm ADHD
For me it is about principal the rest is noise.

Keynes isn't the problem. He may not have had Hayek's logic but he understood human greed and spite better than Hayek, and sort a system to manage it. The beauty of Hyaek's approach is it is closer to the order of nature and doesn't need to be managed.

Why you shouldn't dismiss Marx is because his teachings show us how that we need to make the free market work and by eliminate monopolies the tool of greed that screws up the free market. *edit*

Friedman a charismatic friendly spokesperson with a sharp mind, is easy to dismiss on principle he undermines everything Keynes has done to maintain checks and balances in the market, uses Hayek's teachings to prove the free market is the solution but he distils the Keynesian model down to a single point of control and sanctions a monopoly through monetarism, and gives control to elite bankers. While much of his teachings are good he is ignorant to greed and the imbalance he has created in giving control of the money supply as a monopoly to private bankers.

If you have an intellectual problem with the idea of the Fed, you are at odds with Friedman.

[herzmeister]

...  I'm not going to get into the comment about Marx, the idea that his work is philosophically enlightening is silly.

Why you shouldn't dismiss Marx is because his teachings show us how to make the free market work and eliminate monopolies the tool of greed that screws up the free market.

you folks should actually read some Marx before being qualified of an opinion. Not that I agree with most of his work, but when I see ignorant comments like this, like the blind talking about colors, I can't help but wonder why many people seem to need a simplistic strawboogeyman to assert their equally simplistic position.

[BE Phoenix]

I have read Marx...  I was simplifying/dismissing the Marx comment because I wasn't interested in getting into that argument on this thread I was specifically looking for others opinions on the Friedman/Rothbard issue presented in these posts.

My understanding of Marx's economic and philosophical positions can be summed up as this:
-a historical dialectic grounded in materialistic metaphysics
-a contemptuous view of the results the division of labor has on society
-the inherent class struggle found in a capitalistic political economy due to the division of labor and labor theory of value
-the fruition of these positions resulting in the alienation of man

Now if you want to get into any of these discussions I would be happy to entertain in a different thread, but I would LOVE it if we could keep this post on topic. 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Insofar as AnCaps like Rothbard claim to know what an ideal society would look like (it would/wouldn't have intellectual property, etc.), they contradict themselves. However, it is entirely unnecessary for an anti-statist to claim they know how society should ideally operate; consistent AnCaps understand that the market (the natural order of society) will determine everything.

Great debate on this exact point:

http://wwww.qjae.org/community/forums/p/10277/273307.aspx#273307

[BE Phoenix]

Insofar as AnCaps like Rothbard claim to know what an ideal society would look like (it would/wouldn't have intellectual property, etc.), they contradict themselves. However, it is entirely unnecessary for an anti-statist to claim they know how society should ideally operate; consistent AnCaps understand that the market (the natural order of society) will determine everything.

Great debate on this exact point:

http://wwww.qjae.org/community/forums/p/10277/273307.aspx#273307

Thanks for actual content,  but being that this discussion started back in 2009 it will take me awhile to get through it all... great discussion so far!!

[AceCoin]

The map is not the territory.

 

[johnyj]

Just like central banks' operation, many things have become so complex and no one really understand how it works, eventually everyone is gambling (from long term point of view)

[BE Phoenix]

This post turned into an interesting back and forth between Amanda Billyrock and the Analytic Economist:

Her response is here:
http://amandabillyrock.com/the-truth-about-anarchism/

and the Analytic Economist expands on his original post here:
http://analyticaleconomist.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-truth-about-anarchism-reply-to.html

I'm still swayed by the minarchist arguments, but I need to spend more time with the debate... 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Anarcho-Capitalists of the strict Rothbardian stripe can be bad, but minarchists take the cake. Minarchism is just a weird transitional phase people go through. Even Ron Paul isn't a minarchist.

All flavors of statism are ridiculous. Yeah, let's have tribal elders over tribes of millions of people. No matter how few their powers or how they are chosen, that is just insane talk.

[Zarathustra]

Anarcho-Capitalists of the strict Rothbardian stripe can be bad, but minarchists take the cake. Minarchism is just a weird transitional phase people go through. Even Ron Paul isn't a minarchist.

All flavors of statism are ridiculous.

Yes, especially the anarchocapitalist one. Tribes are selfsufficient.

[oleganza]

http://analyticaleconomist.blogspot.com/2013/06/anarcho-capitalistic-dogmatism.html

"Yet another problem is the Neo-Austrian/Neo-Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist rejects model theory in economics because they believe that models cannot properly capture reality.  So for example, the perfect competition model shows what an economy would look like given these assumptions:

    Infinite buyers and sellers
    Zero entry and exit barriers
    Perfect mobility of goods and services
    Perfect information
    Zero transaction costs
    Profit maximization
    Homogeneous products  
    Non-increasing returns to scale
    Property rights              


All economists realize that these factors do not exist in real-time but nonetheless, it is a theory that can be utilized for advancement of a free society.

Neither Mises, nor Rothbard were assuming ideal conditions. There was a thought experiment of "evenly rotating economy", but it is only to investigate several ideas before applying them to real world situations. Both of them considered how coercion and other various real human actions change economic structure (Rothbard in a much more detailed and structured way). None was advocating any separate macroeconomic theory. Everything was discussed on a level of individual decisions (micro-economics) and how it may lead to some big-picture patterns.

Anarcho-capitalism, first of all, is non-agression principle. No one proclaims how society should be "modelled" or function. The only idea is to never allow institutionalised violence as a method of "solving" problems. Then, in absence of federal mega-mafia, people can figure out how to live their lives, how to protect themselves, how to communicate and how to resolve conflicts.

I don't see anything "dogmatic" in applying everybody's desire to live in peace to ALL activities in society. Dogmatism is what all other philosophers and politics use when trying to excuse their desire to apply force to achieve their ends.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Non-aggression principle = Central planning of law

What kind of anarchist doesn't understand spontaneous order? Rothbard got the economics but missed the fact that economics is just one aspect of a more general spontaneous order that includes law, language, social norms, etc. They all functions on the same principle.  Saying that everyone must follow the NAP is no different than saying everyone must charge below a particular rate of interest on loans or that everyone must avoid splitting the infinitive. The legal order in society, like the economic order, isn't so simplistic.

[Adrian-x]

I agree with the above, but would add:

Non-aggression principle = eventual monopoly of land. 

 

I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

I see the principal as a little hypocritical in the light pacifist wisdom, non aggression may be a more productive approach, but defending ones land with violence against non violent occupation is being aggressive. 

[TheButterZone]

A "non-violent occupation" of land is still an act of aggression. Defending against aggression is justified. It is not violent aggression to pick someone up and remove them from their act of trespass. If they escalate their aggression, then defensive violence is justified.