Ludwig Von Mises - A Primer

[sharpe]

Because people were stealing too much and there was therefore no ability to save and therefore no way to develop any economy.

Mwuu Mwuu Mwuuuuuuuu Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[Injin]

Mwuu Mwuu Mwuuuuuuuu Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

I can't help but notice you aren't so much arguing as getting emotional.

This philsophy does indeed apply to all human relationships.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Not keeping it long enough to pile it up then?

Ah well, here is the rub injin.

As soon as those surpluses appeared on the scene a few thousand years back with the "invention" of farming was just about the same time as we got the beginnings of "civilisation". Civilisation is born on the back of a few ruthless and canny individuals realising that, rather than producing their own surpluses, all they needed to do was to go round and cream off the the top 10% of everyone else's surplus by threatening to kill them if they didn't. For most people, the loss of 10% was preferential to the potential loss of their life and so the psychopaths were paid off.

The trouble was, those 10 percents added up and pretty soon the psychopaths had amassed huge surpluses that exceeded the the individual surpluses of everyone else. This large mass of wealth allowed them to begin to put in place macro-level infrastructures that served to further cement their positions of power. And so came along the first elements of the "state" including centralised judiciary, tax collection, etc etc...

The rest is history since those people have essentially been in charge ever since

[Injin]

Ah well, here is the rub injin.

As soon as those surpluses appeared on the scene a few thousand years back with the "invention" of farming was just about the same time as we got the beginnings of "civilisation". Civilisation is born on the back of a few ruthless and canny individuals realising that, rather than producing their own surpluses, all they needed to do was to go round and cream off the the top 10% of everyone else's surplus by threatening to kill them if they didn't. For most people, the loss of 10% was preferential to the potential loss of their life and so the psychopaths were paid off.

The trouble was, those 10 percents added up and pretty soon the psychopaths had amassed huge surpluses that exceeded the the individual surpluses of everyone else. This large mass of wealth allowed them to begin to put in place macro-level infrastructures that served to further cement their positions of power. And so came along the first elements of the "state" including centralised judiciary, tax collection, etc etc...

The rest is history since those people have essentially been in charge ever since

Sure.

And you'll notice that wealth creation comes before the state.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Sure.

And you'll notice that wealth creation comes before the state.

Of course.

However, you need to explain how the avoidance of a state inevitably coming into existence is possible given that those surpluses exist and psychopaths exist.

And it's no good appealing to the logic of long-term, self-interested, maximal outcomes. Psychopaths operate on the logic of short-term, self-interested, optimal outcomes and, unfortunately, for the reasons already outlined, they are running the show and so they get to set the rules.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Steve Cook

[Injin]

Of course.

However, you need to explain how the avoidance of a state inevitably coming into existence is possible given that those surpluses exist and psychopaths exist.

And it's no good appealing to the logic of long-term, self-interested, maximal outcomes. Psychopaths operate on the logic of short-term, self-interested, optimal outcomes and, unfortunately, for the reasons already outlined, they are running the show and so they get to set the rules.

Simply point them out.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Simply point them out.

You are only allowed to do that if it does not threaten their positions.

If it does, they kill you.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Steve Cook

[Injin]

You are only allowed to do that if it does not threaten their positions.

If it does, they kill you.

Which points them out.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Which points them out.

If pointing it out does not materially threaten their position, they don't have to give a sh*t.

But, lets assume that that they lose their grip and are overthrown. All that happens is that they are replaced by the next bunch of psychos. As I was saying injin, you need to explain how, in an environment where surpluses exist and where psychopaths exists, the inevitability of the creation of a ruthless ruling elite is avoidable.

[Injin]

If pointing it out does not materially threaten their position, they don't have to give a sh*t.

Circular logic.

But, lets assume that that they lose their grip and are overthrown. All that happens is that they are replaced by the next bunch of psychos. As I was saying injin, you need to explain how, in an environment where surpluses exist and where psychopaths exists, the inevitability of the creation of a ruthless ruling elite is avoidable.

You point them out.

[NorthamptonBear]

"THe AUTHoR

Dr Eamonn Butler is director of the Adam Smith Institute"

I'm surprised. A link between what is regarded by some as a Tory thinktank and von Mises. + Baker doing foreword. Perhaps there's a chance of von Misces views being heard? Hope so.

[Guest Steve Cook]

Circular logic.

You point them out.

Come, come injin, lets not go down this road again. Your'e better than that.

I am not suggesting that a ruthless ruling elite is stable. Far from it. Elites are overthrown all the time. Civilisations collapse from within throughout history. However, the structure of civilisation has remained durable as long as surpluses have existed.

I ask you again, injin, how do you avoid the inevitable existence of one ruthless, ruling elite or another while surpluses exist and psychopaths exist? And it's no good repeating the mantra that you "point them out". All that does is, at best, get rid of the current crooks. It doesn't answer the question of how you avoid them being replaced in short order by the next bunch of crooks.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Steve Cook

[Injin]

Come, come injin, lets not go down this road again. Your'e better than that.

I am not suggesting that a ruthless ruling elite is stable. Far from it. Elites are overthrown all the time. Civilisations collapse from within throughout history. However, the structure of civilisation has remained durable as long as surpluses have existed.

I ask you again, injin, how do you avoid the inevitable existence of one ruthless, ruling elite or another while surpluses exist and psychopaths exist? And it's no good repeating the mantra that you "point them out". All that does is, at best, get rid of the current crooks. It doesn't answer the question of how you avoid them being replaced in short order by the next bunch of crooks.

No, you point them out.

Anyone who wants to be a ruler is a psychopath.

Ta da.

Job done.

[Guest Steve Cook]

No, you point them out.

Anyone who wants to be a ruler is a psychopath.

Ta da.

Job done.

You don't have an answer do you injin?

Let me help you. There isn't one.

[Injin]

You don't have an answer do you injin?

Let me help you. There isn't one.

Yes, there is.

Read above.

[Timm]

Blah blah blah.

It appears you didn't like the idea of people discussing a westminster politician who purports to believe in libertarianism, and decided to derail the thread.

I wonder why that is. Hmm. Perhaps you realise that anarchy is a concept that the average person can understand is an unworkable ideal and easily refute. Thus, by your conflating of libertarianism, liberalism and what some call whiggism with anarchy, they are led to dismiss them too as unworkable ideals. Or perhaps you just wanted to troll the conversation to death before it was hardly born.

But no, why would you want to do that?

???

[Alan B'Stard MP]

It appears you didn't like the idea of people discussing a westminster politician who purports to believe in libertarianism, and decided to derail the thread.

I wonder why that is. Hmm. Perhaps you realise that anarchy is a concept that the average person can understand is an unworkable ideal and easily refute. Thus, by your conflating of libertarianism, liberalism and what some call whiggism with anarchy, they are led to dismiss them too as unworkable ideals. Or perhaps you just wanted to troll the conversation to death before it was hardly born.

But no, why would you want to do that?

???

It appears you didn't like the idea of people discussing a westminster politician who purports to believe in libertarianism, and decided to derail the thread.

I wonder why that is. Hmm. Perhaps you realise that anarchy is a concept that the average person can understand is an unworkable ideal and easily refute. Thus, by your conflating of libertarianism, liberalism and what some call whiggism with anarchy, they are led to dismiss them too as unworkable ideals. Or perhaps you just wanted to troll the conversation to death before it was hardly born.

But no, why would you want to do that?

???

I think Injin needs an orange HPC 'whig'.

a la...

Edited May 23, 2010 by Alan B'Stard MP

[Timm]

I think Injin needs an orange HPC 'whigg'.

a la...

Or...

[Injin]

It appears you didn't like the idea of people discussing a westminster politician who purports to believe in libertarianism, and decided to derail the thread.

No idea why you got that impression. I took the OP and followed it logically to it's end point.

I wonder why that is. Hmm. Perhaps you realise that anarchy is a concept that the average person can understand is an unworkable ideal and easily refute. Thus, by your conflating of libertarianism, liberalism and what some call whiggism with anarchy, they are led to dismiss them too as unworkable ideals. Or perhaps you just wanted to troll the conversation to death before it was hardly born.

But no, why would you want to do that?

???

No clue what you are talking about.

Statism is what I dismiss. That means libertarianism and all those other pie in the sky fantasies of limited government forms. They don't make any sense.

[Britney's Piers]

they get killed by the 400 machine gun carrying mercenaries I brought with me

I think the discussion around guns as defence is quite simplistic. There are other forms of arms out there.

Why use guns, when you can fly over the goose market and spray a sleeping gas or other chemical agent? Then there's the most extraordinary weapons, sonic and ultrasonic weapons, weapons in space, etc.

Then there's the other option, psychological warfare. This is especially important, since physical coercian may force someone to accept an offer they may refuse, psychological coercian can make them believe they really do want to accept the offer in the first place. "These aren't the droids you are looking for". Thanks to Bernays, advertising and marketing makes good use of this already, but it's quite unrefined at the moment, there's no telling how it will develop. This was the real message of the dystopian witers, Orwell and Huxley, although I think Huxley was more on point.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Britney's Piers